The Struggle with Where the Sidewalks Won't Go - <AUTHOR> http://bittersoutherner.com/cant-get-there-from-here-sidewalk-disrepair-disability <comment><USER2> Empathy is a big way to raise awareness.

When I had kids and started walking them around in a stroller, you learn really quickly where the sidewalks with ramps are, and you (and your toddler who likes to help!) come to appreciate the buttons that open doors automatically.

I run as well, and it's not fun to trip on uneven sidewalks. Sometimes at night I'd rather run on the road where I can count on a more even surface and no branches hitting me in the face. I think I'm more inclined to shovel my sidewalk in the winter because I don't like running on compressed snow that melted in the sun and refroze overnight.

So...yeah! Fix this stuff for disabled people, and other people get to benefit. Sidewalks are for everyone.

<comment><USER3> Mother nature does not want sidewalks to exist. A smooth, even surface is not something that exists naturally, it requires us to constantly evaluate, design, and repair. You can fix a sidewalk one year, then winter happens and the ground up-heaves and shifts the concrete, and it'll be another 5 years before you can circle back to do maintenance. Or someone plants a tree in their yard and over time the roots grow under the pavement. And as you already identified, you can't depend on people to maintain the sidewalks in front of their property.

We will never have perfect sidewalks, it's a noble goal, but it's pie-in-the- sky thinking to want perfect sidewalks. Instead, we should be building better accessibility devices, ones that can navigate tough terrain. Why are the wheels on mobility devices so damn small? Can they be made to be swappable so you can put on the outdoor wheels when you're travelling, and indoor ones when you want something smooth and quiet?

<comment><USER2> > We will never have perfect sidewalks, it's a noble goal, but it's pie-in- > the-sky thinking to want perfect sidewalks.

We'll never have perfect _anything_. But I think you're being more than a bit defeatist here. I'm in the US Northeast and the sidewalk in my house was installed in 2008. Still basically flawless today. As homeowners, we accept that we need a new roof every 25 years because the consequences are real and tangible to us. I have to think that sidewalks are just part of the cost of living in a walkable community, even if we don't walk that much.

A few communities down, they require sidewalk maintenance for residents if the pavers are uneven at all. It's a very affluent borough, but you'll see people grind down the edges of the sidewalk that stick up in order to meet the code. So you can maintain without replacing.

And besides, we don't have this logic for roads. I mean, SUVs can handle anything, so why bother with all of this even pavement with good drainage?

>Instead, we should be building better accessibility devices, ones that can navigate tough terrain.

You're being downvoted for the first paragraph, but I think your second paragraph is sensible. My running stroller is way better at handling broken sidewalks than the scissor stroller with tiny wheels that fits great in a small trunk and works well at the mall. Strollers aren't super expensive (at least not $30k like that wheelchair) so I can have more than one and use the best one for my situation.

We see concept robots that can handle rough terrain. Wouldn't it be great if that got integrated into wheelchairs somehow?

<comment><USER3> >It's a very affluent borough, but you'll see people grind down the edges of the sidewalk that stick up in order to meet the code. So you can maintain without replacing.

That's kind of why I'm being defeatist. You just need a ton of money to keep sidewalks in good order. And you need the people that live in the area to care enough to report the issues.

>You're being downvoted for the first paragraph, but I think your second paragraph is sensible.

Yeah, I was really trying to setup the second paragraph to be impactful, but I don't think people got that far.

<comment><USER4> "You just need a ton of money to keep sidewalks in good order. "

No, you don't. You just need to make them properly the first time and keep people from planting trees where they don't belong.

In my parents house in Canuckistan, I've never seen them fix the side-walks in 20 years and they're mostly fine.

<comment><USER3> > You just need to make them properly the first time and keep people from...

Surely you see the comedy in that statement? I don't think anything happens right the first time. And preventing people from doing anything is pretty tough as well!

<comment><USER5> More defeatism.

How is equipping everyone with expensive wheelchairs a better solution than enforcing a standardized construction code?

And how do wheels help someone when they're trying to jog on a sidewalk?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> While I understand her frustration with the lack of sidewalk ramps, the article went on to describe other places her wheelchair cannot go - like small lips in doorways, or small branches.

Pavement cracks. It should be fixed, but that takes time and money. And able- bodied pedestrians are unlikely to report minor cracks. Shouldn't a $30,000 wheelchair be capable of traversing commonly encountered impediments? Cracks in pavement, small branches, doorway thresholds? The article states her wheelchair cannot. That seems like a major design flaw to me.

<comment><USER7> I've always wanted to see a comparison of the costs of improved sidewalk infrastructure versus better wheelchairs. Intuitively, the problem of building a wheelchair that can smoothly traverse a curb seems tremendously cheaper then installing and maintaining sidewalk ramps everywhere.

<comment><USER8> Intuitively, one might think that fixing wheelchairs is cheaper than fixing sidewalks - but if the numbers in the article are typical, that may not necessarily be the case.

According to the article, "Chicago [...] spent $140 million in five years repairing sidewalks and pedestrian rights of way". The cost of the author's wheelchair is $30 thousand. If we assume this cost is typical, fixing sidewalks would have been cheaper than replacing 5000 wheelchairs with new all-terrain models - and would have benefits for residents and visitors without wheelchairs too.

<comment><USER7> $30k wheelchairs are not remotely typical.

> A standard, manual wheelchair costs an average of $500, according to the > Robert Wood Johnson Foundation . A chair meant for everyday use costs > between $1,000 and $2,000 depending upon the features of the chair, which > can include an individualized seat, various types of wheels and a > lightweight frame.

[http://health.costhelper.com/wheelchair.html](http://health.costhelper.com/wheelchair.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Something in this article really jumped out at me:

"...plus only 16.9 percent of Atlanta households have no vehicle..."

Really? "Only" 16.9%? If I told a product manager that "only" 17% of people use iOS 9, so we don't need to support it, I'd get laughed out of the meeting.

<comment><USER5> Sure, but if your product manager had a long history of systematic racism, and iOS 9 was only used by minorities and the poor, he might tell you to focus your efforts on the nicer parts of town... err, different operating systems.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is a HUGE problem here in the south. I moved from Arizona to Georgia in 2012 and the two things I noticed immediately are: There are hardly any sidewalks outside of the city (and people routinely are forced to walk on the side of the road), there are almost NO lit highways. Even major interstate highways that go through the heart of Atlanta aren't lit! Both of these strike me as enormous lawsuits waiting to happen.

<comment><USER11> Not sure which county you are in, but here in Georgia in the metro area where I live side walks are mandatory in new subdivisions and they all are accessible from street level and if not there then from each driveway they pass through. we also get sidewalks in with a certain range of all schools and that is done if the road is repaved or changed.

there are still a lot of opportunities for more but even the silver comet trail is mostly accessible from where I have used it (that is a very long and convoluted trail system built upon old rail lines).

the state even has a great guidebook for pedestrian planning, see [http://www.dot.ga.gov/DriveSmart/Travel/Documents/ga_ped_gui...](http://www.dot.ga.gov/DriveSmart/Travel/Documents/ga_ped_guide.pdf)

<comment><USER12> Man I've been to Atlanta, and the western suburbs, and it's nothing but dark roads with people forced to walk in the ditch.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Small and midsized US cities desperately need a small (or large) urban planning revolution. Cars are considered the "default" too often, especially in cities under half a million in population. It's these cities in particular that need to have an increased focus on pedestrian and assisted walking infrastructure.

<comment><USER14> I keep telling this to anyone who'll listen. I have cousins living in a small affluent US city, and every member of that family has their own car. To me as a European, that's mind boggling. At the same time, I've tried to make it in that town without a car before and while you can _mostly_ get by with a decent bicycle, trying to walk anywhere is pointless. Everything is designed with cars front and center. Parking _everywhere_ , "small" roads are four lanes, sidewalks just randomly stop in the middle of nowhere, leaving you with the option of backtracking, venturing out in the road, or – if you're lucky – cross lawns to get to where you're going. More often than not, the side of the road is your only option if you want to keep going.

Crossing streets is easy if you're fit and a reasonably fast walker, but the lights are timed to be quite fast, leaving those less able bodied or slower to simply be stranded in the middle (usually there's a stop) meaning a single crossing turns into two. Fortunately, drivers in this area seem to be fairly friendly to pedestrians, and will yield to people crossing the street.

One of my cousins came to stay with me for a few months this summer, and this is when she truly got what I've been saying for years I think. She got by mostly with her own two feet, wherever she was going. When she needed to travel further, I got her a travellers card. I'm not sure she even knows where to find a bus stop in her home town. (Neither would I.)

<comment><USER13> When people think of "urban planning" their minds often jump immediately to large-scale infrastructure changes or totally designed cities built from the ground up, but it's exactly these sorts of little things that are actually the most important.

Yielding to pedestrians, like you said, is an element of infrastructure, and it's cheap as hell to change attitudes about it.

Parking is absurd. Planning codes have mandated numbers of parking spaces for businesses, so if you want to develop land your only option is to turn it into a strip mall. LA is an asphalt hellscape precisely because of this, parking requirements have made it so there is over 4.2 square meters of asphalt PER PERSON, just for parking alone.

I only own a bike but live with a partner who has a car and I know it would be difficult to go completely without in my city (~300,000 pop.) I, like many people my age, am planning on moving to a larger more urban city that will have more public transportation and bike infrastructure, but I recognize that this isn't really the answer. Comparatively poor American millennials and gen-Z's that continue condensing populations into urban centers leaves even less incentive for long term change in mid-sized towns.

<comment><USER15> > Yielding to pedestrians, like you said, is an element of infrastructure, and > it's cheap as hell to change attitudes about it.

I suppose it's an attitude that is cheap to maintain, if it is already common. But I don't know how to change into that system in a place that does not have it already. Teach it in driving schools and wait for old drivers to die?

<comment><USER16> > Teach it in driving schools and wait for old drivers to die?

Or pass and _enforce_ laws about yielding to pedestrians. The difference between Oregon (with some of the most pedestrian friendly laws that are actually enforced) and California (where I've watched cop cars slowly roll through crowded crosswalks) is pretty marked.

<comment><USER15> How can a place like California change from a widespread habit of not enforcing laws to a habit of enforcing them?

<comment><USER17> Pay cops extra to enforce particular laws?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Nowhere in this article does in mention that it is city in a forest (we bill ourselves as "Tree City USA"), nor that we encourage people to plant trees right by the sidewalks for shade and decoration. You need a permit to cut down a tree of any size (five inches in diameter IIRC) and those permits are often denied if the tree is healthy. Not that that applies in the central business district, but still.

It's a tradeoff, like everything else. When taking the trees into account, Atlanta's sidewalks are about as well maintained as the rest of Atlanta's infrastructure

<comment><USER19> I've never once heard Atlanta referred to as "Tree City USA". Atlanta also is not listed in the Arbor Day Foundation's "Tree Cities USA" list.

I believe you're thinking of "city in a forest". Atlanta does have about ~10% more tree coverage than average for US cities (36% compared to 27%).

More details: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_tree_canopy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_tree_canopy)

<comment><USER20> It is listed though: [https://www.arborday.org/programs/treecityusa/directory.cfm](https://www.arborday.org/programs/treecityusa/directory.cfm)

<comment><USER19> Wow, somehow I missed that. Thanks for calling it out!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Cute bit of artwork at the beginning there. This is the picture they're making an homage to:

[https://imgur.com/GHPkt3M](https://imgur.com/GHPkt3M)

<comment><USER22> It makes me sad that this might not be a completely obvious reference to everyone. That image is literally embedded in my memories.

Thanks for posting, and highly recommend the book for anyone that hasn't read it!

<comment><USER23> Shel Silverstein

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> This is how we do wheelchair ramps in ex-USSR: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pUfeLWyv1I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pUfeLWyv1I)

PS: every time I visit Europe I often wonder that there are so many wheelchairs. In Eastern Europe you may go around capital city center for weeks without seeing one. It is that bad, even in 2017.

<comment><USER25> > This is how we do wheelchair ramps in ex-USSR: > [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pUfeLWyv1I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pUfeLWyv1I)

Even though your wheelchair ramps are shitty, you are still, in a way, ahead of America because you at least made an effort to build those ramps, whereas America mostly doesn't have them at all.

<comment> crooked-v Watch the video and see how many times a disabled person not wearing full protective gear would have been wounded or killed by the ramp and you'll probably change your mind.

<comment><USER25> I am not defending the quality of those ramps, but in some cases, a ramp can be useful so that an assisting people could move a person in a wheelchair up the stairs, even if the ramp is not usable for a person in a wheelchair alone with no assistance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> When I moved into Silicon Valley I noticed the same thing!

In many Silicon Valley towns like Mountain View and Sunnyvale the sidewalks suddenly just stop and you're forced to walk on the side is the road.

And in Cupertino many streets aren't lit or very badly lit that it's almost pitch black...

I never noticed these things before coming to California and I grew up in a small town near Boise, ID.

Streets were well lit and sidewalks did not just end.

And Idaho has a minuscule State tax revenue compared to California is so it shocked me this was an issue in these high income Silicon Valley towns.

<comment><USER27> Interesting as I have the opposite experience from a small town in Oregon. Very poorly lit and sidewalks that have no rhyme or reason.

<comment><USER26> I haven't ventured into the more rural towns in Idaho I suspect they must be more similar to your town in Oregon.

Rural poverty is a nontrivial issue in Idaho, especially when it comes to healthcare.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Vertical Discontinuity baby.

Michigan recently passed legislation protecting local municipalities from lawsuits where sidewalks in disrepair are to blame.

[http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2015-2016/billintrod...](http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2015-2016/billintroduced/House/pdf/2015-HIB-4686.pdf)

Gist here: [http://www.michiganvotes.org/2015-HB-4686](http://www.michiganvotes.org/2015-HB-4686)

While Michigan (esp. Detroit) is exceptional in many respects this kind of legislation whereby neglected infrastructure is no longer a liability for the state is likely to spread.

The sidewalks in Detroit are especially heinous. [https://iainmait.land/img/photos/1920/street_crossing_2_2017...](https://iainmait.land/img/photos/1920/street_crossing_2_2017_iain_maitland.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER29> This is why cities are going broke.

I live on a small farm in the middle-of-nowhere NC. (20min to even a gas station) I'm currently working with our local zoning dept. to get approval to use my barn in a home-occupation. Even though I'm far away, will have zero employees, and no customers on the property - I'm STILL being forced to spend close to $3K to retrofit for ADA compliance.

Life is not fair. Trying to sue and regulate this country into everyone's idea of "fairness" will bankrupt us and destroy any concept of freedom we still have left.

<comment><USER30> You may have no plans to ever invite the public into a commercially-zoned facility, and in that case, making it wheelchair-accessible might make no sense.

But if you suddenly had to up and move, and sell the space, well, it's still zoned commercial, and presumably someone's running a business out of it, and they might have an employee in a wheelchair.

Commercial spaces have different requirements than residential spaces. It's not just a matter of stamping a form. It's also not surprising that it'd take some extra construction to bring a formerly residential space up to code.

AND, I get that you'd like to defer the actual cost of rezoning onto someone else, but, well, someone's got to actually pay to turn the residential space into commercial...and you're the one who wants to do it and will presumably benefit now from doing so.

$3k to make it accessible to people without two working legs seems pretty reasonable.

<comment><USER29> It is not zoned commercial. That would cost me tens-of-thousands of dollars. This is forced ADA compliance for a _residential_ space being used in a home- based business.

<comment><USER31> Work to change the law for your residential home based business then, or fundraise. Like we disabled people have to do, to defend our rights to be in society, shop, work, and use transit while disabled -- and like so many other wheelchair users I know have to do just to get the wheels to get out of their own house. Sorry about your barn, but you seem oddly out to mess with fundamental access for other people because you need to do $3K worth of renovation, and that seems odd to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> This seems very anecdotal, Atlanta will get its hand slapped and the problem will go away.

In the frozen north where the frost depth is four feet, somehow our sidewalks look new compared to the pictures. Mere simple mismanagement in Atlanta. The sidewalk in front of my house was poured in 1983 per the stamp, and its basically level and even. That's after 34 northern winters. The decayed sidewalks in the article must be over a century old or horribly corruptly installed.

There must be a severe lack of parking or even alleyways. If you want to live the hyper high density urban bug man dream, there will be costs such as no where to park and no ramps from parking to the street to drive wheel chairs upon.

There might be more to the story intentionally not reported so as to slant the coverage; perhaps its a historical district where if there were no ramps in 1830, then installing a ramp in 2017 will get you sued by the historical commission. Again, if you voluntarily live somewhere unsuitable for modern standards of living, there is no reason to feel sorry for a fool, if that is the case.

<comment><USER33> It looks like the problem is in the process of being corrected. But no, it's not historic, and no, it's not a lack of parking - there are huge parking garages and street parking everywhere. It's about a lack of concern for people not in cars.

Here's the approximate route: [https://goo.gl/maps/AXj2Agtfvx92](https://goo.gl/maps/AXj2Agtfvx92). Compare this aerial photo, showing a previous lack of curb cuts:

[https://i.imgur.com/Aawb0l8.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Aawb0l8.jpg)

with this Street View image after construction was completed, showing completed wheelchair-friendlier ramps:

[https://i.imgur.com/A0vf6hV.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/A0vf6hV.jpg)

(Side note: The 3D cell towers and billboard in Google Maps are _awesome_.)

But yeah, the intersection of Centennial Olympic Park and MLK Jr was not built with any thought to disabled people taking a wheelchair back to the parking garage, or even to regular walking pedestrians:

[https://i.imgur.com/4rPa9Rp.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/4rPa9Rp.jpg)

I'm pretty sure that's not an intended route for anyone not in a car. I can see how it would be terrifying for someone in a wheelchair; I'd be scared to even ride my bike there. Looks like they were expected to take a different route to the parking garage than exiting Northside avenue and walking around the streets. While that should be possible, they were probably intended to take the skywalk between the dome and the parking garage. Oh wait, that only has stairs:

[https://i.imgur.com/uxi0JRg.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/uxi0JRg.jpg)

Wow, what an image.

\- The red "Stop" pedestrian sign versus the green light for the the police SUV.

\- The person waiting. Even with his face blurred, I see trepidation and concern in his posture.

\- The 6" cement curb to the crosswalk

\- The moldy construction cone

\- The stairs for the pedestrians, no elevators or ramps for wheelchairs

\- The bag of trash just laying at the base of the post

\- The coils of razor wire above the fence

As a Michigander, I'm familiar with both frost heave and urban decay. But the warm, welcoming, hospitable South doesn't look particularly friendly in that spot. The location of the image: [https://goo.gl/maps/RAFyYfWa5Xs](https://goo.gl/maps/RAFyYfWa5Xs)

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I feel for the author. When I was in college, I ran into a similar issue. I'm not in a wheelchair, but one of my oldest friends from childhood is wheelchair-bound. Every day or two we would go eat lunch or dinner down the street from campus. The main intersection between campus and where all the fast food joints were was a busy, busy intersection with red lights. There were no ramps. To get across the intersection, she would have to go down the street to someone's driveway, wait for a chance to cross, then cross the street with traffic coming in both directions. In the dark, this was absolutely terrifying.

After one particularly harrowing crossing, I insisted that she call the City and ask about what they could do. She just brushed me off, saying that they wouldn't care. I pushed her and pushed her, but she wouldn't do anything.

So I called City Hall the next day, and I said, "Hi, I'm Jemaclus. I'm in a wheelchair and attend the university. There's no wheelchair ramp at the intersection of 1st and Main, so I have to go down the street and cross from someone's driveway. Is there anything we can do to fix this?" (Yes, I made a white lie.)

The lady snapped into action immediately. "Don't you worry. I've got this," she said.

The very next day, construction workers were putting in an accessible ramp on the corner, and four days later, my friend and I were able to safely and securely cross the intersection.

I have two hypotheses that are not mutually exclusive about what happened:

1\. The City probably has a budget allocated to ADA compliance or infrastructure improvements or something. It's also probably a use-it-or-lose- it situation. If you call and point out something, they're HAPPY to do it, because otherwise they lose the money next year.

2\. The City definitely doesn't want to be sued for ADA non-compliance, and they will probably move with all haste toward a reasonable solution. In this case, it was a no-brainer: a wheelchair-accessible ramp at a busy intersection with tons of pedestrians.

I would encourage anyone who runs into these kinds of problems in public areas (the author's problem was actually private property, so...) to actually call the City Hall and politely inform them of the problem, explain how it's dangerous, and ask how "we" can fix it. In all likelihood, they will probably respond immediately and in a positive fashion due to the above reasons. It might not happen overnight like mine did, but eventually they'll want to cover their asses from an ADA lawsuit.

For the record, my backup plan would have been a letter to the editor of the local paper, and then talking to an attorney.

<comment><USER31> I've successfully done this as well in a smaller town. City Hall engineers sat down with me and looked at accessible routes to school, bus/train station, and the grocery store. They built 7 curb cuts; it cost the city 35K. Every time I saw someone else using those crossings for years afterwards it made me super happy. And, I could take my kid to school without going in the street, in the dark, in the rain... I don't think this works every time but it is definitely worth asking. Another interesting point I found out while going through this process, was that it takes some work for the city to find out who is responsible for particular streets and intersections (It might be a local or state transit agency rather than the city).

<comment><USER34> Definitely! In this case, my university was in a relatively small town, but I was still flabbergasted at how fast they moved to get things done. I've lived in larger cities and done the same thing, and it generally happens, just not within a few days. I've never been called in to help with the process, though. That sounds cool.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Boston is better about accessibility in general, but it is much worse during the winter. Sidewalk snow and ice removal is left as the responsibility of the abutting property owner. The result is a patchwork of pedestrian connectivity that varies meter-by-meter. Wheelchair users and even fully-able people are often seen walking off of the sidewalk, alongside motor traffic. In theory, the property owners should be kept in line by fines, but enforcement is lacking, and the fines are insignificant relative to the value of property in Boston.

The roads, though? Promptly plowed and salted by the city on a continuous basis.

<comment><USER36> I swear I've seen sidewalks plowed and salted before, although I don't remember where.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> They just built this nice pedestrian bridge that goes along a 6 lane 45mph road by my place. It's got a nice trail on either side, that completely dead ends and you have to try to walk on a 30 degree incline of grass next to the road, or brave getting hit by cars doing 55mph on a road with no shoulder. There are two ways to get around this large bay and this is one of them. The other way is this bridge: [http://pics4.city- data.com/cpicc/cfiles38924.jpg](http://pics4.city- data.com/cpicc/cfiles38924.jpg)

<comment><USER38> Was the funding for the pedestrian bridge rolled into the funding for the road bridge? That's happening near here, the federal funding for a bridge project means that there will be a pedestrian accommodation, even though there's no direct connection on either side of the bridge.

In any case, unless funding is secured all at once, it's likely to be the case that there are bridges that don't connect anything and sidewalks and trails that end abruptly. But both represent movement towards a complete path.

<comment><USER37> No, the bridge was built like a decade or two before the pedestrian addition.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Funny how no one in this thread even mentions that sidewalks cost a great deal of money to build.

"How dare cities in southern states refuse to build sidewalks for their residents! Sidewalks are essential to quality of life!"

There is no mention of money. No mention that people in southern cities PREFER lower taxes which means less government services.

For anyone from the New England or Colorado or the West Coast: you have great livable cities with lots of amenities but those come at the cost of higher taxes and more regulations. Southern cities may not share your civic culture.

<comment><USER40> While sidewalks appear to be a totally unmanageable burden on the budget, somehow it has room for far more expensive roads and other costly auto-related infrastructure.

I don't think it's too much to ask for a little equality here. Not everyone paying taxes drives.

<comment><USER39> > Not everyone paying taxes drives.

If this was a city where there were wealthy urbanites who didn't drive, you would be right. If only the poor don't drive, then "Not everyone paying taxes drives" is basically a false statement.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> In my town (Denver) ADA lawsuits is practically a competitive sport. Nuisances dont last long because the fine can be more than the remediation cost. And ACLU is a major participant.

</comment><comment> crooked-v The idea that individual property owners should be independently responsible for sidewalk maintenance boggles my mind. I had a hell of a time just getting a metal fire door replaced to comply with my HOA... I dread to think how much time and effort it would take to find a contractor who could put in matching paving slabs for an existing sidewalk even if you wanted to.

</comment><comment><USER42> Sounds like a good reason to emigrate to Canada.

Canadians would never tolerate sidewalks in such horrible condition. And governments in Canada (municipal, provincial, federal) are used to spending money on the wellbeing of citizens.

Let's face it, the USA is broken and even if Trump does manage to fix it, the repair work will take many years.

</comment><comment><USER43> I'd say use the road if the sidewalks aren't traversable and it can be done safely. Is it illegal for a wheelchair to use car lanes?

Pissing off motor traffic is probably the fastest way to get the sidewalks fixed.

Even if it is illegal, I can't imagine a judge not throwing out the citation if you show pictures like that.

edit to address the replies: my suggestion was admittedly somewhat tounge-in- cheek and, no, I wouldn't recommend anyone take the risk. Would I do it as performance art? No, because a judge/newspaper/observer would see it as a stunt undermining the whole argument and possibly even harm the cause.

<comment><USER44> I think you should think about that suggestion for a second. You have 2 ton vehicles barrelling down the road at 30, 40, 50 miles an hour, and you're in a small, unprotected chair that can probably go 5 at best. And if you think drivers will gladly slow down for you, I'd ask you to go talk to your local cyclists club.

<comment><USER12> on _new year 's eve_, no less. (drunk hour)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> If you cross Chestnut St. NW in Washington, DC, from Western Avenue to Oregon Avenue, you will see "No Sidewalks in Hawthorne" signs, but now also "Yes, Sidewalks in Hawthorne". The No signs are older, and the opposition had some odd arguments--sidewalks would lead to more crime. (Who is that is ready for burglary or robbery, but afraid to walk in the street?)

In my own neighborhood there are arguments back and forth. I'd be happy to see sidewalks added where they aren't, but I'd hate to see mature trees damaged.

</comment><comment><USER46> Reminds me of Andres Duany's presentation to San Diego local government officials[1]. It's very funny and very informative. A highlight for me was when he was discussing an artist's impression of what amounts to an urban wasteland and points out that, yes, that lone pedestrian in the picture is "theoretically possible". Well worth a watch.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwd4Lq0Xvgc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwd4Lq0Xvgc)

</comment><comment><USER47> In my city (Indianapolis) there's been a moratorium on new street lights for decades, although that's finally changing.

Combining no street lights with crappy (or no) sidewalks is literally deadly. Teenaged girl was killed in a hit and run 100 feet from my front yard a couple of years ago. People in wheelchairs have been hit and killed in other parts of the city.

So many ways to improve, so little political pressure to do it.

</comment><comment><USER48> The sidewalks in my city are a joke. They're incredibly broken and irregular. The streets have potholes that last for months before filled, if at all. Infrastructure in a lot of cities of the U.S. is so piss poor, and I don't know why it isn't made more a priority in our country.

<comment><USER29> It's all about cost. There have been several articles on HN discussing the problem. One in particular (I think it was a study done in Michigan) stated the average citizen in that city would need to pay an extra $7K in taxes just to break even for _existing_ infrastructure. (ie.... all new projects are halted)

EDIT: It was Louisiana and the cost was $8K, here is the study. [https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real- reason...](https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason-your- city-has-no-money)

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Some places are so bizarrely designed, what were their city planners thinking? And I don't mean badly made sidewalks. I mean no sidewalks at all!

I suppose the car makers lobby really killed proper city planning in such places.

<comment><USER29> Have you ever tried to navigate building regulations? They can be a nightmare. Sometimes you have two different sides of govt. telling you to do things completely opposite - and their answer is "well, sir, that is the requirement."

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> I'm not disagreeing with the need for sidewalks and them to be accessible to everyone, but ....

in the story, why didnt the husband go get the car and pick her up?

<comment><USER51> Have you ever been to a sporting event at a major venue that seats 70,000? Roads around such a venue are either jam-packed with traffic that isn't moving, or completely closed by the local authorities to be reserved for emergency traffic. It easily could take 2 hours to bring a car close to a venue after a game, let alone getting back out afterwards.

<comment><USER50> i don't believe she was at a sporting event. that part of the text, along with her love of dogs, being married, working for Amazon, was all fluff to make you feel a connection with the individual, not a relevant to the situation that happened. also, sporting events that i have been to have had wheel chair access.

its also a little confusing, because they are trying to make their way back to the car, but didn't encounter any problems when leaving it

<comment><USER12> The article says she was leaving the Georgia Dome. It was likely not a sporting event (new year's eve).

Did you read the article? It was about access to their car, via city sidewalks, after the event at the sporting arena. Your comment about sporting events "having wheelchair access" is not really relevant at all, since it was clearly not about the facility itself.

<comment><USER50> did you read the comment I am responding to? you must be having a hard time making simple connections:

person a: not sure why the husband didnt just go to the car and pick her up person b: thats unpossible at sporting arenas! dont you know! person a: sporting arenas have wheel chair access

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> If I'm disabled seem to be more effective for me if I instead use better accessibility device then pushing for sidewalk improvement.

<comment><USER53> Sufficiently capable devices don't yet exist, and are even more expensive.

Also, you're not thinking about this broadly enough. Sidewalks in bad condition or lacking curb cuts affect way more than just people who use wheelchairs. They affect the blind, the elderly, and even just your every day normal person who trips on uneven sidewalk and injures themselves.

Is it really too much to expect of our government that we have sidewalks that are repaired more often than every century, that are flat, and that have curb cuts at appropriate intervals?

<comment><USER36> All we want is sidewalks that are maintained as well as roads. They do not need to support as much weight (less materials, less wear and tear). Just needs regular grinding/filling.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Good article, but did anyone notice the design itself? What a beautiful website. Dynamic while still easy to read.

</comment><comment><USER55> Im all for access but there will and must be a point where flat/hard surfaces stop. Trails are a thing, so too gravel roads. We cannot pave the planet. Sure, those in wheelchairs should be able to access city parks but if we say thay they must have total access then we hurt the definition of park. I dont want to see a situation where entry is denied to all, a park not created, because the location cannot be made 100% wheelchair friendly. Nor do i want to see green spaces turned into endless sidewalks.

<comment><USER53> Your comment isn't particularly relevant to the discussion at hand, because at a very _minimum_ we could have accessible sidewalks going everywhere the roads go.

The woman in the article simply wants to be able to go to various buildings in her city. She's not demanding an accessible sidewalk paved deep into the wilderness. So I don't understand where you're coming from in making a slippery slope argument about sidewalk construction.

<comment><USER55> Really? Sidewalks on every road is a big ask. There are a host of drainage issues that curbs/sidewalks create. It isnt as simple as laying down slabs of concrete. They need a base that is in some ways more demanding than that of the actual road.

<comment><USER53> I don't own a car. I barely know anyone who does. On the other hand, I do walk places every day.

I can't even begin to describe to you how absurd I find it that you think sidewalks along every non-interstate road shouldn't be mandatory.

When I was younger I lived in a much more suburban area than I do now, and when I stayed late for extracurricular activities in high school (two days a week) I had to take a different bus route home. The closest stop on that route was half a mile away from my house. That's not far at all, and I definitely don't mind walking, _however_ , most of that walk was along a two-lane highway with no sidewalk that routinely had people cruising through at 45+ mph. The county has since thankfully put in some speed cameras to help enforce the 30 mph limit.

Why didn't I deserve a sidewalk for my safety, exactly?

<comment><USER56> Because it's _expensive_. Basic residential sidewalk is about $10 per sqft (and that's not counting the cost of land, which would be non-trivial).

Typical sidewalks are 4ft wide.

So your half mile walk home would cost $105,000, again NOT including cost of the land, planning, permitting, or anything else.

<comment><USER53> Meanwhile, a typical two-lane undivided road costs about $4 _million_ per mile to construct. So you're not willing to add on a scant 2.6% to the cost of the road construction to also make it available for use by pedestrians?

I'd much rather build 2.6% fewer roads and add sidewalks onto all of the existing ones. Keep in mind that far more than 2.6% of people don't even own cars, yet they do use sidewalks.

The expense argument you're making does a much better job of justifying not building more roads than it does in justifying not building more sidewalks.

<comment><USER56> 10% to the cost.

That is for a half mile on one side of the road.

<comment><USER53> Do you have a source?

<comment><USER56> [https://www.homewyse.com/services/cost_to_install_concrete_s...](https://www.homewyse.com/services/cost_to_install_concrete_sidewalk.html)

<comment><USER53> That doesn't say anything about the cost of sidewalk relative to the cost of building a road. And that's _retail_ prices, specced out by square footage. When you're building sidewalks at the scale of entire cities it's definitely cheaper.

You need to find a source that shows what the cost to the _government_ is per mile of road versus mile of sidewalk. You can't compare retail prices of sidewalk that would be charged to homeowners to what the government is paying to build a road.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> I'd take wide shoulders over sidewalks any day. Wide shoulders increase safety for many more people. People on bikes can use them. Pedestrians can walk on them. People pushing strollers can use them. You can change a tire on them. Drivers can use them to navigate obstructions (like people who cannot promptly take a left turn). Drivers can pull over and re-tie down a tarp that's too loose or change a tire. Snow plows can easily clean them. They're cheaper (than dedicated sidewalks) to build and maintain and don't need curb cuts.

Using banked curbs everywhere is another more useful alternative to normal sidewalks (less useful to some pedestrians but create a larger perceived separation from traffic than a shoulder and impossible to kill a tire while parallel parking)

Edit: At least offer up a counter opinion if you're gonna down-vote.

<comment><USER58> Just a wild guess here, you only ever drive right?

<comment><USER57> I take public transit and walk about a mile to work. I bike when I just need to go on a small errand. I drive a fair amount for other stuff.

Sidewalks work in cities where traffic (vehicle and pedestrian) is always high and areas where you have massive amounts of space for them (mostly places built up after WW2). For areas where sidewalks are not practical a wide shoulder is almost as good IMO. Obviously it depends on the nature of the road as well.

<comment><USER58> I respect that you have that opinion knowing that you don't exclusively drive.

Personally I bike and walk exclusively (do not own a car) and would much prefer separated cycling/walking paths. I get that there is a cost associated with this, but I think the cost is comparatively low to that of even marginal improvements to highway infrastructure.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Pixel Quipu (Inca knots) - <AUTHOR> http://www.pawfal.org/dave/blog/2015/11/pixel-quipu/ <comment><USER2> This is awesome! Much easier to see and compare than looking at pictures of the originals, or reading the raw data files from the Harvard database.

The Wikipedia article seems like a pretty good summary of what we know about quipus: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quipu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quipu)

Since the Spanish destroyed so much, a lot of it is fairly speculative.

<comment><USER3> gosh even they used a base 10 system!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Very nice!

Also I just stumbled upon this article about Khipus that have been recently uncovered:

[http://anthropology.net/2016/01/03/between-the-knots- untying...](http://anthropology.net/2016/01/03/between-the-knots-untying-the- mystery-of-incan-khipus/)</comment>


Adobe, 2008: "It's entirely Apple's call about what's best for the Mac OS" - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2008/04/photoshop_lr_64.html <comment><USER2> This isn't applicable to the current situation. What Apple did with Carbon, though it was inconvenient for Adobe, didn't artificially limit Adobe. Apple simply didn't build in support for something that Adobe was hoping for. It's the difference between refusing to lend a friend your last $20 for a cab because you need it and putting a gun to his head and ordering him to march.

Nack said, "It's entirely Apple's call about what's best for the Mac OS and how to spend their engineering cycles." Conversely, it should be entirely OUR call what's best for OUR software and how to spend OUR engineering cycles, and this is what Apple opposes. Even if we can find a way to make something work, Apple will still stop us.

</comment><comment><USER3> Expecting any company to be consistent is foolish.

Steve Jobs, 2008: "It doesn't matter how good or bad the product is, the fact is that people don't read anymore. Forty percent of the people in the U.S. read one book or less last year. The whole conception is flawed at the top because people don't read anymore."

<comment><USER4> Not sure how much Steve Jobs has really changed his opinion: iBooks is a separate install.

<comment><USER5> This is probably more to do with the likelihood that it won't be available in all markets.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I don't think it's a fair comparison. While it inconvenienced and cost Adobe and probably others a lot it didn't broadly shut out anyone building on their platform.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> _"Now let me be very clear about something: It's entirely Apple's call about what's best for the Mac OS and how to spend their engineering cycles. Like any development team, they have finite resources & need to spend them judiciously. They've decided that Carbon 64 doesn't belong on their roadmap, and we respect their decision. It's up to Adobe to adapt to the new plan."_

Saw it here <http://www.davidkaneda.com/post/518711266/its-up-to-adobe#>

</comment><comment><USER7> The article is talking about Apple choosing not to devote development time to porting the Carbon APIs to 64-bit. It's completely different from the terms of service change. Porting the Carbon APIs to 64-bit takes time, effort and money. Apple probably didn't feel there would be enough of a ROI. Changing the legal wording of a document to kill off specific types of third-party developer tools is a completely different beast.

Also, there's a difference between being controlling about your platform, and invalidating another company's business plans _days_ before launch. The fact that Apple changed their terms of service without notice to Adobe (or others) right before the planned release of Flash CS5 is a total dick move. At the very least, Apple could have told Adobe that they plan to block them if they go forward with their Flash-to-iPhoneOS plans, but instead Apple decided to let Adobe invest time and money into the development of the product only to rush in at the last minute and say, "sorry, you can't do that."

<comment><USER8>
      but instead Apple decided to let Adobe invest time and
      money into the development of the product only to rush
      in at the last minute and say, "sorry, you can't do that."

Uhm, did Adobe even ask Apple about its plans before starting to working on the product? Did they discussed "business plans" with Apple? Does Apple owe something to Adobe?

So now if I _own_ a platform and have plans for it, should I go around asking all the guys "hey do you plan to do something on my platform"? If they are going to do something, _they_ should approach me and discuss it.

<comment><USER7> I didn't say that Apple is _required_ to notify Adobe. I said that it was a 'dick move.' I find it highly unlikely that Apple would just _happen_ to change the TOS right in a way that invalidates an Adobe product a few days before that Adobe product is set to launch.

I'm not claiming that Apple needs to ask _everyone_ on their platform for permission to change the TOS, but it seems to me that Apple planned this in some way to 'stick it to Adobe.'

> _Uhm, did Adobe even ask Apple about its plans before starting to working on > the product? Did they discussed "business plans" with Apple?_

No, there is no requirement that people discuss their business plans with Apple before targeting their platform. Is everyone that creates products targeting the iPhone/iPad platform supposed to ask Apple permission before even starting? I'm curious for you to try and defend this position, especially with the AppStore approval process already in place. Also take into account that this move seems to block Unity3D. Keep in mind that Unity3D _won an Apple Design Award given to them by Apple themselves._ I would take that as a tip of the hat by Apple to the creation of 3rd-party developer tools for the creation of iPhone/iPad apps.

> _So now if I own a platform and have plans for it, should I go around asking > all the guys "hey do you plan to do something on my platform"? If they are > going to do something, they should approach me and discuss it._

So, when I want to develop a piece of software for MS Windows, I should be required to ask Microsoft permission?

The point in my original post was that I'm fairly sure that Apple _knew_ about Adobe's product and _purposefully_ timed their change to the TOS to the maximum amount of damage. If Apple knows that Adobe is developing a product that they will do everything in their power to block, why not be civilized about it and tell Adobe outright that they will not let that product into their platform?

The only way that you can frame this as "Adobe should have fallen before the throne of Apple and begged for permission," is if you think that creating a tool to aid in the development if iPhone/iPad apps is something that Apple will try to block. I think that it was a reasonable assumption to think that Apple would _not_ try to block such things.

<comment><USER8>
      in a way that invalidates an Adobe product a few days
      before that Adobe product is set to launch.

You can look at it this way: Adobe's product would invalidate Apple's product it is about to launch: iPhone OS 4 (and iPhone experience in general).

I think Jason Snell put it rather well: [http://www.macworld.com/article/150539/2010/04/apple_world.h...](http://www.macworld.com/article/150539/2010/04/apple_world.html)

<comment><USER7> > _Adobe's product would invalidate Apple's product it is about to launch: > iPhone OS 4_

Adobe can't 'invalidate' iPhone OS 4 unless you're claiming that Flash CS5's Flash-to-iPhone cross-compiler _prevents_ developers from using Apple's own development environment.

> _(and iPhone experience in general)._

You can't 'invalidate' the iPhone experience. If everything about the iPhone is so micro-managed by Apple to be perfectly what they want, then explain to me how 'fart apps' fit into Steve Jobs' grand plan for the iPhone. People don't need Flash CS5 to create crappy apps for the iPhone. In any case, I thought that the AppStore approval process was there to keep out crappy apps. Apple is the gatekeeper for _all_ apps that are allowed in to the walled garden, so why should they care how the app is created so long as it meets their standards?

> From your link: _Apple doesn't want Flash-created apps on the App Store for > a simple reason: It reduces the iPhone to a lowest-common denominator > platform, and at that point Apple loses all control over the iPhone OS > experience._

This is a false statement. Apple has supreme ultimate control over the iPhoneOS experience. Every application that is allowed to run on the iPhoneOS has to be approved by Apple through their AppStore approval process.

It's already been proven that 3rd-party developer tools like MonoTouch can work. 10 of the top 100 apps on the AppStore were built with MonoTouch, and there are hundreds of other apps approved by Apple that are on the AppStore as well. The idea that allowing developers to step outside of Apple's ivory tower of developer tools to use something else is a guarantee of lower quality products is a joke.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> (karma farming)

same article:

"If it bleeds, it leads," however, and writers looking to drive ad impressions will try to fabricate a grudge match. Please don't let them.</comment>


How I Became a Machine Learning Practitioner - <AUTHOR> https://blog.gregbrockman.com/how-i-became-a-machine-learning-practitioner <comment><USER2> I think it's doable if you're at the right place and have enough opportunities around you, and something to show for. I feel that companies and startups around tech hubs are more willing to give someone a chance, and look through the formality, if you manage to convince / impress them.

Where I live, far away from tech, it's almost impossible to land a job in ML / AI / DS unless you have a (minimum) Masters degree in something relevant. Preferably a Ph.D and solid experience to show for - I know because I work in the field, and lots of F500 dinosaurs are just now waking up. But are also unfortunately clinging to their old ways of hiring people.

Schools all over are also picking up slack, starting to offer specialized graduate degrees in those domains. When I got my degree in ML, it was a sub- field at my schools engineering department, mixed up with signal processing and control theory groups.

When first trying to get a job, the main problem was to explain what I actually could bring and do, and a lot of the recruiters or managers had no idea what Machine Learning was. Then you said "It's basically Artificial Intelligence" and, and they were instantly wooed.

<comment><USER3> Your observation is correct. No degrees are needed there is a lot of stuff to build.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Given that Greg Brockman was the CTO of Stripe before OpenAI, that's a order of magnitude more technically/CS capable than the typical reader who might be looking into ML.

<comment><USER5> Studying Math at Harvard/MIT certainly puts you in a different category than the average software engineer. And if ML was still challenging to Greg, it is honestly a bit discouraging.

<comment><USER6> (I wrote the post.)

If it's helpful, I dropped out of both schools — the vast majority of my knowledge is self taught!

<comment><USER7> >I learn best when I have something specific in mind to build.

This is so incredibly important for me and, based on my conversations, many others as well.

The other thing I struggle with is the feeling that many of the problems I wish to solve are likely also solvable with simpler statistical methods and that I'm just being a poser by trying to pound them home with the ML hammer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Does anyone _not_ want to become a ML engineer? Is this the future, and will we even have a choice or else be out of a job?

<comment><USER9> ML engineer is a super boring job content-wise and has insane outside pressure. It's about building data pipelines, the ugly grunt work. ML/Data Scientist is the interesting job. Usually Data Scientists view ML Engineers as replaceable drones that don't understand anything interesting and do the boring part of the job for 2-3x less than they do. The only advantage of ML Engineers is that AutoML is unlikely going to replace some dirty work but might endanger outdated Data Scientists.

<comment><USER10> I might disagree on this. The software engineering behind production machine learning systems can be quite interesting and nontrivial. It really depends on the scope of the challenges being faced. If you have thousands of models that need to be served in production and continually retrained and monitored, that becomes a pretty sophisticated problem space to work in.

<comment><USER9> Yes, however most ML engineers don't get to work at Jeff Dean's level to actually do such interesting work. There are very few companies willing to write their own Horovod or distributed PyTorch.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Congrats on your cool life, your ivy league education, your CTO role at OpenAI and all the access that provides. You've done it!

Also thanks for telling us how you became a practitioner. It's definitely relatable and not a humble brag at all.

<comment><USER12> Comments like this are what make HN great and are not at all toxic!

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Indeed inspirational article.</comment>


Machines Beat Humans on a Reading Test. But Do They Understand? - <AUTHOR> https://www.quantamagazine.org/machines-beat-humans-on-a-reading-test-but-do-they-understand-20191017/ <comment><USER2> are computers any smarter or are they just good test takers</comment>


Google Knol six months later - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20090119-google-knol-six-months-later-wikipedia-need-not-worry.html

<comment><USER2> The major flaw in Knol, that I see, is that it has contrary goals. To the extent that Wikipedia does work its success is created by the "wisdom of the crowds" mentality where something is monitored by so many people that bad entries eventually get weeded out. Knol's attempt to just use "qualified writers" prevents the Wikipedia-esque crowd oversight while at the same time limiting the people who contribute at all. This means less oversight and fewer contributors which is a double wammy.

Related to that Knol is clearly a "me too" project for Google. So while a startup or other focused competitor might see the problems that are hindering the service and rush to correct them Knol's issues go unaddressed which is why it's so stagnant now.

At this point, with Google tightening it's purse strings a little, I expect Knol will be put out to pasture before too long (which sadly will come as a major blow to those fighting the scourge of horniness)

<comment><USER3> Knol is "me too" in the same way Wikipedia is "me too" for Encyclopedia Britannica: it is based on a very different production process. I don't know if the competition model will eventually work for them (it does work for Youtube or the Web as a whole, for example), but there is nothing inherently wrong with it from my limited perspective. Everyone can write knols, it is up to authors to establish reputation or transfer it from the real world.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The key point is the rate of growth. Knol reached 100,000 articles in 6 months and now gets over 140K unique visitors a month. While that's small potatoes for Google, that's pretty good as a measure of a trend.

I work at HubPages, a start up that's similar to Google Knol. From my view, the idea of crowdsourced articles is really taking off. We're getting over 9.4M unique visitors a month at HubPages.

If Google can build a community around knol, it will really be a force. That, after all, is the secret sauce behind Wikipedia: its enthusiastic core, community.

</comment><comment><USER5> Summary: Knol remains a mess of questionable content, still inferior to Wikipedia on several levels.

<comment><USER6> I think it's important also to note that the article's author highlights one of the primary issues being "dueling knols" where instead of collaborating (as in a wiki) knol authors compete for the primary knol on a subject.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think Knol is an interesting proof of the importance of critical mass and that critical mass is achieved with a combination a fantastic product/idea, a vibrant seed community, and a bit of dumb luck. It also suggests that brand recognition is not a significant factor in achieving critical mass for new services.

</comment><comment><USER8> Like the segway, I can hardly remember life before Google Knol. Strange to think it's only been six months.</comment>


Reginald Fowler, man tied to missing Bitfinex funds, out on $5M bail - <AUTHOR> https://amycastor.com/2019/05/11/reginald-fowler-man-at-center-of-cryptocurrency-scheme-out-on-5-million-bail/ <comment><USER2> I guess that implies they are no longer missing then?

<comment><USER3> They always knew where they were. There were conflicting reasons as to why the funds were not moving around as expected.

<comment><AUTHOR> Regarding the missing $851 million tied to Cryto Capital, nobody know exactly where they are.</comment></comment></comment>


Xfce 4.8 released - <AUTHOR> http://www.xfce.org/

<comment> X-Istence Xfce is my main desktop choice for older laptops that don't have a while lot of computing power, but where I still want to have some sort of window manager.

It is sad though that the developers mention that I am going to be losing functionality because I am running Xfce on FreeBSD ... I've noticed the trend as well, more and more things are being written only for Linux and are not being ported to alternate operating systems such as FreeBSD.

<comment><USER2> I've heard that Xfce is lighter and faster, but have you really checked whether it is still so? I performed some superficial testing when I needed to install a simple system that could run a browser on an old computer and I didn't find any noticeable advantage myself. And I have read that lightness is no more a focus of development.

I installed several Linux systems consequentially on a USB flash drive, booted my laptop and measured memory consumption at system startup and when running a single instance of Firefox browser pointed to a certain website. Here's what I measured:

      OS                      | RAM | RAM (w/FF)

      xubuntu 8.04.1            183   (didn't run FF on this)
      xubuntu 10.04.-RC         157   187
      ubuntu 10.04-RC desktop   160   228
      ubuntu 10.04-RC netbook   162   219
      Tiny Core Linux 2.10       43   (failed to permanently install FF here)

I wanted to try NetBSD and other systems, but I failed to install them on a USB stick.

Tiny Core is a special Linux distribution in a way that it doesn't have much of anything installed by default, but you can "mount" applications and drivers as you need. I very much appreciate the fact that you are getting "clean slate" each time you boot, but in my case I needed to install Firefox permanently, which is doable, but not a default way of doing things. I haven't figured out how to do it, or Tiny Core would be ideal for me.

As far as differences between Ubuntu and Xubuntu go, I didn't see any significant advantage of Xfce here. Both systems could run on a 256 MB system, hardly on 128 MB. On the other hand, I didn't see any disadvantage either. To my eyes, xubuntu system looked very much like ubuntu I use.

<comment><USER3> Forget about the memory usage - most computers have at least 1 GB of memory these days. What about things that matter, like load time on login, lag when interacting with the UI, etc.?

<comment><USER2> That's the thing, I didn't see any difference (granted, that was on my quite recent laptop, but that's what I had for testing). Memory constraint was real in my case: I was going to use this on a computer that had either 256 MB or less.

I guess as a rule of thumb if you don't care about memory usage, you don't need to care about 2D graphics performance either.

<comment><USER3> I don't think that's true - I have a machine with 4 GB RAM & a 2.x Core 2 Quad. I have no memory problems, but I do have lag when using KDE or GNOME that's not present with Openbox. I haven't tried Xfce so I can't comment on it, but I'm guessing it's at least a little better than KDE/GNOME.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've tried xfce a few times in the past, but the absence of certain features ended up making it too annoying. For example, I could not navigate the main menu just by typing the initial letters of menus or programs; I either had to use the mouse, or the arrow keys. I also think (but might be mistaken) there was no way to assign different backgrounds to each desktop.

Unfortunately, looking around xfce.org, I couldn't find a place where I might learn if these things were implemented or not. Is there some place people an learn, for example, how menu navigation is handled, or how multiple desktops are configured?

<http://docs.xfce.org> just says, "Soonish this page will contain the Xfce users and developers documentation. "

<comment><USER5> Their wiki (linked from the homepage) has a page: <http://wiki.xfce.org/menu_accelerators> (Note: I did not try it). And you can embed the gnome-menu to the panel too (via some applet). And there is their forum... where you can find <http://forum.xfce.org/viewtopic.php?pid=19506#p19506> for wallpaper/desktop switching.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I first tried Xfce 4.2 way back in the day: I hated it. Xfce 4.4 came out, and for a long long time I was convinced that it was the best thing since sliced bread. I've since moved on to tiling window managers, but Xfce will always be special to me.

Happy 4.8, Xfce!

<comment><USER7> I have been experimenting with Awesome tiling wm today, and it seems Awesome. What a day to switch from Xfce.

<comment><USER8> How much do you suppose is the popularity of tiling wm due to the increase in affordable screen area? I just ordered a 27" monitor for $300.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Can someone with experience point out the major gnome vs xfce differences? Other than performance, I haven't really had too much of an issue with that.

<comment><USER10> Xfce should speak to the HN crowd, it's the MVP of desktop environments. It's fast, uses little memory, has a no clutter interface and is pretty in an austere way.

GNOME is the kitchen sink of UNIX desktops. It has everything and does everything (the KDE crowd will disagree with me here). Slightly more polished, better integrated, accessible to the casual user.

I'd recommend GNOME over Xfce to most people but if you want a desktop that doesn't get in your face (and flies!), give Xfce a spin. <http://www.xubuntu.org/> has a live CD you can try out.

<comment><USER11> If you want to go even lighter and more MVP (esp. to revive an old ThinkPad or whatnot) there's always LXDE: <http://lxde.org/>

<comment><USER12> LXDE now comes pre-packaged: <http://lubuntu.net/>

I cannot recommend this distribution enough.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I also gave a try to XFCE 4.8 on my notebook with 1Gb RAM. I cannot say that it is lightweight. It took about 15 seconds to start XFCE. I also spent about 20 mins doing usual job on it and then uninstalled it. That is why I use pekwm.org . It is ultra-small, fast and light. Actually XFCE is environment and PEKWM - window manager. No additional functionality like panels, quick launchers, trays etc.

For me LXDE stays betwen XFCE and PekWM. It is not so heavy as XFCE but PekWM is lighter.

<comment><USER14> I like the lean and mean window managers as well (fluxbox at the moment).</comment></comment>


LPEG matching from 75s down to 100ms - <AUTHOR> http://mille337.net/index.php?d=2015/02/25/19/55/20-lets-optimize-lpeg---part-3-vm-hacking

<comment><USER2> Author here. This blog series articles introduces some experimental changes that I made into LPeg for a specific use case: matching many alternative patterns while keeping flexibility when needed. Don't expect huge optimizations on general case.

I still need to write the last part with detailed benchmarks. Stay tuned !

Here is some more links about this little project:

Blog article, Part 1: [http://mille337.net/index.php?d=2015/02/22/14/28/35-lets- opt...](http://mille337.net/index.php?d=2015/02/22/14/28/35-lets-optimize-lpeg ---part-1-introduction)

Blog article, Part 2: [http://mille337.net/index.php?d=2015/02/22/15/26/40-lets- opt...](http://mille337.net/index.php?d=2015/02/22/15/26/40-lets-optimize-lpeg ---part-2-ast-transformation)

Lua ML announce: [http://lua.2524044.n2.nabble.com/LPeg-pattern-optimizer- td76...](http://lua.2524044.n2.nabble.com/LPeg-pattern-optimizer- td7665935.html)

GitHub fork: [https://github.com/jdesgats/lpeg](https://github.com/jdesgats/lpeg)</comment>


Watch – Guided Tours - <AUTHOR> https://www.apple.com/watch/guided-tours/

<comment><USER2> Can we not put the apple symbol in the name of the watch, or at the very least not in article titles? It's really lame marketing and breaks on a lot of non- Apple devices.

</comment><comment><USER3> My first thought was that is this so unintuitive that they have to make a guided tour [1] and then I found that they did a guided tour for iPhone too, when it launched. May be a new device with new interactions does need a User Manual.

1 - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kIhkd92bJY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kIhkd92bJY)

</comment><comment><USER4> How come so many people who left their wrist watches behind them years ago, rediscovered the urge to have such a watch again?

Why is it such a desirable product?</comment>


NASA's New Horizons Team Strikes Gold in Argentina - <AUTHOR> https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-s-new-horizons-team-strikes-gold-in-argentina <comment><USER2> That is tremendous, thanks for sharing. Congratulations to all the New Horizons folks! I look forward to our upcoming fly-by of the object that caused the occultation. With five different observations of the occultation I would imagine that they will be able to get some decent information on the size/shape of the object.

</comment><comment><USER3> I have seen the transit of Venus but to see this a team find an occlusion that only occurs for milliseconds is is awe inspiring! Congrats to the people who made this happen!

</comment><comment><USER4> > "A primitive solar system object that's more four billion miles (6.5 billion > kilometers) away passed in front of a distant star as seen from Earth." Did > they forget a "than" after "more" and before "four"? Or is it "a mere"?

<comment><USER5> should have been "more than". "Mere" does not make sense with a huge figure such as "four billion miles" IMO.

<comment><USER6> I think "mere" kind of makes sense at these scales? I mean the nearest known star (Proxima Centauri) is 40,208,000,000,000 km away. (Guess it depends on whether you're using "American" Billions or not...)

<comment><USER7> Given that you're talking about an object in our solar system, I think almost all astronomers would not use "mere" or parsecs.

<comment><USER6> Ah, missed the "in our solar system" bit :).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Reading this I wondered that if NASA's New Horizon's team had actually struck gold, could they use the money in their budget to do more Kuiper Belt probes?

Or would it be diverted to the Shelby Launch System?

</comment><comment><USER9> For a moment there, I was wondering what NASA was doing prospecting for gold in Argentina.

</comment><comment><USER10> Can someone explain why they had to set up a temporary telescope in Argentina to get data from a probe? If the article explained it, I missed that part.

<comment><USER11> They used Earth based telescopes to find a more accurate information about MU69. In order for New Horizons to get good pictures they need to know exactly where it is, how big it is, and how reflective it is.

<comment><USER10> Ah, thank you for clearing that up.</comment></comment></comment>


Are code challenges a good predictor for hiring developers? - <AUTHOR> Has anybody tried to use code challenges like HackerRank or Codility to screen developers for a position on your team? Can you share your experience? I wonder if these challenges are good enough to measure candidates experience. <comment><USER2> I'd say they aren't, because most software developers don't write new algorithms to solve tiny problems in ten minutes.

They work within problem domains they know about and use libraries, frameworks and other useful abstractions. They edit existing code, they architect apps, they think about stuff for a long time, working things over in their mind or in code. Being a fast coder is more about memorization and making every problem a nail for tools like memoization and big O analysis, then about long term sustained development skills. Real skills are not solving the problem in front of you asap. It's solving that problem and five other potential future problems using the same abstraction. It's not knowing the fastest solution, it's knowing several solutions and applying the best one.

Real code tests would be like what engineers do everyday.: Here's some code we want to push to production, or plan to refactor for speed, write unit tests on the computer so we know it won't break.

Here's a design problem, how would you set up a db schema or object oriented design? Okay, now we need to add this feature, how would your design change?

Here's a problem involving calculating something based on a db call and returning it over the network... what's the solution you use if network latency is an issue? What about disk io in the db? What about if it's cpu bound? What about it uses too much ram? What about if at some point this may need to be asynchronous code? What if it's distributed code? What if you need to catch every edge case? What if things are breaking in production and you need to solve 80% of the problem now and worry about edge cases later?

Okay... here's an api, write code to use it to solve the problem, even though the api isn't meant to be used this way.

Here's super complicated code... figure out what it does and document it.

These are all things a software developer may do... I guess I'm advocating testing their ability to work by using stuff as close to work as you can.

<comment><AUTHOR> I totally agree, with your point that we should use more real life problems like you mention. The issue here is that this often requires a lot of preparation from the interviewer. You can't always share the code you are working on with a candidate. I would have to find something similar, maybe setup a backend, etc.

Would you ask this problem to be solved on the spot or let them try at home with the help of friends? Should I restrict time e.g. 2 hours to create a login screen for an iOS app. Or let them take as much time as needed?

I'm interested to know if I could scale this process. We have sometimes to hire batches of 6 to 10 engineers at the time for very different projects and that's when these code challenges seems attractive. Thoughts?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I am not in a hiring position but Mr. Peter Norvig says that being good at programming competitions correlates negatively with being good on the job at Google.

[http://www.catonmat.net/blog/programming-competitions- work-p...](http://www.catonmat.net/blog/programming-competitions-work- performance/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Very interesting! And also a great talk. But I understood from it is that once you pass the Google hiring bar only then this inverse correlation happens.

What about to evaluate some candidate from the street?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Let's say for the sake of argument that there is a positive correlation. Should you use it?

I argue probably not. You will be selecting for one "type" of person. Maybe people that do well on these tests are bad at, I dunno, creative or lateral thinking. Or maybe they are good at following directions but not at finding flaws and pushing back. Maybe they are great (or bad) at follow though (completing projects). Who knows?

My categories are a bit silly, and surely those test will not select exact carbon copy duplicates of people, but you get the idea. Most businesses will do best with a range of different abilities vs hyper-selected people all with the same skills, strengths, and weaknesses. Need creative problem solving for a new algorithm? Get Zahra on it. Need somebody to plod though tons of data and tease out why this hardware is failing intermittently? Ted excels at that. Need somebody to design a new caching scheme? Hmm, nobody has that skill set, but Tyrone is great at reading research and synthesizing it into a working solution for a specific problem. Have a boring problem with a difficult client? Joel loves working with people and building consensus, and doesn't care too much about the tech. And so on. Variety is far more valuable (IMO) than uniformity, and writing lines of code to solve combinatorial problems in O(N) time in O(log N) space is a tiny, tiny part of the problems a business needs to solve.

</comment><comment><USER5> _I wonder if these challenges are good enough to measure candidates experience_

Doubtful. I think the code challenge is critical, but obviously not the only thing to consider when evaluating candidates. If you're making your decision based solely on coding challenges, you're gonna have a bad time.

IMO the right thing to do is to use your screening challenge to "set the bar" and eliminate people who (in the opinion of your organization) are unable to code their way out of wet paper bags. The bag thickness will be different for everyone, of course. Once the candidate has escaped the bag, so to speak, then you can (and should) evaluate more holistically.

</comment><comment><USER6> I've used Codility and other tests before. Doing amazing on a test isn't always going to mean they're going to be amazing at the job but if they do badly on the test then they're probably not worth continuing with. Tests like these act as a good automated time saving gateway to filter out obviously unsuitable candidate as conducting good interviews takes up a lot of time. You can learn a lot from their test answers as well; chatting to a candidate about their code in the interview can be a good way to understand their coding experience.

By the way, when reviewing tests answers, I always tried to be realistic and not penalise someone too much for e.g. missing a subtle optimisation trick or slightly misunderstanding the problem.

</comment><comment><USER7> Debugging is highly underrated. Give a developer a bug, make em solve it. It's a challenge, it's not some weird algorithm that you may or may not know, it's practical, and troubleshooting tactics demonstrates a lot of analytical skills.</comment>


Kevin Rose: How to Promote Your Web App - <AUTHOR> http://thinkvitamin.com/business/kevin-rose-how-to-promote-your-web-app/ <comment><USER2> It's always interesting when people with special circumstances try to distill their situation into general principles. There's usually far too many variables to take their advice at face value, but occasionally you find useful tidbits.

<comment><USER3> There's a fine line here; how does one know whether their situation is special or if what worked for them is applicable to others? As you say, overzealous generalization yields bad advice, but it's easier for consumers of advice (us) to filter than to generate. I'd rather read 100 founder stories and conclude that 95 of those weren't applicable to me than to lose the five that were.

The greater worry, in my mind, is that people like to avoid the "I would have done X differently" or "I found that assumption Y was inapplicable/inaccurate," which are super-valuable advice types.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> He left out "be on a cable TV show".

<comment><USER5> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1_YoG7lqI4>

<comment><USER6> Great how he leaves out the fact that it is his site.

<comment><USER7> He mentions it on 0:31 in the video.

<comment><USER8> He covers his mouth at that point, and it's hard to tell whether he said "mine" or "one." Anyway Kevin did hide his involvement with digg early on (he was a Comcast employee).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'd criticize, just on principle, but this is just too vapid to bother with.

</comment><comment><USER9> It's always hard to give general advise, you want to leverage your background, position and what you know.

'random' with Tim Ferris and Kevin Rose is nice also. <http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/category/interviews/></comment>


Mumbai call centre scam: 'Nothing's wrong in duping rich Americans' - <AUTHOR> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/nothings-wrong-in-duping-rich-americans/articleshow/54729514.cms <comment><USER3> Heh, That's what i told the scammer, the scammer told me they had a refund from the IRS for me and they just needed a credit card number to "wire" it to.

 _But I am just so rich right now that I have no need for the extra money, maybe you could just "wire" it to some worthwhile charity. And of course take whatever you feel adequate for your efforts too. But yea really right now, I just got way too much money._

<scammer click>

</comment><comment><USER4> Unfortunately it's not so much the 'rich' that fall for this, but the elderly.

Recently heard this story from my bartender, who had a family member lose some dough in this scam. The "rich American" part is just a weaselly justification for committing a crime, and doesn't deserve the prominence in the article it received.

<comment><USER5> As I read it, it's not that they are targeting rich Americans, but rather, they view America as a land of riches. Even our poor elderly, especially if they own a vehicle or property, would be considered rich by many standards.

<comment><USER4> From the article:

> Nasreen Bano Iqbal Balesahib, 59; and her sons Nadeem Iqbal Balasaheb, 30, > and Shain Iqbal Balasaheb, 25, were arrested on Wednesday evening as they > were listed as the owners of MAC Outsourcing Services Private Limited - <USER2> > company that ran Universal Outsourcing Solutions, which is one of the raided > companies. Incidentally, the raided M Bale House belongs to the family.

Owned a company and the building which housed the company. That argument rings even more hollow.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> On one hand, it'a easy to see this as an educational and cultural failure. On the other hand, many of our policies treat screwing over foreigners more lightly than screwing over fellow Americans.

<comment><USER7> That is a fundamental part of being human. Anyone who thinks they or their culture is immune to it is deluding themselves. Anyone who thinks they or their culture is _better_ at it than others needs to tread carefully, because the part of the very meme we're talking about here is about how your culture is better at things than others, so isn't it kinda convenient that one thinks so?

<comment><USER8> > That is a fundamental part of being human.

So true. it's turtles all the way down, too. Those liberals/conservatives aren't real Americans and don't have good values, like us conservatives/liberals. Those people in the city next door are all either snobs or criminals, lets try to keep them from coming to our town too much. That high school across town sucks and their students are assholes, we're better, let's go vandalize their school to show them. Our neighbors are horrible people, so it's okay that we're mean to them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This seems like a case where none of the alleged criminals have probably ever interacted with Americans.

It's easy to vilify a group you truly know nothing about.

<comment><USER10> Are you possibly doing the same with this group? Would you be willing to prey on Russians if it meant your family could eat this week?

<comment><USER8> > Are you possibly doing the same with this group?

Do you mind expanding your reasoning on that? I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. The modifier "alleged" was even used, so I don't see much vilification going on.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> A classic case of the monkey sphere [1].

[1] [https://web.archive.org/web/20130112050503/http://www.cracke...](https://web.archive.org/web/20130112050503/http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what- monkeysphere.html)

<comment><USER12> [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This could be fixed by fixing the broken telephone protocol so that phone numbers can't be spoofed so easily, and then implementing adblockers.

But that won't happen because:

1\. It would cost money.

2\. A proper implementation would be encrypted, breaking ubiquitous surveillance.

<comment><USER5> Twilio has built up their business around the current phone system.

<comment><USER13> I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

<comment><USER5> The very things identified as problems when it comes to scam calls have enabled tons of startups and software.

<comment><USER13> Okay, true, but why should I care?

This is like one of those ad games: If you press the button, you fix spam calls, but Twilio goes out of business. I couldn't press the button fast enough.

For the record, I like Twilio and I literally have their API open in another tab right now because I'm writing code against it. But if they can't do business in an environment that doesn't allow spam calls, they don't deserve to be in business.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Nothing wrong in duping rich Americans, but using adblocker is real crime, says this website.

</comment><comment><USER5> I like to have fun with them. On more than one occasion, I strung them out for 15 or 20 minutes, and eventually ended the call on a nice satisfying note. I've even had them call me back angry for wasting their time :-)

<comment><USER15> I talked in a heavy voice with calm sort of arrogance, and they go <click>. My attempts at gaming them into wasting time didn't work for too long. :(

<comment><USER5> I just play dumb.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The article doesn't mention what was the scam they did? Anyone know?

<comment><USER17> In a nutshell: people trained with American accents made calls to American taxpayers suggesting that they owed backtaxes and would be sued if they didn't pay up.

<comment><USER18> I got one of those calls and it sounded very credible. I called the number back and then I got a little nervous when the guy on the other end of the line seemed very uninterested and unprofessional. I don't how how far I would have gone if he had acted better.

<comment><USER19> > I called the number back and then I got a little nervous when the guy on the > other end of the line seemed very uninterested and unprofessional.

Didn't you think you were calling a government office? They aren't exactly known for their customer service, whereas scammers are known for having a slick feel to their operation. Interesting that that was your tip off.

<comment><USER18> I have talked to the IRS before and they were always very courteous and well- informed. I wouldn't call them slick but very efficient and clear.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I don't think the website is trying to justify the criminals, only quoting what they said.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, that's correct. Its criminals statement not view of the news editor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Isn't there an angle here to how scared people are of the IRS though? Isn't their image a bit related to why this scam was possible.

</comment><comment><USER22> I'll get downvoted, but if I'm a father with no opportunity in rural India. This is exactly what I'd be doing. You might be a better man to allow your children starve in a pile of there own filth, but I'm not him.

<comment><USER23> If you work hard in India, it's still pretty likely you can feed your kids. It might not be good work, good food, or a good house, but being a scammer is not the only way to take care of your family.

I just saw an photo this week on the People of Nepal Facebook page, and it was of a man who wanted a better life for his kids so he slaved over a little tea shop in a small city/town, and was able to send his kids to school and he talks about how he can wear their expensive watches and mingle with people at parties. ([https://www.facebook.com/StoriesNepal/photos/a.4783809322603...](https://www.facebook.com/StoriesNepal/photos/a.478380932260397.1073741826.478371942261296/1033831160048702/?type=3&theater))

<comment><USER22> 1 out of 10 workers in India are unemployed. They simply do no have the options we have in the first world. If you are offered a call center job, you take it. A single success story does not invalidate the data, India has a massive poverty problem.</comment></comment></comment>


How crooks stalled the rise of electric cars for 100 years (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23531420-600-how-crooks-stalled-the-rise-of-electric-cars-for-100-years/ <comment><USER2> > Each battery weighed around 1.75 tons and could power a bus for just 60 > kilometers. Charging took almost 8 hours

But clearly it was the fact that one electric bus company was run by crooks in 1906 that held back electric cars for a century.

<comment><USER3> I always thought it was crazy how all those alternative history folks think that the material & chemical sciences of the time that could barely rev an IC engine made out of the most industrialized material ever over 1000 rpm without knocking or throwing a rod could also handle batteries which today require rare-earth materials and exotic chemistries.

<comment><USER4> Lead batteries don't.

<comment><USER3> To a 1910 industrialist acid batteries were exotic chemistry. Don't forget IC cars were hand-cranked during this time, and magnetos for spark plugs only came into commercial availablity 4 years before this article is based. It took another decade for starter motors and auxiliary electronics to make their way into IC automobiles.

Basic commericially avaliable electronics were cutting-edge back then.

<comment><USER5> The gasoline engine was probably equally exotic.

Sulfuric acid has been manufactured since to 18th century. And you don't need permanent magnets to make a DC motor. And electrical motors were even used to power vehicles before Otto constructed his gasoline engine.

I guess heat engines just were something people were more used to? Going from steam to gasoline seems like a smaller step.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> While I almost definitely agree that it's a bit far fetched to imagine the batteries and bus electric engines we're truly good enough 100 years ago... I do know that crooks in the oil / transportation industries _have_ set us back X years, where X is unacceptably large.

But don't get me started, the whole suburbanization of America and the rise of cars and cheap gas are foundational to a lot of the problems we are facing today.

<comment><USER7> _> the whole suburbanization of America and the rise of cars and cheap gas are foundational to a lot of the problems we are facing today_

On the other hand, we've generally had riots and/or public health crises whenever we've crammed too many people into cities.

So from a 1950s perspective, it was a reasonable decision.

Hindsight is 20/20.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Clickbaity and completely misleading headline.

The reason why the electric car didn't win was that it wasn't practical and still to this day isn't close to being as practical as using the combustion engine.

<comment><USER9> > Clickbaity and completely misleading headline.

Probably right.

> and still to this day isn't close to being as practical as using the > combustion engine.

Wrong. A lot of people prefer Tesla today. Their cars are very much close to being as practical as the ones using combustion engines.

<comment><USER10> Only as a second vehicle for daily driving because it's still a huge headache to take one on a longer trip.

<comment><USER9> People regularily cross the country with these. My neigbour uses his Kona to cross the mountain to the west coast so it isn't limited to only the most expensive Tesla models either.

<comment><USER10> Possible and practical are very different things. It's taken a lot of innovation just to get the charge time inside of an hour.

That's not practical when everybody on the highway is driving them.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Resource Revocation in Apache Mesos (2012) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~kubitron/courses/cs262a-F12/projects/reports/project9_report_ver4.pdf <comment><USER2> This looks like inverse offer in Mesos [https://mesosphere.com/blog/2015/10/07/mesos-inverse- offers/](https://mesosphere.com/blog/2015/10/07/mesos-inverse-offers/)</comment>