Tesla Was Kicked Off Fatal Crash Probe by NTSB - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-12/tesla-withdraws-from-ntsb-crash-probe-over-autopilot-data-flap <comment><USER2> Tesla has totally botched this. What Tesla has run into is the approach to safety that makes commercial air travel safe - figure out exactly what went wrong and fix it so it stays fixed. The aviation community is used to this. "Flying" magazine publishes crash reports in most issues.[1] Pilots read those. Manufacturers read those. People in aerospace read those. NASA collects near-miss reports to keep tabs on why close calls happened.

The aviation industry has experience with aircraft automation leading pilots into trouble, and so does the NTSB. Here's a former head of the NTSB commenting on the Asiana crash at SFO in 2014:[2] "How do we design this whole human-machine system to work better so we don't lose the professionalism in the humans who are doing this?" Crash investigators are very aware of the problems of a poor man-machine interface leading pilots into a bad situation. That is the kind of thinking needed to make these kinds of systems work.

It's not about blame. Most air crashes have multiple causes. That's because the single points of failure were fixed long ago. This is somewhat different than the traffic law enforcement approach. The NTSB's previous investigation of a Tesla collision resulted in Tesla changing their system to enforce the hands-on-wheel requirement. That may not be enough.

Playing hardball with the NTSB is not going to work. The NTSB rarely uses it, but they have broad authority in investigations. They can get subpoenas. They can inspect Tesla's facilities, hardware, and software: "An officer or employee of the National Transportation Safety Board ... can ... during reasonable hours, may inspect any record, process, control, or facility related to an accident investigation under this chapter." The NTSB even has the authority to publicly disclose corporate trade secrets if necessary.[3] Aviation companies routinely cooperate, knowing this, and the NTSB seldom has to compel disclosure.

Incidentally, lying to the NTSB is a federal crime. The CEO of Platinum Jet Services tried to cover up some safety violations that resulted in a crash. He became Federal Prisoner #77960-004 from 2007 to 2013.[4]

[1] [https://www.flyingmag.com/tags/aftermath](https://www.flyingmag.com/tags/aftermath) [2] [https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all- news/2014/october/21...](https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all- news/2014/october/21/acting-ntsb-chief-says-automation-affects- professionalism) [3] [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/1114#b](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/1114#b) [4] [http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/11/16/new.jersey.charter.convi...](http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/11/16/new.jersey.charter.conviction/index.html)

<comment><USER3> I'm confused about how hands on the wheel is "enforced"? Just chiming and blinking lights? Or does the car actually shut off auto driving mode when you remove your hands?

<comment><USER4> Audible and visual alerts, followed by bringing the car to a safe stop.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I get frustrated when Tesla blames the driver for these crashes by saying that they aren't touching the wheel or are ignoring messages. It is extremely common for my car to warn me to keep my hands on the when WHILE I have my hands on the wheel. Even shaking it a little will sometimes not cancel out the warnings. It doesn't seem to matter if my hands are on the top or bottom of the wheel. Anything short of a deathgrip and constant jiggling of the wheel doesn't seem to consistantly register as keeping your hands on the wheel. Anyone who has used Autopilot for a significant amount of time has been beeped at for not having their hands on the wheel even though they are. And yes, the car will make crazy maneuvers at times that no driver in their right mind would make. I still like it and am glad I opted for it, but it is far from earning its namesake.

<comment><USER6> That is very significant!

Your comment suggests that Tesla's claims about the driver having his hands off the wheel for x seconds before a crash could be wrong. If the sensors detect the drivers hands are not on the wheel when they actually are on the wheel, then data logged about how long the driver's hands were off the wheel should be considered suspect.

I hope that's being investigated.

Personally, I'm having trouble believing the driver who died in the recent accident ignored the warnings for six seconds before the head-on collision, especially when he knew Autopilot didn't work well at that section of road.

I'm not familiar with how the system works. If the warning engages, is there a guarantee that the driver will have to take over shortly? Or are there scenarios when the warning turns off by itself and so the driver could have been waiting to see if the car would correct?

[Edit: lolc and Vik1ng pointed out that the warning isn't related to unsafe conditions as I implied. It's used whenever the sensors think the driver's hands are off the wheel.]

<comment><USER7> Tesla didn't claim that he didn't have his hands on the wheel, they claimed that it wasn't detected. Tesla knows how inaccurate that is. Tesla has always been shamefully misleading with all of their victim blaming PR pieces. I get that there's plenty of "unintended acceleration" cases where the driver straight up lies about hitting the wrong pedal but they included that information about what the driver did earlier in the trip and the time he would have had a view of the barrier solely to imply that it's his fault that autopilot killed him. That's never an okay thing to do yet it seems like this is Tesla's modus operandi when there's some high profile accident.

Who cares if he had 5 seconds to see the barrier if he only had 0.5 seconds to realize that the car went into casual murder mode right as it veers into the barrier. They make it sound like it had to have been driver error with facts that are irrelevant to the question at hand. Your assumption that Tesla claimed he didn't have his hands on the wheel at the time of the accident is exactly what I'm talking about, Tesla's PR release is filled with weasel words to do exactly that.

I'm not even trying to suggest that Autopilot is less safe than an alert human driver, but one thing is clear, we certainly can't trust Tesla to determine how safe it is.

<comment><USER8> _Who cares if he had 5 seconds to see the barrier if he only had 0.5 seconds to realize that the car went into casual murder mode right as it veers into the barrier._

This video is quite relevant:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QCF8tVqM3I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QCF8tVqM3I)

A fully alert driver trying (and succeeding) in reproducing this behaviour. Observe how long the barrier is visible, how long it takes him to react, and how close the car was to hitting the barrier.

<comment><USER9> This video is horrifying, I assume even the sensors on cars with automatic braking sensors should be able to identify a barrier that large in front of the car. I am way oversimplifying this but I'm sure there is some level of prioritisation in Tesla's Autopilot software to decide what action the car should take. Is the Autopilot software prioritising staying in lane (the car appears to stick to the left white line) over collision avoidance?

<comment><USER10> It can't, nor can most cars with automatic braking. The Tesla will happily run headfirst into a brick wall all day long. The reason is that the driving world is chock-full of objects with zero velocity relative to terrain - the trivial cases being a rise in the road ahead, or an at-grade bridge where the travel lanes suck below grade to pass. Therefore, autopilot and many auto-braking algorithms filter out completely static objects (see previous story about a Tesla ramming a fire truck stopped on the highway).

Musk has commented publicly before (though somewhat obliquely) about this flaw. He indicated that the company is trying to build a map of reference data so that it can be filtered out automatically, and real hazards can be seen/found.

<comment><USER3> Mapping can never solve this problem. If these cars don't yet have the ability to detect stationary physical barriers that represent a crash risk, then they are further away from being practical than I thought, and I'm extremely pessimistic. It is clearly a hard problem to solve with naive tech. Unfortunately we have a huge industry and tens of billions of dollars and politicians, corporations, governments, and media who all believe this naive tech is close to perfect. But it can't see a wall or a fire truck in its path? If this isn't solved then this whole house of cards will fall apart. The sooner the better, IMO. Let's start building cars that supplement driver awareness instead of numbing it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> _"We believe in transparency, so an agreement that prevents public release of information for over a year is unacceptable."_

As noted in the article, the information being released includes blaming the victim and other PR spin. This doesn't serve the public or further highway safety; it further's Tesla's commercial goals.

If Tesla's withdrawal hampers the investigation, let's hope the agency uses its subpoena power to get the info it needs to determine the cause of the accident and what Tesla needs to do to prevent similar incidents from happening in the future.

<comment><USER12> Is there any indication that the information that Tesla released wasn't true?

And Tesla said they'd continue to cooperate with the investigation, so why do you think a subpoena is suddenly needed?

<comment><USER13> Have you looked at that information. Here, I'll get it for you from [https://www.tesla.com/blog/update-last- week%E2%80%99s-accide...](https://www.tesla.com/blog/update-last- week%E2%80%99s-accident)

> Over a year ago, our first iteration of Autopilot was found by the U.S. > government to reduce crash rates by as much as 40%.

Why don't they talk only about Autosteer instead of Autosteer+AEB (and other features combined). Why not discuss how many accidents could have been caused by Autopilot if the driver did not correct it. Why is there no commentary on if whether their active driving system would be better run as a passive driver error correction system, as other manufacturers do.

> In the US, there is one automotive fatality every 86 million miles across > all vehicles from all manufacturers. For Tesla, there is one fatality, > including known pedestrian fatalities, every 320 million miles in vehicles > equipped with Autopilot hardware. If you are driving a Tesla equipped with > Autopilot hardware, you are 3.7 times less likely to be involved in a fatal > accident.

Ahh, so a Tesla is safer than a 10 year old beaten down car with no airbags driven on country roads, I never expected that. Tesla is safer than even a motorbike, what a surprise. And just having Autopilot in your car (even disabled), makes you 3.7 times less likely to die. Does that say anything about Autopilot, or are they just touting non-Autopilot premium safety features?

> There are about 1.25 million automotive deaths worldwide. If the current > safety level of a Tesla vehicle were to be applied, it would mean about > 900,000 lives saved per year.

So, motorbikes driving in Himalyas are more deadly than a Tesla on California highways, who would have guessed. What does this say about Autopilot again?

> We expect the safety level of autonomous cars to be 10 times safer than non- > autonomous cars.

Elon musk also expected driverless cars to be everywhere in 2017. And autonomous doesn't need to mean hands off driverless cars, they keep conflating assistive feature benefits with their hands-off technology.

<comment><USER12> \- The average US fatality is not in a ten year old car on a country road. \- US crash rates are lower than worldwide rates, so Tesla's estimate of lives saved worldwide is low. \- If autopilot is only used part of the time, that implies its safety benefit is significantly more than 3.7x. A model S is not 3.7x better at passive safety than other cars.

Of course none of this data is very meaningful. You have to compare the rates of autopilot users to non-autopilot users of similar demographics, and have all crashes recorded, not just fatalities, to get close to a comparative samples.

<comment><USER14> > US crash rates are lower than worldwide rates, so Tesla's estimate of lives > saved worldwide is low.

Road fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants per year (2013, WHO):

        UK      2.9
        Spain   3.7
        Germany 4.3
        France  5.1
        USA    10.6

Among the rich countries, the US crash rate is one of the worst. With a similar set of vehicles, this rate is very fluctuent, per country and per year. Hint: the problem may not be purely mechanical.

Seriously, would Tesla's autopilot lower the crash rate in the UK? In Thailand? I guess it wouldn't change much in European countries, and any good car would do the same in poor countries.

<comment><USER15> > _I guess it wouldn 't change much in European countries_

Why not?

Via [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic- related_death_rate), here is another table (same countries, same order) giving road fatalities per 10⁹km in 2015:

        UK      3.6
        Spain   7.8
        Germany 4.9
        France  5.8
        USA     7.1

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The headline has been updated to say that:

> _Tesla Was Kicked Off Fatal Crash Probe by NTSB_

> The National Transportation Safety Board told Tesla Inc. on Wednesday that > the carmaker was being removed from the investigation of a fatal accident, > prior to the company announcing it had withdrawn from it, according to a > person familiar with the discussion.

> NTSB Chairman Robert Sumwalt relayed the decision in a call to Tesla's Elon > Musk that was described as tense by the person because the chief executive > officer was unhappy with the safety board's action. NTSB is expected to make > a formal announcement in a release later Thursday, said the person, who > spoke on the condition of anonymity.

<comment><USER17> " _Tesla, in a statement issued late Wednesday, suggested the company chose to leave the probe._ "

Technically, that's sorta true. By releasing information and opinions about the ongoing investigation, Tesla decided not to be a part of it.

<comment><USER18> That is, terrifyingly, the same logic my friends use with their young children.

<comment><USER19> Only in this case, it's like a parent giving a kid 'a good shaking' to 'wake them up'.

Any 'artificially intelligent' car that can't avoid running straight into something solid right in front of it is dangerously stupid. Elon's age is starting to show.

<comment><USER18> The age comment manages to be both a non sequitor and an ad hominem so lets ignore that.

The issue at play here is far larger than a car having a crash. The issue I was referring to is the actions of Tesla as they respond to the crash. That is cultural and it affects both the process of creating and releasing products as well as the process of responding to their failure. If your product can kill people, and lets be clear - cars can easily kill people SDV or not - you need to act like professionals when something happens. Playing the blame game, in public, and violating the expectations of a body like the NTSB shouldn't garner trust, no matter who is right at a technical level.

EDIT: fixed my abysmal grammar.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> > Tesla said that the Model X driver's hands weren't on the steering wheel for > six seconds prior to the fatal crash

Call me a sceptic, but saying that with absolute certainty is troubling. As an engineer, knowing how a lot of software and hardware systems are actually implemented, 6 seconds is such a minuscule time frame. Data about hand position could be in a write cache somewhere waiting to be flushed, inside monitoring service, inside OS, inside RAID controller, inside storage controller, or even de-prioritized by a busy IO scheduler. Then at a moment of a crash that the data might never make it to the storage for recovery.

I'm not saying that it is, but if the hand monitoring service is glitching out, it will take a lot of time to resolve the issues completely, mostly because just looking at the data as a remote observer (without camera installed in a car) it would just look like the hands were not on the wheel.

Also it doesn't help that for Tesla it seems to be a nice way out of this kind of crashes – they can just say that driver's hands were not on the wheel and that's that. Who even has the data and can decode it? How can we make sure the data was not tampered with?

This needs to be investigated properly and not just by Tesla, they are a biased party.

<comment><USER21> > As an engineer, knowing how a lot of software and hardware systems are > actually implemented, 6 seconds is such a minuscule time frame.

It's a geological amount of time to a real-time system, which anything related to controlling a car absolutely will be. "Multiple seconds of unpredictable latency are OK" is an attitude that doesn't get you far when interacting with the physical world, and that's why there is an entire discipline dedicated to dealing with it that has to use special chips (e.g. the ARM R series), special OSes (e.g. VxWorks), and special tools (special IDEs, oscilloscopes, special cameras) to rise to the occasion.

If they let a "latency doesn't matter" system near any of these data streams, _that 's_ the scandal.

<comment><USER20> I do understand that, and that may be the case, but I don't think it will surprise anyone if there's a piece of nodejs somewhere handling something it shouldn't have, because someone just needed to ship. We don't know the quality of their code base and hardware or of all the code bases and hardware modules provided to them by 3rd parties.

<comment><USER22> I would be surprised if nodejs were anywhere near the real time, safety critical systems here. I'd also not buy a Tesla in that case.

<comment><USER23> I've seen so many pieces of safety-critical hardware BSOD at this point that I would not be at all surprised.

<comment><USER24> I don't think you know what actual safety-critical hardware is if you are running Windows or even Linux on it...

<comment><USER25> Well, obviously the maker of said hardware doesn't know what safety critical hardware means, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> It is interesting (to me at least) to compare the "first update":

[https://www.tesla.com/blog/what-we-know-about-last-weeks- acc...](https://www.tesla.com/blog/what-we-know-about-last-weeks-accident)

with the "last update" (the one that triggered the NTSB reaction):

[https://www.tesla.com/blog/update-last- week's-accident](https://www.tesla.com/blog/update-last-week's-accident)

as it allows to easily identify the "boilerplate" parts, but, more than that, the "first update" closes with:

"Out of respect for the privacy of our customer and his family, we do not plan to share any additional details until we conclude the investigation.

We would like to extend our deepest sympathies to the family and friends of our customer."

So, _logically_ , either the respect for the family vanished or Tesla concluded their investigation (in three days time).

<comment><USER27> I think as mentioned in the article - the family started making public statements and Tesla figured "Oh, you don't want PRIVACY (read: to STFU) then we're going to be TRANSPARENT (read: slander your dead relative to boost our shareprice)"

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> This goes from bad to worse for Tesla. It's all related to the original PR statement, but I'm guessing that Tesla have made further actions to anger the NTSB.

I don't understand why the change. They've already co-operated with the NTSB in the first Autopilot death (back in 2016) [0] with a much simpler PR statement [1] that didn't upset the NTSB.

[0]: [https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2016/INCLA- PE16007-7876.PDF](https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2016/INCLA- PE16007-7876.PDF)

[1]: [https://www.tesla.com/blog/tragic- loss](https://www.tesla.com/blog/tragic-loss)

<comment><USER29> Tesla has made three statement about this accident:

\- Original: [https://www.tesla.com/blog/what-we-know-about-last-weeks- acc...](https://www.tesla.com/blog/what-we-know-about-last-weeks-accident)

\- Update: [https://www.tesla.com/blog/update-last- week%E2%80%99s-accide...](https://www.tesla.com/blog/update-last- week%E2%80%99s-accident)

\- Newest: [http://abc7news.com/automotive/exclusive-tesla-issues- strong...](http://abc7news.com/automotive/exclusive-tesla-issues-strongest- statement-yet-blaming-driver-for-deadly-crash/3325908/)

None of which address the multiple videos of people reproducing the accident at the same and different locations, and none take any responsibility for this likely bug (lane centering in non-lanes) introduced in an over the air update.

Even Reddit's Tesla Motors sub which used to be a 24/7 Tesla celebrating has been pretty negative about Tesla's handling of this incident, and I'm talking regular posters and verified Tesla owners.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Tesla's terrible response to this and the detrimental effect on its image must be pretty obvious to most of the HN crowd. I have to wonder why they persist. Is their PR spin actually having a positive effect on the public at large?

<comment><USER31> Culture (like shit) runs downhill.

Mr. Musk seems like he's becoming increasingly erratic and controlling, and there's a record of him being unable to take criticism. This is a pretty intense form of criticism.

<comment><USER32> Your comment seems like trolling.

<comment><USER13> You didn't get the narcissism over the twitter spat with that urban planner?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> NTSB does an excellent job in its investigations in getting to the root cause of accidents. The only way they can do that is in a depoliticized atmosphere where they can focus on getting to the truth of something, not worrying about one of the parties to the accident spinning things for their commercial advantage. Tesla trying to corrupt an NTSB investigation like this is the worst kind of bad faith. Particularly for a technology as important as self- driving cars.

<comment><USER34> > NTSB ... The only way they can do that is in a depoliticized atmosphere > where they can focus on getting to the truth of something

And, if there is evidence Tesla has been negligent, the only way _they_ can win is by not being forced to release this evidence, perhaps by attacking the NTSB as being biased against Tesla.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I see many comments wondering why does Tesla not recognize stationary objects when it has a forward looking radar.

The radar can't distinguish between overhead signs, trees and things on the side of road. It only track moving things, otherwise there would be too many false positives and the car will keep braking every few minutes. Other Level 2 autonomous systems have the same limitation.

You might recall, Tesla hit a stationary fire truck in Jan [0]. This was caused due to a similar limitation in their software. Tesla was following a car at a slow speed. When that car suddenly moved out of the way to avoid hitting the Fire truck, Tesla AutoPilot accelerated to match the set speed and hit the fire truck. To summarize, if a moving car suddenly moves out of the way, Tesla will almost always hit whatever is stopped further down the lane. They even call this out in their User Manual.

Tesla is hoping that it would be able to get it's Vision capabilities to the point where it would be able figure out obstructions using cameras working in conjunction with the radar. But there is no committed timeline for this.

LIDAR is able to avoid this by using directed LASERs to build a 3d outline of all the surrounding objects. A system relying on LIDAR would have challenges in RAIN and falling snow. However under natural conditions (where most Tesla deaths with Autopilot have occurred - hitting a SEMI from side, hitting the barrier recently), LIDAR would be able to completely avoid the accidents.

However, if and when, Tesla vision capabilities are able to detect obstructions, they might be much cheaper and more effective than LIDAR in all kind of weather condition. Hoping they can get there soon. And I also wish they would fix their marketing to more accurately reflect the capabilities of the driver assist system and stop misleading the public.

[0] [https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/01/22/tesla-on-autopilot- sl...](https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/01/22/tesla-on-autopilot-slams-into- parked-fire-truck-on-freeway/)

<comment><USER36> If this is true then how can we have had Collision Avoidance systems[1] in cars for years that are able to automatically apply the brakes to prevent this sort of accident? And If the answer is 'autopilot doesn't work that way' then why not use both systems, with the collision avoidance system taking precedence as it deems necessary?

1\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collision_avoidance_system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collision_avoidance_system)

<comment><USER35> All the systems which work on radar have similar limitations. More details: [https://www.wired.com/story/tesla-autopilot-why-crash- radar/](https://www.wired.com/story/tesla-autopilot-why-crash-radar/)

<comment><USER36> After reading about this for a while, just now, I'm much less comfortable with the idea of trusting an automotive autopilot system. Just imagine if your taxi driver told you "I will drive perfectly safely, except if there is a truck parked in the road. Then I will run into it at speed." It seems like such a glaring omission. If I were an engineer I don't think I would be comfortable releasing an autopilot system with this kind of safety issue.

<comment><USER37> Which is why most companies aren't willing to call these things "autopilots" \- Mobileye, for example, pitches its systems as assistants which will catch some of the driver's mistakes, similar to the "collision avoidance" language. This also comes with the corollary that they often aren't willing to give these systems as much control of the car as Tesla does.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I am surprised at PR Silicon Valley companies are doing these days. First it was Facebook and now Tesla. They keep trying to avoid responsibility by blaming someone other than themselves. How hard is to just say "we are looking into it" and do a comprehensive test before making a statement.

<comment><USER39> What if Tesla isn't responsible? I assume you don't expect them to sit quietly for a year+ while they are ravaged in the media in that case. What is the correct course of action?

I feel like some of the criticism of tech companies has gone from thoughtful to kneejerk lately.

<comment><USER40> The correct course of action is to follow the NTSB guidelines for participating in a probe, and to not continually attack the accident victim in the press.

Tesla could survive this accident easily if they handle it properly. Keep mishandling it, and Tesla could be in a world of hurt.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Tesla's actions in this case, and before, have convinced me they are not a company I would want to buy a car from.

<comment><USER42> Tesla has done one really important and useful thing: demonstrate fully electric cars are not only possible, but also feasible. The rest has been a shitshow. They should've focused on range instead. But oh this is one of the companies meant to fund the incredibly useful mission to send speaking monkeys to mars to see if mr. Musk can go there too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Letter from NTSB to Tesla regarding its removal: [https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Documents/HWY18FH011-Tes...](https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Documents/HWY18FH011-TeslaPartyRemovalNotificationLetter-041218.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER44> Essentially a Tesla car tries to kill you by following the wrong road markings over and over again (as remarked by the wife of the dead driver). Tesla puts the focus on you to detect ever time when the car wants to kill you and act fast enough. If you like that, buy Tesla.

</comment><comment><USER45> If there was any doubt that Tesla is a bad actor in the self-driving space, this settles it. Imagine if Boeing or Lockheed did this nonsense after a fatal plane crash!

<comment><USER46> Yes, what a shame it would be if Boeing made public comments about something being investigated by the NTSB... Oh wait they did [0] and the NTSB decided not to kick them off...

> The agency stopped short of restricting Boeing's access to its investigation > ... In some previous cases, the NTSB has gone so far as to throw > participants off an investigation for violating its rules. In December 2010, > the safety board removed American Airlines Inc. from an investigation into a > runway accident in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, two days earlier.

[0] [http://www.heraldnet.com/business/ntsb-scolds-boeing- over-78...](http://www.heraldnet.com/business/ntsb-scolds-boeing- over-787-comments/)

<comment><USER47> Yes, they did; once. Which is far, far outweighed by the hundreds of investigations in which they did not.

The exception which proves the rule.

What's Tesla's batting average? 50%?

<comment><USER48> So many keep quoting this but I fail to see how exceptions prove rules. In fact they contribute to disproving whatever it is that they are an exception for.

<comment><USER49> I believe the original meaning is more like if there is an exception, there must be a rule (otherwise it wouldn't _be_ an exception/you wouldn't need an exception). It's been watered down a lot, and is often used to suggest that any counterexample makes a rule stronger (which is obviously not always the case -- enough counterexamples just proves the rule is wrong/doesn't exist).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Given how Tesla has handled this fatality, how has your opinion of Tesla changed. Has anybody here decided that they are never going to buy a Tesla? Or do you view this as just overblown and you would still buy a Tesla if you could.

<comment><USER51> > Given how Tesla has handled this fatality, how has your opinion of Tesla > changed.

Just one data point here, but it absolutely has tanked Tesla's reputation in my mind. Even though I was always skeptical of them from a business perspective, I thought they were basically well-meaning and their only crime was being too enthusiastic. These last few months have convinced me that they're no better than Uber: they're being reckless with unproven and inferior technology (Elon's spin notwithstanding, there are good reasons why every other autonomous car program is using LIDAR), and they're trying to use disingenuous PR to pass off the inevitable deaths as someone else's problem.

I was vaguely considering getting a Model 3 when the waitlist eased up a little, but now that's definitely not going to happen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Misleading title. Tesla was forcibly kicked off the investigation by the NTST.

<comment><AUTHOR> That was the original title of the article at the time of submission, after more details came out Bloomberg updated the title.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> Tesla's autopilot system is no different than a self driving car with a safety driver and should be subjected to the same regulation. In a self driving car (Waymo, Cruise, etc) driver turns on autonomous mode when the driver thinks it's safe to do so. All drivers are thoroughly trained for the safety of themselves and other people on the road. Companies must obtain permits to have cars on the road and report annually on safety of the system. I'm not comfortable driving in the road knowing Tesla's drivers are not trained, the company is not subjected to the same laws as self driving system even though the drivers can turn on Autopilot ANYTIME they want, and the car can do WHATEVER.

<comment><USER54> Drivers actually cannot turn on Autopilot anytime they want: it prevents you from doing so in noticeably adverse conditions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> While Tesla's response to the accident has been very aggressive (to the point of being rude), transparency is also important. Not being able to talk about an accident for an entire year would be a disservice to the community and most likely lead to rampant speculation considering how high profile these accidents are.

In this case Tesla has handled the entire incident rather poorly, but it makes sense that they would want to abstain from the investigation to be more transparent about what happened. Keep in mind that in a year from now the data about the accident will be mostly irrelevant.

<comment><USER51> > transparency is also important.

It's pretty misleading to defend Tesla in the name of transparency: so far, Tesla has been nothing but opaque regarding this incident. There's a whole lot of spin, unsupported claims, blaming the driver, and refusing to acknowledge Autopilot problems like veering into crash barriers post-update. That's the whole reason _why_ the NTSB "fired" them: they were trying to create confusion around a transparent investigation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> It's frustrating to see that car companies see themselves as "partners" to the NTSB or other investigators.

Self-driving car companies should have only one obligation: provide all the relevant car crash data to the investigators, then step out of the way, and keep its mouth shut until the investigation concludes.

I've been warning since a couple of years ago that this is going to be an issue if not solved early on and that self-driving car companies need to be _liable_ for car crashes (the one who's found at fault by investigators). But we haven't even established this.

Also, I think it's inevitable that all "self-driving" that isn't guaranteed by a government body to be Level 4 or higher should be banned from public roads. Sub-Level 4 self-driving is just not safe, and the very situations in which carmakers argue it would help reduce accidents are incompatible with these companies' own ToS.

For instance, let's say someone is drunk and has a Level 2 car (like a Tesla). According to Tesla, such a person should enable self-driving, as that will _on average_ reduce the likelihood of crashes compared to if the drunk person drove themselves home.

But Tesla's own ToS says such a person would need to be constantly vigilant and with their hands always on the wheel, not fall asleep, and so on. How likely is that going to be with a drunk person? My guess is not very likely.

If the Autopilot malfunctioned like it did in the latest crash, that drunk person would die, because there's no way a drunk person could take the wheel and drive safely when even sober people can't seem to do it when they stop paying attention for a while.

<comment><USER57> > It's frustrating to see that car companies see themselves as "partners" to > the NTSB or other investigators.

That is how the NTSB "party" system is ran[0]. Contrary to what is shown in various movies eg. Flight(2012), Sully (2016), an NTSB investigation is not an adversarial process, and is not a criminal investigation. Additionally, NTSB determined cause (an opinion by the board) cannot be used as evidence in civil litigation.

Asiana 214 [2] is a good example of the NTSB being somewhat divided in the opinion of the 777 autopilot having a design flaw vs "pilot human performance" as the cause of the crash.

IMHO both the autopilot design and the pilot performance were causal factors in the crash. It is probable the NTSB will determine both the Tesla driver and the autopilot were causal factors in this crash.

[0] [https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/process/Pages/default.as...](https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/process/Pages/default.aspx)

[1] [https://www.ntsb.gov/legal/Documents/NTSB_Investigation_Part...](https://www.ntsb.gov/legal/Documents/NTSB_Investigation_Party_Form.pdf)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214)

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> Riding in a Tesla with autopilot turned on is like driving with a new teenage driver: you're terrified at any minute it's going to do something crazy like steer you into a concrete wall.

There are certain situations that you can quickly get into via steering inputs to the car that cannot be recovered, so the point of even keeping your hands on the steering wheel as an argument for legal liability is moot: before you even realize what's happening to take over and apply corrective action it will often times simply be too late.

Additionally, most people, save for professional drivers, do not have enough experience to know _what_ corrective steering inputs to perform during an emergency situation. In many cases, any corrective action via steering, brake or acceleration control input from the human driver will be incorrect and thus lead to an unpredictable and dangerous situation.

By this logic, Tesla needs to be held accountable for any accidents where they argue human intervention would help.

<comment><USER54> Literally moving the wheel or stepping on the gas stops Autopilot -- I'm not sure how that is unknown if such an action will be "correct".

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I always see this framed as between Tesla and the driver of whatever vehicle has crashed. That framing is irresponsible and should stop.

When a Tesla owner chooses to use autopilot, it has a potential impact on other drivers and pedestrians around them - not just driver. Part of the reason we have regulations about seatbelts and airbags isn't just that they keep passengers safe its that they make crashes safer for others on the roads. With a human driver, others are on the same page and can do things like make eye contact or assess the behavior of another driver. In an accident, they can hold that driver responsible. It is not other drivers nor pedestrians role to accept the risk for a Tesla driver wh omay or may not understand the specific nuances of a specific software patch. Thats why we regulate vehicles and license drivers. As a society we choose to do that because the organizations that do so are an enormous efficienty and capability improvement in assessment as compared to asking each individual driver to do the same.

I don't really want to make this political but frankly the seeming lack of understanding strikes me as very software/app/tech mindset and very much a product of the intermingled libertarian leanings. Cars are not software.

<comment><USER37> > Cars are not software.

Software is also not software (in this framing). I think the Facebook elections fiasco has shown that even something as innocuous as social media has consequences beyond the strictly user<->company relationship.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> So I can't help but wonder. If the Tesla autopilot system has forward looking radar with a 160m range, why wouldn't it notice it was about to drive into something and apply the brakes?

I've read these systems work by assigning probability to each of the sensor inputs and choosing the most likely guess at what's really happening (or something like that). But shouldn't even a low probability of "you're about to crash and die" have more weight than a high probability of "it looks like the road goes this way".

</comment><comment><USER59> I neither like nor dislike Tesla but most of you are missing the point. The cars are semi-autonomous not fully. They are hardware ready and one day will get a firmware upgrade as such. It is very, very clearly stated that you are still responsible for driving the vehicle. If you choose to focus on your phone or watch a movie or read a book, etc, well bad things can happen. Slamming on the brakes or taking evasive action is not appropriate for a semi- autonomous car to do. What if the Tesla driver survived but an innocent person in another car was killed. Wow, would everyone be screaming. We always like to blame something and not take responsibility. Last year a woman made a left hand turn in front of a slow moving transport as I was driving in the lane beside the transport. She drove right in to the drivers door and then tried to tell the police it was my fault. Until something is proven otherwise this looks like someone taking the tech for granted and not watching the road inspire if instructions and warnings. Tesla is I no way at fault at this time.

</comment><comment><USER54> Many people in these threads are stating very loudly "well if Tesla didn't want to be culpable they shouldn't call it Autopilot".

Two things:

1\. Regardless of the name, Tesla has never marketed this as a product which allows you to at any point stop paying attention to the road or take your hands off the wheel. At least to my knowledge.

2\. The name. "Autopilot". The only time I'd ever heard the term "autopilot" before Tesla used it was in Airplanes. I'm not entirely sure how everyone is forgetting this, but planes have had "autopilot" for decades and _all_ passenger planes still have pilots. Commercial jets have TWO pilots (at least) who are highly paid and have a huge amount of flight time in order to ensure that _someone_ is paying attention _at all times_. All of these aforementioned jets have "autopilot". Tesla is absolutely not holding their drivers to a higher standard than they should given the name "autopilot". I'm not sure why this is so often parroted but it's nonsense.

<comment><USER60> Autopilot means self-piloting. How many average people know the extent to which autopilot on airplanes is used, and what exactly it does? I would imagine a good bit of people think that autopilot does everything and that the pilot is just there in case of an emergency. If you translate that to cars, given the number of people with driver's licenses (not exactly a specialty like being a pilot is), I think it's dangerous to use the name autopilot.

<comment><USER54> Autopilot has never been used to describe a system which does the entirety of control functions on its own. Ever. Autopilot is an aeronautics term, and every system ever described as autopilot has meant the ability to maintain course. That is all.

In actual fact, because Tesla's Autopilot has lane change capability, it actually goes above and beyond the conventional definition[1] of "Automatic Pilot".

Anyone with half a brain doesn't even expect a "hoverboard" in 2018 to actually hover, and that _is_ a bastardization of the term. I'm honestly struggling to understand why people are having such a hard time with this.

1: [http://www.dictionary.com/browse/automatic- pilot](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/automatic-pilot)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> A little OT, but given the nature of this bug, I'm surprised we haven't heard of many more of these types of accidents, given the possible number of highways on which road lines may be ambiguous. Is it a problem of underreporting? Are all the other Tesla drivers just that much more attentive when using Autopilot?

</comment><comment><USER62> Why would a party like Tesla, with an obvious conflict of interest, be part of the investigation? They should be on the receiving end of the investigation, not part of it. It's like having Enron be part of the investigation.

It really doesn't matter what spin Tesla puts on this. Their car drove into a concrete wall. They can talk about hands on the wheel or off. They can talk about how it's only called autopilot, but it really isn't. It doesn't change the fact that their software drove the vehicle into a concrete wall. Was it asleep? Perhaps it had an attention lapse? Perhaps it mistook a solid, immovable object for something else?

If you have something called autopilot, the one thing it should never, ever do is drive into a solid, immovable object, that is easy to not hit.

</comment><comment><USER63> > Companies that no longer have formal status as a party to an NTSB > investigation can lose access to information uncovered in the probe and the > ability to shape the official record of the incident ...

It's absurd that the normal process does give companies the ability to shape the official record of the incident. They should never be a party to the NTSB investigation to begin with, because they cannot be neutral with respect to their own acts and omissions. Their role should always have been what it is now: technical assistance.

</comment><comment><USER64> I like Tessa. I hope they succeed as a company. That said, their claim that the driver had his hands of the steering wheel for 6 seconds implying that they are absolved of any wrong doing seems hard to buy. They may eventually be absolved of wrong doing legally, however I think that statement is bad from PR point of view in addition to casting a bad light on the autopilot tech (It got confused within 6 seconds of him taking his hands off)!

</comment><comment><USER65> Here's the thing about autopilot all the way up through self-driving cars:

A perfect system would never have a fatality. EVERY problem that ends in fatality can ALWAYS be traced to some flaw or inadequacy. Every. Single. One.

That is why self-driving cars will eventually be far safer than any human driver (because every fatality can be stopped), and why the natural human tendency will be to crucify any company who attempts to enter the market[0,1], which will mean millions of more unnecessary deaths at the hands of human drivers because we'll delay deploying self-driving technology until it's perfect.

[0]Even if they, accurately, point out the driver is still responsible and that overall safety is improved. Accuracy doesn't matter, emotional resonance does. That's victim blaming!

[1]At the same time, this intense focus--while it's "unfair" given the masses of car deaths every day--is also what will drive the massive improvements of safety. So the inaccurate outcry can actually be a good thing. Provided that original player doesn't give up or go out of business first. This dynamic can help explain why airlines in the developed world are so _ridiculously_ safe (...but also perhaps why airliner technology has been stagnant for half a century, with only safety and incremental efficiency/cost improvements).

<comment><USER66> > A perfect system would never have a fatality. EVERY problem that ends in > fatality can ALWAYS be traced to some flaw or inadequacy. Every. Single. > One.

I've been in a wreck on the highway from a random tire blow out. Happens all the time. While an AI will ultimately be able to handle that situation way better than a human, I don't see it eliminating all risk without just always driving slower.

<comment><USER65> >...random tire blowout...

I'm not saying your point isn't valid, however...

[http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html](http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html)

Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design:

"25\. (Bowden's Law) Following a testing failure, it's always possible to refine the analysis to show that you really had negative margins all along."

Your tire blowout wasn't "random," from this perspective, it occurred due to a failure at some point: inadequately tight manufacturing tolerances, a regulator system or system integrator that accepted such tolerances, a random thing in the road (which AI could've picked up on), a temperature spike (which AI could've picked up on), a change in tire dynamics immediately preceding the incident which you didn't notice (which AI could've picked up on), incomplete inspections, etc.

Even if that specific failure is NOT directly something that AI would solve, the elimination of basically every human driving error would bring focus to any other problems. Right now, random tire blowouts are not the predominant cause of death and so people don't focus much on it, but if all other causes were eliminated, then all of a sudden everyone would be focusing on better engineered tires.

This is the same dynamic as in airline safety. Every airliner failure in developed countries is plastered over the media for months simply because it's so rare, therefore any remaining deficiency is brought into tight focus.

I can see the headline: "Tesla owner DIES in random tire blowout! Shoddy quality to control to blame; sharks circle as Tesla tanks!"

(High media coverage is a double-edged sword for Tesla...)

> I don't see it eliminating all risk without just always driving slower.

...it's worth noting that airliners use tires at hundreds of miles per hour, yet fatalities basically never happen. Things can be engineered to be arbitrarily safe.

<comment><USER66> If you are talking about improving the crash safety of cars in general by making vehicular structural changes and inventing new tire chemistry and manufacturing processes, that is a separate issue than self driving, to the extent it would improve safety for regular drivers too.

>...it's worth noting that airliners use tires at hundreds of miles per hour, yet fatalities basically never happen. Things can be engineered to be arbitrarily safe.

Aircraft are protecting all eggs in one basket. If you want to talk about the roadways being maintained and cleaned at the level of runways, you're crediting self-driving for something that isn't self-driving. Aircraft may have different structural scaling laws in play too (500 20 second touchdowns before replacement/refurbishment, short periods high stress).

An how far are you going to allow reengineering everything? Would it be ok to call slightly modified 747s that can taxi themselves self-driving cars? Trains?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> I wish more federal agencies did this to more arrogant corps. People have died and tesla is responding by blaming the dead people for everything! Not even a semblance of a good investigation.

Elon Musk should intervene and apologize if he has even a bit of humanity.

</comment><comment><USER68> Autopilot is a terrible marketing term. Should not be trusted in any sort of complex highway situation. Reliance on road lines is so risky...

</comment><comment><USER69> Tesla's done a shitty job of handling PR related to this crash. But I think the NTSB is in the moral (not legal) wrong on this particular issue.

The NTSB's job is to investigate accidents, and as part of that to maintain their own reputation. Their job is not to pressure companies into not saying anything. By attempting to do so they are just hampering the ability to investigate the accident.

If Tesla had said "and the NTSB investigation is going in this direction" I would have agreed with the decision. But as boneheaded as Tesla's PR has been it hasn't done anything of the sort, the NTSB has no reason to fear for their own reputation as a result of this.

<comment><USER70> Their job often involves interviewing many people, and to do that and get useful results you want them unbiased (for the same reason as you want a jury that doesn't already know about the trial).

<comment><USER69> Sure, but how does working less closely with Tesla result in more unbiased people?

<comment><USER37> A couple of things:

1\. Having Tesla keep their mouths shut results in more unbiased people. Kicking Tesla off the investigation is in large part a _deterrent_ , not a corrective action.

2\. This change also involves giving Tesla less access to data that they might leak. Information collected from the car's logs is under NTSB control (in past cases, for example, American Airlines was punished for _making its own copy of the black box_ before handing it over). You can reduce these issues by not sharing information with an unreliable party.

<comment><USER69> > 1\. Having Tesla keep their mouths shut results in more unbiased people. > Kicking Tesla off the investigation is in large part a deterrent, not a > corrective action.

This purpose is in plain violation of the principles of freedom of speech, and the first amendment. The government is not permitted, morally or legally, to punish people for speaking. As such I'm not counting it.

> 2\. This change also involves giving Tesla less access to data that they > might leak. Information collected from the car's logs is under NTSB control > (in past cases, for example, American Airlines was punished for making its > own copy of the black box before handing it over). You can reduce these > issues by not sharing information with an unreliable party.

This could be a legitimate purpose, but it seems so minor that short of the NTSB mentioning it I'm skeptical. The gain doesn't seem to be worth the loss of working closely with the manufacturer...

<comment><USER37> The government is absolutely allowed to limit speech on this level within the bounds of the 1st Amendment. Fire-in-a-crowded-theater and all that.

<comment><USER69> "fire in a crowded theater" is largely repealed and now requires "imminent lawless action" which certainly isn't the case here. Please read more about it here [0], written by a lawyer. Ignore the headline, the author wasn't pleased with it either [1].

Generally exceptions to free speech are extremely limited, "because we don't want you to bias people" is _definitely_ not within an exception.

[0] [http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-white-first- amend...](http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-white-first-amendment- slogans-20170608-story.html)

[1] [https://www.popehat.com/2017/06/08/free-speech-tropes-in- the...](https://www.popehat.com/2017/06/08/free-speech-tropes-in-the-la- times/)

<comment><USER71> Jurors are routinely forbidden from discussing the case they are trying, parties to a settlement can be barred from discussing it, etc., etc., so there are quite a bit more limitations on "free speech" than that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> I had the same thought after reading the news. It should be called pilot assistant or something similar.

</comment><comment><USER73> Tesla is using the orange dotard defense: "no collusion!" NTSB did right by me.</comment>


Hey by Basecamp - <AUTHOR> https://hey.com/features/ <comment><USER2> Show HN is for sharing your personal work. Did you work on this?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html)

<comment><USER3> The title reads, "by Basecamp"

<comment><USER2> The submitted title was "Show HN: Hey by Basecamp". I probably should have mentioned taking "Show HN" out.</comment></comment></comment>


Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/01/magazine/climate-change-losing-earth.html <comment><USER3> Great read. It's always interesting to see how individuals (John Sununu, Rush Limbaugh) have the capacity to change the arc of history - against prevailing wisdom and agreed facts. Sure, they had massive support from the oil industry, but Europe also has an oil industry and it didn't change Europe's stance on climate change.

For a real-time update on climate change, just look at the canary in the cold- mine - Arctic Sea Ice. I have a look daily in summer to see if we will again break the record minimum and when the summer will be ice-free there - it will happen within a decade or two at the most. For Arctic sea ice voyeurs, check this out: [https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/](https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/)

<comment><USER4> US emissions of CO2 have fallen much faster than Europe's. Europe likes to talk a lot but not to compromise. So while they could be fracking and displacing dirty energy sources, they instead use oil and coal where the US uses natural gas.

<comment><USER5> That is correct no country in the world has reduced CO2 emissions like the US did in the past decade, thanks to Shale revolution. Pennsylvania is the world's #3 producer of NG. I mean one state in US.

Even if some people grudge this fact, the Grid is not ready for variable generation that Wind and Solar does, they do buy some time for Grid to become smarter (Grid of MicroGrids) where it can digest Solar and Wind, especially now that viable storage like batteries and fuel cells are coming off age.

<comment><USER3> Hang on. The US pulled out the Paris accord. The US also had a huge financial crisis that caused emissions to drop. I don't think policy can take credit for the slight reductions in Co2 emissions, from ridiculously high levels.

<comment><USER5> Policy tinkering as a solution to climate problem is like EU trying to force Windows to include other browsers to dethrone IE.

What actually dethroned IE was Chrome and better Firefox.

Policy wonking can push you in certain direction, but they do not solve. Sometimes the bridge technologies are the ones that save from imminent doom.

People demonstrating urgency with climate change, can certainly set an example by cutting their quality of life by half for starters!

<comment><USER6> Who's to say that regulations didn't play into the demise of IE? Maybe if we hadn't had the antitrust cases in the EU (and the US!), at some point MS would've been confident enough to just make it impossible to install a different browser. Similar to how Apple requires all iOS browsers to use the Apple's engine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Ouch. I read this and I am completely confused about what to do with the rest of the time I have left. Should I even bother with my current career in tech, or would it be better to quit it and do something that could have even a slight impact now?

These articles are great, but preaching to the choir. What should any of us do? I'm seriously and sincerely asking. Are there any suggestions, from a personal stand point i.e. excluding a completely new economic model and government structure? Is it to drive less and cut out meat? (done) Buy less stuff? Support the right organizations and political candidates?

What if one is doing all of those things already, now what? Just sit here and watch our homes go up in flames as the entire place becomes a desert? Some actionable things would be great to have.

<comment><USER8> "I read this and I am completely confused about what to do with the rest of the time I have left."

It is a grave life error to assign excessive likelihood to the doomsayers. I've been reading about inevitable doom for 25 years now. Some of what I read as a kid dated to the 60s and the guaranteed dates of inevitable doom had already passed by the time I read them in the early 90s.

Even assuming they are completely 100% right about the problems, which is frankly a _big_ assumption, they rarely, if ever, even remotely account for the fact that people and the economy change in reaction to problems.

Also, consider the possibility that this feeling of hopelessness is something that perhaps somebody _wants_ to instill in you. Why? Who benefits? Are their hands as clean as you suppose? Are you _sure_? I'm a big fan of "follow the money"; where most people fuck that up is that they only want to follow the money _sometimes_ , when it suits them. Nope... _always_ follow it. "Follow the money" is almost always used wrong; you don't need it to debunk the people you already don't trust, you need it to vet the people you _do_. Doomsaying has been exceedingly profitable over the past ~60 years. (It's been profitable even farther back than that, but mass market doomsaying really took off somewhere around then, which is where the real money is.) Do not forget to take that into account.

(Also, as my post implies, don't assume I'm speaking just to the particular _doom de jour_ , about which you might still have emotional reactions. I'm talking about nuclear war, population bombs, a multitude of claims we're running out of some resource, trash management issues, a wide variety of eschatological claims, all sorts of things I've read in the last 30 years. You may say "But jerf, some of those are still problems and may be problems in the future" and I say, I agree. I often like to say "Stand up. Point in a random direction. You are pointing at a problem." There are always problems and always will be problems. But we're not talking about problems... we're talking about _doom_. The _doom_ has not happened. I believe fully in environmental problems both in the present and the future. I do not anywhere near fully believe in _inevitable doom_.)

<comment><USER9> It's tricky when a preponderance of evidence and theory tells us that the lag time on the signal is several decades but human generations are also measured in decades. It doesn't matter how strong your negative feedback is if the system it's controlling is in thermal runaway by the time you apply a corrective signal.

Maybe we can bandaid or mitigate the worst effects for some people. Probably richer people. But just see Harvey and wildfires and droughts for strong evidence that we will not do anything whatsoever even when cities are being destroyed by inaction.

<comment><USER8> Harvey? The hurricane that was the first to make landfall after 12 years of no hurricanes? After we were repeatedly explicitly promised increased hurricanes because of global warming? The one that Wikipedia lists as merely a category 4 and looms large in your mind simply because of where it happened to hit?

Did anyone ever admit their predictions about increased hurricanes during those 12 years were wrong? I never saw it. You just remember the images, not the 12 years of no images.

And I remember wildfires in California when I was a kid, too. Except now probably about 10 million people live closer to them and like to build houses in the way of them. (Oh, and let's not forget how many of those fires turn out to be less about "global warming" and more about _arson_. After a certain point, dry is just dry.)

This is part of why I really can't get myself too worked up over Certain Environmental Doom... it's always people sharing emotionally vivid anecdotes instead of data. When I look at the statistical data, it isn't much to get worked up over. The IPCC warming estimates have already been revised down to the point that it's hardly worth worrying about; it's not as if "zero degrees of change in a century" was ever on the table.

It's the emotionally charged anecdotes that get you worked up and feeling doomed and hopeless. Again, who benefits? Sure isn't you.

I'm personally more interested in the ocean plastic problem than global warming at the moment. Global warming has really failed to pan out as a threat, in my opinion.

But then, bear in mind once again I'm brushing 40. If you're twenty-something and inclined to pull your hair out over what I'm saying here, think about where you would be with another 15 years of your current level of concern, but if you looked outside on the same world you do now. I see anecdotes and anecdotes and anecdotes about how horrible climate change is, but the data isn't anywhere near as scary as the news stories being written... in fact I see the news stories getting scarier even as the data gets less scary to me. In fact it's downright bizzare to compare the predictions made now nearly twenty years ago to what actually happened, and to read all these stories that are written as if the predictions made twenty years ago actually happened, or perhaps even happened worse than predicted, instead of being rather a ways off the mark.

Personally, I'd probably actually be more concerned if I read a story that basically said "Here's the predictions made 20 years ago. Here's why they didn't pan out. Here's the models that we made 10 years ago that fixed the problem and evidence that they've done a great job predicting the last ten. Here's why those models are showing problems 20 years down the road and why this time we actually know what we are talking about." But that's not what I read. What I see is just screeching panic, and most damningly, denial that any error was ever made when it is plainly obvious that errors were made, and that IPCC report estimates have in fact been trending _down_ and not up. When no error can ever be admitted, it's clearly a political process, not a scientific one, because it's in politics you can't ever admit you were wrong, not even a little, with the only error you're allowed to admit to is that you didn't realize how right you were at the time. I don't recommend driving yourself into anxiety and insanity for a process so obviously filled with politics.

<comment><USER10> _And I remember wildfires in California when I was a kid, too. Except now probably about 10 million people live closer to them and like to build houses in the way of them. (Oh, and let 's not forget how many of those fires turn out to be less about "global warming" and more about arson. After a certain point, dry is just dry.)_

The problem isn't what sets the fire. It's that the heat dries out the forests, making any fires larger and more devastating. For example: you can light a fire pretty much anywhere in an Eastern forest, because they're sufficiently wet that a fire won't grow very large. You could even do that a few decades ago in the West. But try that now in California, you and could start a thousands-acre conflagration so hot it kills the soil and doesn't burn out until literally all available fuel has been used up.

 _Did anyone ever admit their predictions about increased hurricanes during those 12 years were wrong? I never saw it. You just remember the images, not the 12 years of no images._

There have been way more hurricanes. Luckily for us, the oceans are very large, and most of those hurricanes did not make landfall.

<comment><USER11> How much of that is also due to improved fire fighting causing more fuel buildup than is natural?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I feel like this article underestimates the difficulty of stopping climate change. Would China have remained poor, if in the 1980's a better anti- climate-change treaty had been signed? Would the world have discovered better clean technology? There is a tendency to assume that treaties just solve the problem. I suspect that a different treaty would have failed, just like current negotiations are failing, because of the immense cost of slowing climate change.

<comment><USER13> I feel much the same.

I think the concerns about climate change are wildly overstated for the developed world. There are some more concerns when subsistence farming is the primary way of living, but humans (and humanity) adapt, and we adapt with great alacrity.

<comment><USER14> _" concerns about climate change are wildly overstated for the developed world"_

Can I ask you why you think that is the case? Why would industrialized farming and the food supply chain that feeds the developed world do better?

<comment><USER15> The simple answer is because modern day society has a lot of money, and decades in the future we are going to have even MORE money. Compound interest is a hell of a drug, and GDP growth. is showing no signs of slowing.

What I mean by this is that we as a society arent fully exploiting our land even CLOSE to as much as it could be.

Our food production system operates in the normal economic model of marginal costs. We could produce way more food if we wanted, it would just cost more.

And in the future, if global warming has reduced our food production capacity, we wouldn't run out of food. The only thing that would do is force us to use these more expensive methods of food production.

And we have more than enough money now, and definitely in the future, to pay for it. Food is a small percentage of everyone's paychecks. Costs going up by 20% doesn't mean much.

<comment><USER14> What are those methods of production that will feed 8B people in a world that is 5 deg C warmer? I think you are just hand-waving around hard, unsolved, and possibly intractable problems.

<comment><USER15> Firstly, 5 degrees C is a much larger degree of warming than anyone is predicting for any of their worst case scenarios in the next 200 years. So 200 years from now, the problem will likely sound laughable.

But to answer your question anyway, yes I think that we could solve that problem today with current technology.

There are a couple reasons why. For 1, increasing temperatures also opens up unused land in cold places, that werent bring used before. Potentially, it might produce MORE arable land than it removes, once we get all the infrastructure up, of course.

And 2, it's not about "technology". There are tons of land that we "could" be using for food right now. We aren't using that land, because it is mountainous or has a bad climate, and would therefore produce lower yields.

But just because a mountainous area or a bad climate produces low yeilds doesn't mean that it would produce literally 0 food. It would produce SOME food, and the only reason we aren't using it now is because it is more expensive.

So the answer is the tons and tons of land that we aren't using for farming right now, but we could be using.

<comment><USER14> [https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm...](https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm- projections-of.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> How can a dev get into clean-tech today? What are the current problems a software engineer could solve? Please, someone with the knowledge give us a path. I wish there was an HN on clean-tech with emphasis on IT

<comment><USER17> I agree, would love to find HN for cleantech.

I went through this search recently - companies at the nexus of software and cleantech in the bay area, here was my shortlist so you can see what kinds of things these companies are working on: AutoGrid, Bidgely, Ohm Connect, Tesla, Utility API, Omnidian, Stem, Advanced Microgrid Solutions

If you're thinking of starting something yourself, energy seems to be an especially idiosyncratic industry that I think doesn't lend itself easily to outside in solutions, it really pays to work in it for a couple years to soak up the knowledge. You'll find tons of opportunities once you're on the inside.

A few of the better opportunities that come to mind from my point of view: 1\. Software & analytics based EE and DR (Bidgely, Autogrid, Ohmconnect, First Fuel) 2\. Grid analytics, especially around citing and incorporating renewables, controlling batteries to maximize value to the grid and owner (AMS, Stem, Tesla) 3\. Customer acquisition for cleantech products - <USER2> scale (helping sell devices to homes) and large scale (helping developing projects)

All of these things have significant software and analytics bent and will be key parts of the solution

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Why isn't there a billion dollar reward to any person or company that comes up with a cost-effective way to capture carbon from the air and convert back to solid carbon? I'd love to understand the physics (or chemistry? maybe economy?) that prevents this from materialising.

<comment><USER3> We have a solution - reduce carbon/methane emissions. Why bet the bank on a technology that hasn't been invented yet? If you said to somebody with 100 billion dollars: capture as much carbon as you can. What would they do? I would just plant trees for that money. Sure, we need basic research on carbon sequestration, but we need fundamental breakthroughs to make it happen. Time, we don't have.

<comment><USER19> > Why bet the bank on a technology that hasn't been invented yet?

Because it's too late. Unless magic non-existent carbon capture technology materializes soon, we're basically fucked.

[https://www.vox.com/2016/10/4/13118594/2-degrees-no-more- fos...](https://www.vox.com/2016/10/4/13118594/2-degrees-no-more-fossil-fuels)

 _Check out that middle graphic. If we really want to avoid 1.5 degrees, and we can't rely on large-scale carbon sequestration, then the global community has to zero out its carbon emissions by 2026._

 _Ten years from now._

That article is two years old and, to state the obvious, global CO2 emissions are not on track to reach zero in the next eight years.

<comment><USER20> But the world doesn't end when we hit 1.5. We'll still be here, and we can still shape how much things change.

<comment><USER19> > we can still shape how much things change.

No we can't, because most of the CO2 _has already been emitted_ : [https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-four-years-left-one- poi...](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-four-years-left-one-point-five- carbon-budget)

Unless you invent a time machine, or as postulated by OP, some magic sequestration technology to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere and put it back in the ground, it's too late.

It's like we're in a car that's driven over a cliff, and you're saying "Well, we're still here, as long as we invent a way for this car to fly in the next 15 seconds before impact, then we'll be okay"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Why was this removed from the front page?

<comment><USER14> There is a vocal minority of people don't believe the overwhelming scientific consensus about global warming, and they downvote, flag, and argue in these posts aggressively. Consequently, the topic gets the reputation of being "divisive". It's playbook how to make an important topic taboo, and an extraordinary success for the people that don't believe the overwhelming scientific consensus about the impact of modern human activity on the climate (or believe it, but profit from the status quo).

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> _Six weeks after Hansen's testimony, Exxon's manager of science and strategy development, Duane LeVine, prepared an internal strategy paper urging the company to "emphasize the uncertainty in scientific conclusions." This shortly became the default position of the entire sector. LeVine, it so happened, served as chairman of the global petroleum industry's Working Group on Global Climate Change, created the same year, which adopted Exxon's position as its own._

This is lying, spreading lies, with malicious intent. There was no scientific uncertainty.

A proper public policy would be to wipe out the Exxon, and all petrol companies, shareholders. Claw back all profits from all shareholders proportionally going back 40 years, all profits on those profits, and unwind the companies over the next 20 years strictly to public benefit. And if that is still not enough to pay for fixing what has been damaged, the corporate veil should be pierced and make every shareholder of these companies personally liable. And I'm one of those shareholders - I've owned BP directly and indirectly through funds.

And it is also quite damning for an unlimited 1st amendment concept that proposes telling lies is a right. Unlimited opinions however unpopular should be protected, but spreading proven falsehoods should not be protected. It should be used as evidence the speaker is culpable, in part, of the ensuing damage. Criminal? Perhaps. Civil? Absolutely.

</comment><comment><USER23> Okay, the article claims there was a lost opportunity to do something about the problem in the eighties, but reading the actual text, the presented historical facts (which are very interesting and very well presented!), I'm not seeing it. What I'm seeing is that the world was not ready to face the problem back then.

And it seems to me the reason why not is economic. At the end of the day, people care more about the roof over their heads than they do about global problems. In the eighties, we didn't have much by way of good substitutes for fossil fuel. So the message people heard was that they would have to accept economic hardship for the sake of the environment. That was not what people wanted to hear.

The lesson to learn from this is that we need to address the economic issues alongside the environmental ones. The message needs to not be that you must accept unemployment and poverty. The message needs to be that the task of transitioning the world to renewable energy is doable but enormous - and has the potential to create millions upon millions of jobs, as well as breaking the resource curse that decoupled the interests of the rulers from those of the people. That successfully turning our hands to the new energy industries will bring more prosperity than holding onto the old ones.

<comment><USER24> I think nothing will be politically viable until people, and large amounts of them, are hurt by encroaching waters or inhospitable land.

<comment><USER23> Maybe. But hundreds of millions of people have already been hurt by disappearing jobs and falling real wages. To say nothing about that is to let the narrative of sacrifice stand. I think it would be worth focusing on the potential to create jobs.

<comment><USER24> It's absolutely worth it. I just can't imagine anything quieting the deniers down other than something very clear and undeniable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> It's weird, reading that article reminds me about all of that talk in the 80s. It was a real, undebated (for the most part as far as _my_ bubble went) thing, the question was, "what are we going to do about it?" Ideas were put forth, etc.

And then it's like we talked ourselves out of it. Then someone found an old copy of _Time_ magazine at a yard sale, and said, "aha! See, they can't make up their minds!" No, "their minds" were kind of made up, don't let a crap article from a weekly news magazine sway you.

I haven't finished the article; I'll do that tonight, because I'm kind of curious in NYT's take on why we changed our minds.

</comment><comment><USER26> I find it really interesting that this has been published along with all the news/media about how hot it is in Europe/Asia and in the end of the hottest month of the year for the United States.

</comment><comment><USER27> This is just a silly idea and doesn't fix all the problems, except heat.

Could we position a sheet, or a carpet of asteroids in a Lagrange point around the Earth, or as a sort of reverse Dyson sphere?

I heard that such a thing could be used to cool down Venus.

That doesn't address the ocean acidification, or mass extinctions, etc. Certain high-light plants would also likely perish without intervention. Also, solar energy on Earth would be stifled.

<comment><USER28> Problem I see is not climate change really. Real problem is not that we have problems, but the fact that we create problems. Unless human society transform into a more reactive structure, we will generate new problems or stand short in reacting naturally generated ones.

And one of those problems will see the end of us if not climate change. It is much like playing Russian roulette in the risk of extinction. We just may avert the climate change but some next problem will be our bullet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Who is into low tech and (near) zero waste ?

How much would you be happy to lose in today's practices ? (I'm curious about what people need/want)

<comment> cup-of-tea People want more than they already have.

<comment><USER30> This isn't actually true (although there are billions who do, understandably) - a lot of people would be fine with continuing with their level of energy usage. The problem is how to produce that much energy without releasing CO2.

<comment> cup-of-tea Who said anything about energy usage. People don't care about their energy usage, they only care about what they get from it. Every time we make something more efficient we don't save energy, people just take more.

<comment><USER29> Maybe influence utility provider prices. Kinda like insurance. If you stay inside some range per month, you'll get bonuses. If you want more, you'll pay a single digit % premium ?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> When will we release our trillionth tonne of CO2 in the athmosphere? [http://trillionthtonne.org/](http://trillionthtonne.org/)

</comment><comment><USER32> Can anyone supply a tldr?

<comment><USER33> A group of scientist and environmental lobbyists worked hard so that by the late 70's everyone knew about the problem of rising CO2 emissions and the impending doom of a changing global climate. The issue required action and limitations on the use and burning of natural resources. That messed with the status quo too much so the people with the power at the time said fuck it. The 'it' being young people, their kids, and their kid's kids.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Why is this entry already on page 2 of HN?

Seems a bit fast given the popularity and the fact that it was posted 2 hours ago (also, compared to those that are present on p1)

\-- edit: we're now on page 3 just 30 minutes after my comment.

<comment><USER34> This subthread may very well be contributing to the submission sinking: one of the factors involved is the "overheated discussion detector", which, as I understand it, takes into account rate of comments.

From the FAQ:

> How are stories ranked?

> The basic algorithm divides points by a power of the time since a story was > submitted. Comments in comment threads are ranked the same way.

> Other factors affecting rank include user flags, anti-abuse software, > software which downweights overheated discussions, and moderator > intervention.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html)

In general, comment threads like the one you've started generate more heat than light (19/116 comments as of this writing). If you think something odd is going on, contact the mods via the Contact link in the footer, as they're the ones who can actually view what's happening and do something about it.

Otherwise, the best thing you can do is make insightful, substantive comments to the thread yourself.

<comment><USER31> Some good points, but : 0 comment on this thread when I started it (obviously), and yet the situation seemed real enough for 2 persons to take notice of it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> White on black? Seriously? Thanks to Firefox for reading mode.

<comment><USER36> You may want to keep scrolling and check the whole (and it's huge) post.</comment></comment>


Renovo Coupe: "the first all-electric American supercar" - <AUTHOR> http://renovomotors.com/the-coupe/

<comment> q-base Incredible to have marketing and spec-sheet, for an electrical car, without ever mentioning the range.</comment>


Dallas-based Firehost, Inc Closes $2 Million Series A Funding Round - <AUTHOR> http://launchdfw.com/news/dallas-based-firehost-inc-closes-2-million-series-a-funding-round/ <comment><USER2> I met the FireHost guys at the last couple of HostingCon's, they seemed like a decent enough team. I expect to see a lot of rounds of funding being pumped into already established hosting companies, especially in the dedicated server arena.

Cloud hosting companies are highly profitable, and I expect that to change as more competent players from the infrastructure hosting arena start competing with Amazon and Google.</comment>


JekyllHub - blogging for developers - <AUTHOR> https://jekyllhub.com/

<comment><USER2> Developer of Jekyllhub here: we're giving out free lifetime accounts in exchange for some feedback on the site. Bug reports, praise, hate, anything (though preferably something constructive). Once you're signed in, just hit the "feedback" form on the left and send something my way.

Happy Blogging!

</comment><comment><USER3> How can I add new navigation elements and pages to my JekyllHub? The UI needs a bit of work, because I've been searching for a while and can't find that setting anywhere. :(

Loving the service though, posting is real simple and the syntax highlighting is amazing!

Another thing I can't find it how to enable comments. I'd be fine with Disqus or any other 3rd party comment provider.

How about Google Analytics as well? How can I see which posts are being viewed?

<comment><USER2> Cross-posted from our Facebook Timeline:

Jekyllhub is based on Jekyll, which is a static site generator. The idea is that you have 100% control over the blog just by editing files - you can see all the raw files used to make your site under the "files" section of the sidebar. You can read more about how to use Jekyll here: (<https://github.com/mojombo/jekyll/wiki/Usage>)

If you're using one of the default templates, all the navigation links are in the file "_includes/links" - there's an example link provided, and you can add any other links you want (or nested links, or images, or anything else via HTML).

I'm still considering the right way to automatically add links, comment systems, or other add-ons like Google Analytics while still giving users all the code to their sites, but rest assured it's on the roadmap. Thanks for the feedback and suggestions, and happy blogging!

<comment><USER3> Thanks for the quick response. This has tons of potential and I'm real happy things are on the roadmap. Can't wait!

As I mentioned, and I may be wrong, but people interested in this service will most likely be people like me: They're aware of Jekyll but aren't familiar with it. They want the clean post syntax, syntax highlighting and light footprint, but they also want the comfort of managed hosting for it.

That link you provided for Jekyll usage is key, I'll have to read it. Maybe you can show it to new users so they too can easily find it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> FYI: I really wanted to sign up just to try out the service, but I can't, I picked GitHub (because that one takes less information than, say, Twitter ["Application will be able to follow new people"]), but I just keep getting redirected to sign up.

<comment><USER2> Sorry about that! Looks like there was a hole in our Github auth flow if you don't have an email set. Should be fixed now. Or if it's something else, at least it should show you an error message.

Happy blogging!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Should I trust the "untrusted certificate" screen?

<comment><USER2> Developer of Jekyllhub here: our SSL cert is trusted by every other browser; only Mozilla seems to have a problem with them. I'm working it out with my provider, and if nothing else I'll get a new cert this weekend.

Thanks for your feedback!

<comment><USER6> Chrome on an iPad is also showing the red SSL warning page.

<comment><USER7> Both Chrome and the native browser balk at it on Android.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Android fans: pay for your apps, please - <AUTHOR> http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2012/04/27/android-fans-pay-for-your-apps-please/

<comment><USER2> I'm just going to say this right now: Windows is the primary place where video games are pirated. If you make a game, it WILL be pirated. Hell even multiplayer will be pirated. End of story. So are all developers abandoning windows? HELLZ NO.

What about consoles? Oh yes there's piracy on the PS3 using a software hack. Is the PS3 being abandoned? No.</comment>


Commercial pig farm in China jams drone signal to combat swine fever crooks - <AUTHOR> https://news.yahoo.com/commercial-pig-farm-china-jams-074427999.html <comment><USER2> So obviously no one is dropping swine flue from drones.

But it does seem true the company did use this reason for why they had GPS[?] blockers [1]

So the question is why did they have them?

Because they believed the hysteria?

Or are competitors, gangsters, police using drones to watch their business? Outside of China it would no doubt be to stop animal activists. GPS blockers for their trucks?

[1] [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/china/chinese-pig-farm-jams- dro...](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/china/chinese-pig-farm-jams-drone-crooks- spreading-african-swine-fever-n1105631)

</comment><comment><USER3> Since this is a Reuters story, the original source you should've submitted is [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china- swinefever/commerci...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china- swinefever/commercial-pig-farm-in-china-jams-drone-signal-to-combat-swine- fever-crooks-idUSKBN1YO0JE)

<comment><AUTHOR> saw it, read it and thought it was interesting. But, Yahoo licenses it, so ethically it's better for Yahoo to get the clicks given that I saw it there.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Ping.gy – An app to connect with people within 1km from you - <AUTHOR> https://ping.gy <comment><USER2> Unfortunately I wasn't really able to test this out as there are no users in my area, but I was wondering how you are tackling / plan to tackle the following problem:

Suppose two people are almost but not quite 1km away from each other and are having a conversation on there. To a third person who has one of these people in range, but not the other, the messages might seem quite confusing and/or they might feel addressed even though they are not.

A possible solution might be to define fixed cells of roughly 1km in diameter instead of using immediate neighbourhoods centered around every participant. Or you could dynamically create rooms and you are added to the closest one to you (up to some maximum size)? The latter might also help with getting any users at all in less densely populated areas.

<comment><USER3> An ideal solution would be to define cells based on clusters of people and connect anomalous persons to the nearest cluster. This should not only provide an optimum groups sizes based on an area's population, but also allow remote users to interact.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Reminds me of Jodel and the now-defunct Yik Yak.

Yik Yak took the "cells" or "herds" approach. Some history here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yik_Yak](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yik_Yak)

I'm not sure how you're going to avoid the same issues that Yik Yak faced.

"Ambient social networking" isn't new, but it's never taken off. Some reading:

[https://www.quora.com/Why-have-almost-all-location-based- mes...](https://www.quora.com/Why-have-almost-all-location-based-messaging- apps-failed)

[https://techcrunch.com/2013/07/23/location-vs- communication/](https://techcrunch.com/2013/07/23/location-vs-communication/)

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm currently at Disney World where there are thousands of folks within 1 km of me, but when I visit this page on iOS, I don't see any place to message on the main page. It just shows the logo and the explainer text.

It would be nice to at least leave a message in my area, so future users can see it.

</comment><comment><USER6> I don't see any feedback on _what_ my current location is. I know my home ISP assigns me an IP address that location services place a 100km away from me — users have no way of verifying if their location was picked up correctly.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for this suggestion, will consider adding this. BTW, We don't use location from ISP, we get location form GPS. So it will be more accurate than getting from ISP.

<comment><USER6> I don't think my laptop provides you with coordinates based on GPS.

<comment><USER7> Indirectly, it can: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi- Fi_positioning_system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi_positioning_system)

(At least Chrome and Firefox can use this system; I'm no sure about the other browsers)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Already got the idea and published it.

Frankly the 1km radius is not a good idea, it will flood messages in crowded area, and display none in others.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes agreed. But is a good distance to cover a small neighbourhood or campus.

<comment><USER9> Yes, and that can bring a sense of community to a place that doesn't already have one. But I'm unsure how many neighborhoods or campuses would both not already have some ways of communicating... yet still want to create one. Physical proximity removes communications barriers, so you are solving a problem that may not exist.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes but unless they both are in same room. Imagine a soccer match or any tech event. These are some use cases I thought of while building this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> no users around me and I'm fairly central in London. Why not connect with the n closest users instead?

<comment><AUTHOR> We just launched this today. Though it is a bad idea to roll out globally for this idea. I did want to spread the word and then target area wise. Not sure if it is gonna work.

<comment><USER11> I think you best bet would be to use either real world population density, or connected users density to scale the communication distance, so that people don't have to stay alone, and at the same time you still have a meaningfully limited range.

I don't think anyone will just stay connected alone in the hope that someone else may connect later.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Cool, I built this last year during a hackathon. It wasn't a chat but a forum. I've built chats before but it didn't seem as useful.

My idea was to provide a way to augment reality, add context to your location, see what other people that were there before said, sort of like a virtual message in a bottle.

</comment><comment><USER13> Bug report: hitting ENTER n times sends the message n times. Until the message box is cleared.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks will fix it shortly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> For some reason, I only get a red message saying "Invalid location co- ordinates." when I try to post something (not that I expect anyone else to be within 1 km of me anyway).

On Firefox on desktop, clicked "yes" when asked to share my location.

<comment><AUTHOR> That is weird. May I know where are you located?

<comment><USER11> Apparently Firefox locates me at 50.6138111,3.0423598999999997 (which is actually 3 km away from where I am, but that's not your fault) but your API responds with {"message":"Invalid location co-ordinates."}.

Maybe it's a problem with the decimals in 3.0423598999999997?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Another Yik Yak? Get ready for the fallout.

</comment><comment><USER14> Looks amazing great work on finishing a great looking project! I made a similar application for iOS (www.zonemessenger.com) a while back with the same intent of getting people in contact within a 1km radius (have since updated the radius to match local demand).

And although I still think it could be a very valuable type of platform it is extremely hard to build the right community with enough critical mass. Best of luck! And if you ever want exchange experiences I'd be happy to help.

</comment><comment><USER15> Timestamps.

How do I know when the other messages I'm seeing were posted? Maybe those people have long gone and I have no idea I'm talking into thin air.

</comment><comment><USER16> I am building a similar mobile app at [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=zero.sleep.com...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=zero.sleep.comchat)

I haven't launched it yet though. My goal is not a YikYak clone but an issue/karma tracker for real-world interaction.

</comment><comment><USER17> If your curious to see what a more popular area looks like you can just hit [https://ping.gy/api/ping?location=40.7128,-74.0060&skip=0](https://ping.gy/api/ping?location=40.7128,-74.0060&skip=0)

Posting into that is just as easy.

Made this a bit more fun since no one was around for me.

</comment><comment><USER18> Because I live in the middle of nowhere and no one uses technology much here I decided to use a VPN as to which your site then gives me the following error: [https://gyazo.com/3d54b08e90205e92e7744a086d92a703](https://gyazo.com/3d54b08e90205e92e7744a086d92a703)

</comment><comment><USER19> Almost like Maritime VHF radio. The HAM radio guys are doing more crazy stuff so I don't count them.

</comment><comment><USER20> It should show where it thinks I am.

</comment><comment> 076ae80a-3c97-4 Your parsing isn't too great. Try posting this: <img src=x onerror=alert(123) />

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for reporting. Fixed it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I would like to see this kind of service work to allow meeting fellow local hackers.

If interested please contact me (email@example.com); I would like to donate to you the domain name "hackers.express".

</comment><comment><USER22> It's just a pulsing smiley and a short description for me.

<comment><USER23> Same here. It didn't ask me for any location permission either, so I don't know how it would know where I am.

<comment> yoz-y It did ask me for location (on Safari).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Can I suggest to have timestamps on the chatlog? A bit disorienting to not know when the last conversation happened.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks.. Have added it.

<comment><USER24> Thanks for the change!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> So like Jodel, Whisper, ...?

</comment><comment><USER26> I was disappointed to find it isn't a mesh network app

</comment><comment><USER27> How do you measure the distance ? postgis ?

<comment><AUTHOR> Using MongoDb geonear

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> But why? why would you need this?

</comment><comment><USER29> This is so cool. Simple, quick, effective. Good job, will be interested to see how it progresses.</comment>


Google WebP, How Much Loss in Photo Quality? - <AUTHOR> http://www.simplerna.com/2011/05/google-webp-how-much-loss-in-quality.html

<comment><USER2> Technically the author is right but I think that equating "quality" (or even worse perceived quality) with the quantity of colors used is a bit of a stretch.

</comment><comment><USER3> Terrible article, it's so bad it uses screen capture software to convert between formats.

<comment><USER4> What's wrong with that?</comment></comment>


Show HN: Simple Tool to Preview Album Art on Spotify, Apple Music and Pandora - steve-benjamins https://www.sitebuilderreport.com/artworker/ <comment> steve-benjamins Non-musicians might not know this: You can't edit album artwork once it is on Apple Music or Spotify. As a consequence, I often regret my choice of font size or the borders I chose once the artwork is live on streaming services.

This is simple, little tool I made to preview album art on desktop vs mobile and on different streaming services.</comment>