Oregon Just Voted to Legalize Duplexes on Almost Every City Lot - <AUTHOR> https://www.sightline.org/2019/06/30/oregon-just-voted-to-legalize-duplexes-on-almost-every-city-lot <comment><USER3> This was super stressful to follow along the whole path in the legislature. We turned out some YIMBY's to meet our state rep here in Bend to support it back in... January I think it was. It kept going in fits and starts, and really came down to the wire today, with a failing vote before it went up again and passed, before the legislative session expired.

I'm happy to have played a very small part... our Republican state senator was one who voted in favor; maybe our calls and emails had a positive effect.

Hats off to the people in the legislature and some of the advocacy groups around Oregon like "1000 friends of Oregon" who worked _really_ hard to get this through.

<comment><USER4> This is often the path that a lot of legislation takes thru the legislature.

<comment><USER3> The bit where the first vote failed because one of the senators who ended up voting in favor didn't feel comfortable being in the same room as one of the Republicans who had been hiding in Idaho to deny the senate a quorum, and who had threatened to kill Oregon State Police if they were sent to find him was kind of over the top though.

<comment><USER5> Really? Sounds like they don't have the spine to represent their constituents properly if they're willing to let legislation fail because a colleague is making empty threats. Kinda sad that they were too uncomfortable to do their job because someone else was too insane to do their job...

<comment><USER3> She showed back up. I don't have a lot of details so we'll wait and see what shakes out. The important thing is the bill passed. There will be disciplinary hearings of some kind for the R who made the threats. Because of the walkout, everything got compressed into two final days, so I don't think they had time for that beforehand, which was unfortunate, as he certainly wasn't doing his constituents a favor with that kind of talk.

Anyway, it was pretty crazy and a real nail-biter.

<comment><USER6> Disciplinary hearings? Imagine the hearing you'd get if you publicly threatened to assassinate members of government with a specific intent of preventing the government from functioning.

<comment><USER7> In some minds, the threat that senator made is roughly equivalent to someone saying "if you come to arrest me for being gay, I will resist violently".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Thankfully this is beginning to look like a trend. Minneapolis adopted a similar deal (redefining all single family to be residential up to three units) late last year, and more of these kind of upzonings are in the works across the country. Ref: [https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/12/12/three- cheers-...](https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/12/12/three-cheers-for- minneapolis-the-3-is-for-triplex)

<comment><USER9> Wonder how long will it take for prices to take notice, doesn't seem to be happening yet: [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MNXRSA](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MNXRSA)

<comment><USER10> In Oregon? 60 years if ever. You can't get a building permit to build anything without your lawyers ($$$) spending years getting you through the process. Or so I've heard.

In Minneapolis I expect it will start to make a difference in 5 years. In Minneapolis a building permits for something allowed in code takes an hour from the time you park your car to the time you drive away, and no lawyer needed.

Note that we will never really know that a difference was made: there are any other factors involved in housing prices with no way to control for any of them. Thus no matter what happens you will be able to reasonably argue from data whichever side you want.

<comment><USER11> People exaggerate. Portland's already been transformed by row houses, lots of apartment and condo structures, and dense building. Unsurprisingly, a lot of old-timers hate it, and their complaints all boil down to "it's different from when I was a child/raising a family here".

The dense building is already taking place, in every neighborhood in the city. Getting a permit is no problem; my little brother, an engineer with no background in building, got a permit to build a four-unit building on one of the sites where they were already allowed (before this law was passed) in 8 weeks; the normal time for any permit approval for construction, he says, and in his engineering work he did a lot of work with permitting for customer projects, too, so I'd guess he knows.

Portland's already been changing and it's made the city so much more pleasant to walk through. Neighborhood after neighborhood of single-family detached housing is boring, tiresome to drive or bike through, and an environmental disaster (as the ODOT study recently confirmed).

If the rest of Oregon can now follow suit, this is only a good thing.

The funny thing is, driving through old towns in Oregon or anywhere, where most of the building was done before these zoning laws made everything into the same boring city planning style, architecture and construction used to be a lot more interesting and visually pleasing. It's neat to drive through places with variety of structure. These laws are one of the most pointless things, that's done a great deal of damage, the US has done.

<comment><USER12> This might be a good thing for the environment, but fixing "boring" is very questionable in my opinion. Now you'll simply have driveways that are 2-4x wider than before (which also means more rain run-off) and less lawn. That sounds boring and ugly IMHO.

<comment><USER11> The rain runoff can flow into the bioswales the city is already building all over; it won't just run into the city sewers.

As for needing to build wider driveways, and that making it boring, I realize there's a certain kind of subjectivity here but I don't think that what we're going to end up with is literally "duplexes with double-wide driveways replacing single-family dwellings on the same-sized lots."

The front-runner for the 2020 mayoral race has an architectural background and has been talking about ideas like introducing an LA-style design review board to Portland, to ensure that new development has to pass aesthetic review in addition to environmental review. I guarantee you that six months after something like that were enacted, every architect in the city would know exactly what they needed to do to keep the city interesting as well as weird.

<comment><USER13> i heartily support raising density limits, but i'd caution against adding a design review board like we have here in LA. imho, it doesn't add any more harmony or interestingness, while adding cost and delay to projects. we have whole classes of buildings that can no longer be built here because they're not in style any longer.

<comment><USER11> That's fair, I've never lived in LA so I don't know what problems it caused; only that the architect I know who's running for mayor liked it and felt it improved the city.

He said that one of the problems he sees with development in Portland now is that the developers are under no constraint to make their buildings visually interesting at all;

as an example he's cited, lots of the new apartment/condo buildings go up with a nearly uniform front structure for the entire length of a city block, when varying materials or architectural features would add little cost but make the structures more pleasant to walk by, drive by, etc., a facet of city living that is hard to pin down quantitatively but makes a subjective difference.

I haven't lived in Portland in a while so I can't speak first-hand to this alleged blandness of new construction but I do remember the last time I was there seeing a lot of new stuff that was essentially undecorated, and of course it's cheaper that way but compared to lots of the development that _is_ designed with more variety, I know which I'd choose.

Maybe there's a middle ground, I don't know, I just know this is a situation where the market will converge on construction that probably isn't ideal for very-long-term city construction, but there isn't really an adequate feedback mechanism to force people to make prettier buildings. The city's under such housing pressure that people would live in unpainted cement blocks if someone built those. (Okay, I love brutalist architecture, especially some of the Soviet monstrosities, and I'd live in one in a heartbeat, but that's definitely me and even those had some style.) Seems like a place where a regulatory authority could do well, but maybe not a cookie-cutter of what LA has. It's just, these buildings are going to be around for a long time; now's the time to make them look good.

<comment><USER13> > "Maybe there's a middle ground, I don't know, [...] The city's under such > housing pressure that people would live in unpainted cement blocks if > someone built those."

you point to one answer already: if the housing market were truly competitive, developers would have to compete on housing features beyond the basic box. that's why i'd generally advocate for a lighter touch on the regulatory side, because housing seems to be already overburdened to the point of making it unaffordable for most urbanites.

yes, let's make sure a house meets basic safety requirements, and that builders and engineers document how they meet them, but beyond that, allow people a little creative freedom and you'll get interestingness.

and i'm no fan of brutalism, but having some brutalist structures around serves to remind me how much i like other styles better. =)

<comment><USER11> I think the thing my architect friend was getting at is, these structures are here for a long, long time, and they take up a finite (and _heavily_ constrained resource), so it's not like there's an opportunity for people to realistically decide in 5 or 10 years that fifteen new buildings that have been built should be replaced or adjudicated.

I think the problem is that this already falls so far out of the realm of "let the market address it" because of the constraints on building and housing, especially in such a tightly-housed city as Portland; if builders build it wrong (and will make money regardless because of the constraints on this market that mean people can't reasonably take their dollar elsewhere), the city suffers in non-dollar-measurable ways for decades.

Again, this is mostly coming from my friend who likes the design review board, and sees that a lot of the new development in Portland is boring from an architectural point of view (and will remain so for at least the remainder of his life) but there's absolutely nothing in a market sense that would compel anyone to build more interesting buildings.

And, the more we talk about this, the more I like the idea of the design review board; I'm all in favor of sensible regulation, and your original complaint, that some styles are no longer permitted in LA, seems like even less of an issue if it means that new construction does remain aesthetically interesting.

An extremely small price to pay for putting pressure on architects to build interesting new things as these buildings go up all over down.

But, of course, it's all just talk and speculation, since neither of us is mayor (and at least one of us doesn't live there.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> If you're afraid (or overjoyed) that this might change the city overnight, you might want to read this story about an area of Portland that repealed its apartment ban 39 years ago.

Even without exclusionary zoning, neighborhoods change _very_ slowly.

[https://www.sightline.org/2019/06/21/this-is-what-a- street-l...](https://www.sightline.org/2019/06/21/this-is-what-a-street-looks- like-39-years-after-legalizing-fourplexes/)

<comment><USER15> Anyone who is worried about the neighborhood "changing overnight" should be worried about immigration and not the international kind. It's wealthy people from the next city or state over who change things when they move in because they have the money (which is convertible to political power although the conversion is not 100% efficient) to change things how they want.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is a fantastic step towards affordable housing. We need more state-level interventions like these to remove the hurdles that impede building new housing. I hope that government officials in California follow a similar path.

The only sustainable way to affordable housing is to make market rates affordable.

<comment><USER17> Housing is affordable in large swaths of the country. It's only a relatively few cities where it isn't.

<comment><USER18> Actually, not. The housing crisis in the US, particularly expressed as evictions, is not merely a tech-hub/coastal problem.

On the Media's "Scarlet E" series is an excellent exploration of this:

[https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/scarlet-e- unmasking...](https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/scarlet-e-unmasking- americas-eviction-crisis)

<comment><USER17> Look at where most of the red is when calculating the housing affordability index....

[https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=1419fe7...](https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=1419fe7ee70c4267a7258eb59a9a824c)

<comment><USER15> The reddest areas are CA, NY, Boston and the places people who have made a bunch of money in those places buy vacation homes and/or cash out and retire to. It's literally just a problem in a few places but the people of those places are exporting their housing cost problems as they move out (i.e by using their wall street money to out-compete the locals for a scenic square of swamp).

If you just took a bunch of Wall Street bankers, a bunch of CA VCs and then mapped their cell phone location data over the next several days (July 4 weekend) you'd get basically the same map.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Washington next please. I'll settle for just Seattle for now, and I plan to vote and have been donating accordingly in this year's city council races.

Relatedly, fellow Seattleites: the primary for city council races is in August, and ballots go out in just under three weeks. Make sure your voter registration information is up to date! [https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/](https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/)

<comment><USER20> Seattle is very close to approving backyard cottages on all SFH-zoned properties [1].

They're also very close to approving a pretty major city-wide upzone [2], though it largely just makes mutli-family zoning denser and doesn't affect SFH zones much.

[1] [https://seattle.curbed.com/2019/5/13/18619101/adu-dadu- backy...](https://seattle.curbed.com/2019/5/13/18619101/adu-dadu-backyard- cottage-law)

[2] [https://seattle.curbed.com/2019/2/26/18240535/mha-hala- zonin...](https://seattle.curbed.com/2019/2/26/18240535/mha-hala-zoning- citywide-upzones)

(* No affiliation with Curbed, they were just the first articles to pop up on my search that weren't paywalled).

<comment><USER19> ADUs are great and MHA is fine, but both of these packages literally took years to pass. The city council needs to move faster.

<comment><USER21> Quite a few of this year's candidates are proposing eliminating single-family zoning entirely. It could be on the agenda during the next couple of years.

<comment><USER19> It's great to see this! But they need to make it through the primaries and then win in the general, and this is not an insignificant lift.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This is great in another way that isn't talked about much. As housing prices and commute times go up so does the price of everything that involves human labor. Bus drivers, plumbers, wait staff, etc all have to be paid enough to live in the city or suffer a long commute. So anyone struggling to make ends meet has it even harder.

<comment><USER23> "Every increase in the real wealth of the society, every increase in the quantity of useful labour employed within it, tends indirectly to raise the real rent of land."

-Adam Smith, "The Wealth Of Nations"

<comment><USER22> Maybe I'm misunderstanding the quote, but home prices aren't going up because of an "increase in the quantity of useful labour employed within it".

These are just dumb city planning decisions: Hey, I'm going to permit an increasing number of offices in this downtown and not allow denser housing. Drive until you qualify, millennials.

<comment><USER24> Can you then explain why many cities where the population is declining in the US are seeing housing prices go up? For example Buffalo, Pittsburgh and Cleveland?

<comment><USER15> Are they going up substantially more than inflation over the same time period?

Housing stock tends to shrink with population since in a renters market there's less incentive for landlords to keep properties in rent-able condition. For example, an apartment remodel that might have been sub'd out for $10k and done in a month instead takes $5k and is done over the course of a year. When some % of all landlords start doing this to some % of properties it takes a chunk out of available supply and rents stay the same-ish.

<comment><USER24> _> Are they going up substantially more than inflation over the same time period? _

Yes, considerably more.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Ship it. Restrictive zoning laws are choking the poor and middle class and causing cities to stagnate. Hopefully CA follows suit.

<comment><USER26> Also duplexes really don't do much harm to the "suburban" feeling of a neighborhood. A nice, big duplex feels as much like a home as any other.

If anything, I feel like it helps make neighborhoods more dynamic by increasing the population density without increasing the physical density of buildings and roads.

That said, parking will be important (need enough room for garages or lots of on-street parking) since I assume these areas won't have great mass transit.

<comment><USER27> I personally think multiplex homes look way better than the rows of snout houses you find in 99% of modern suburban development.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> It's a sensible move. Vancouver BC is studying moving to allowing fourplexes on most detached residential lots too, and I hope that city takes steps toward implementing that.

A great outcome from this is that now that cities are finally implementing these policies, we can study their impacts.

At this point in YIMBY urbanist circles policies like this have taken on somewhat of a mythical panacea quality, so it'd be good to finally be able to ground the affordable housing discussion with hard data.

<comment><USER29> I really don't understand why we can't also allow bodega-type stores at least on the ends of residential streets.

Nobody is going to drive ten miles to go to your local bodega. It's not going to increase traffic. You're not going to need more parking. You can even make it illegal to sell cigarettes and alcohol entirely there.

<comment><USER10> Making cigarettes and alcohol illegal makes them illegal. There is a reason you find tiny stores that sell just alcohol and cigarettes all over in poor neighborhoods: they are the only thing high enough margin to work out. If such stores can sell the high margin products they then have enough money to stock lower margin things as well.

Besides, with the problems of drinking and driving, you should want alcohol stores nearby to drinkers can get their fix without having to drive to the store.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> There are some comments about infrastructure deficiencies here. Reality: Sprawl is more of a burden on municipal jurisdictions because infrastructure, including roads, has to be extended to it and it's not dense enough to adequately cover the cost involved.

If you play SimCity, you can kind of model this by creating a new city from scratch and creating an urban core. Place a fire department and police department at the center and build out to roughly the perimeter of their coverage.

Keep improving development within that footprint until you have an economically viable city, then add a satellite suburb following a similar pattern.

Not everything needs to be in that footprint. You can have farms outside of it, for example, and you can have some industry with only fire coverage, no police.

But if you build a sprawling low-density city, you will find it is impossible to provide adequate services. You can't afford to pay for them. You wind up with high rates of poverty and crime.

Missing Middle housing also helps get an area to residential densities that help make public transit make sense. It also helps improve walkability.

A lot of the problems we have currently are because America sprawls. These problems likely won't be made worse by gently increasing densities. Increasing density in a good way should start to remedy a lot of these issues.

<comment><USER31> Sim City lies, too. Real American "cities" (to use the term generously) are basically a parking lot with a mayor.

[https://humantransit.org/2013/05/how-sim-city-greenwashes- pa...](https://humantransit.org/2013/05/how-sim-city-greenwashes-parking.html)

<comment><USER32> What a weird tone for that article! Acts like the game developers were out to cheat people out of understanding reality.

<comment><USER31> Well, I wouldn't say it's evil or anything (it's just a game) but it is a bit frustrating in a game calling itself a simulation.

Also, it's humantransit, which specifically promotes walking, cycling, etc. so they're going to be understandably annoyed when the cited inspiration for plenty of city planners understates the negative impact of car dependence.

<comment><USER33> Personally I wouldn't call it understating car dependence so much as underestimating the alternatives. Which reminds me of Cities Skylines and how they did the opposite for what was probably an amusing oversight.

Foot paths are very good for traffic without congestion which makes perfect sense. What doesn't make sense is the complete lack of time or distance limit meaning the population will happily walk a massive pedestrian walkway the length of an entire sector.

A somewhat more realistic way is to use subways to link your high density residences with no highway access to places like work and retail while leaving the roads for mostly delivery trucks and emergency services. Apparently Japanese developments were practically planned this way - adding to where a new subway loop and putting housing on top for synergy.

<comment><USER34> > What doesn't make sense is the complete lack of time or distance limit > meaning the population will happily walk a massive pedestrian walkway the > length of an entire sector.

How far is sector? What would you consider reasonable walking distances? Something like 30mins regularly, 60-90mins occasionally?

<comment><USER30> Real world transit-oriented design in the US routinely uses either 1/4 mile or 1/2 mile for the radius from transit that most people can/will walk. I believe they estimate that it takes 15 minutes to walk a quarter mile and 30 minutes to walk half a mile.

Single data point: I'm a pedestrian. I haven't owned a car in over a decade. I'm willing to walk up to 30 minutes regularly and farther occasionally. I also use public transit sometimes.

<comment><USER35> 30 minutes for a half-mile? Is that the round-trip time or something?

<comment><USER30> No, that's little old ladies in street clothes hobbling as fast as they can.

People walking as a mode of transit aren't competing with joggers for who gets there first. These times are for planning purposes.

Of course, it's okay if you walk faster than that. But planning departments need to look at "Who will actually walk this?" And the answer is "Ordinary people will walk it if it isn't over 30 minutes, but 15 minutes is better. And that works at these distances."

You see the most traffic from establishments within a quarter mile, and some additional traffic within the half mile radius but outside the quarter mile. It drops off steeply outside of the half mile radius.

<comment><USER35> Ah, makes sense. 30 minutes is a _very_ slowly walked city mile for me (25min at a casual, unhurried pace, shaving a couple minutes off that for a 22-23min time with a bit more bounce in the step but still not jogging or even speed- walking) so I figured it was either round-trip or the slowest speed anyone _capable of walking anywhere at all_ would attain—seems it's the latter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> When i moved to the US i had no idea about the amount of zonening laws, construction regulations and building codes. Coming from europe i naively thought that since the US is the "land of the free" people could basically build whatever they want on the piece of dirt they owned. Reality is, the amoung of regulation is far more than i have encountered in my hometown in Poland.

<comment><USER37>
      people could basically build whatever they want on the piece of dirt they owned.

Europe lacks fire and earthquake codes?

<comment><USER36> Obviously anything safety-related is regulated. But nobody is going to tell you what type or color of roof shingles you need to buy.

<comment><USER38> Depends on where you live. If you are in a historical protected neighborhood of a city someone definitely will tell you what color and type of roof shingles you need to buy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Another article linked from within the same one posted here [1] is so batshit insanely heartbreaking and infuriating.

Much of today's nonsense becomes so much clearer when you learn what was par for the course merely a century ago.

[1] [https://www.sightline.org/2018/05/25/a-century-of- exclusion-...](https://www.sightline.org/2018/05/25/a-century-of-exclusion- portlands-1924-rezone-is-still-coded-on-its-streets/)

<comment><USER40> The article itself is of course fine; what's "batshit insane" and heartbreaking is the blatant unfairness it describes. Newsflash - <USER2> zoning leads to exclusion, which often has its hardest impact on vulnerable minorities. Who would have guessed? There is a common stereotype that segregation and exclusion can only result from fuzzy "structural" forces or from private action by opportunistic and unethical individuals - but in fact, these things can endure because they're often enforced by a morass of laws and regulations, though sometimes in remarkably devious and opaque ways.

<comment><USER39> It's an adverb and it refers to the heartbreak, not the article itself. I'm afraid you misread my comment ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment> rvp-x As a non-north american I was initially confused at the replies because surely duplexes are low density construction for a city.

<comment> Al-Khwarizmi Yeah, my reaction was... are things _that_ bad there that this is significant good news?

<comment><USER41> American history, specifically of racism and hatred of the poor, runs deep and probably stumps most outsiders.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I really wish the rest of the US would take note, both conditions as well as climate change really need reduction of sprawl but it really won't matter if OR legalizes this while FL puts up five times more exhurbs.

<comment><USER15> Except for some coastal areas and larger cities housing density is way down the list of priorities because it's simply not a problem.

<comment><USER42> It might not be seen as a problem, but it _is_ a problem. It makes forms of transportation other than cars non-viable, which is awful for the environment. Cheap electric cars will happen eventually, but we don't exactly have time to waste.

<comment><USER43> I'm all for raising density, but cheap electric cars will happen a LOT faster than rebuilding all of America with higher density housing and infrastructure, besides the carbon emission that that refactoring entails. Cement and steel emit way more co2 than individual transport.

<comment><USER40> "Cheap electric cars" will have range problems for a long time. Electric transport (not just "cars", either) works very well with increased density, and not so well with the low-density status quo.

<comment><USER10> Range doesn't matter. People tend to have a half hour commute range. Electric cars have long been able to replace gas for commute for nearly everybody already. (range anxiety has been about the exceptions - once a month I do X and the electric car can't do that...)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> In the UK, semi-detached houses are probably the most common middle class type of dwelling, so it's interesting to see that there is some sort of debate about this.

Loads of differences between US/UK but still

<comment><USER45> Aren't most council houses semi-detached - I wouldn't describe it as a middle class thing?

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Disclosure: I don't live in Portland. I live in Sydney, which has a much higher population and much higher real estate prices. The population density is hard to compare, since Sydney has a very large and sprawling metropolitan area of 4,775.2 square miles. The first thing I think of when I read this is that while this kind of development may superficially look to benefit those looking to purchase property, urban consolidation will benefit property developers much more so than consumers. Sydney is undergoing considerable urban consolidation and we're hardly seeing any reduction in property value at all. We've seen all manner of predatory practices on behalf of property developers occurring in this city to ensure that the price is kept artificially high. One practice that is all too common is developers buying up property and only releasing it onto the market slowly to maximise commercial gain, as ridiculous as it sounds, anecdotally this is quite common. I wouldn't celebrate just yet.

<comment><USER47> Who cares? Once equilibrium is reached, prices will be lower (or at least, rise more slowly). That's simple supply and demand.

Those property developers are taking on a considerable amount of inventory risk. One hiccup in the housing market and they go bankrupt. If that's the game they are willing to play, then so be it.

<comment><USER48> There's not a whole lot of risk in being first in line to buy up all of the XBoxes and scalping them to desperate parents.

Or to buying up enough aluminum that you can hoard it.

Or owning enough land that you choose the price.

When you control the supply of an essential resource, you can name your price. Great way to make money, terrible way to make a society.

<comment><USER49> What Oregon did here, massively increase the supply of buildable land in one fell swoop, is pretty much the antithesis of those shortages you talk about there though.

The trend for cities in the past 75 years has been to down some continuously until there's not enough spare land that's zoned to account for the necessary population growth. Then, in that highly supply constrained environment, use political processes to upzone only a tiny amount of land. Typically this is the "blight," the few places that minorities where allowed to live when racist deed restrictions were allowed, the areas where city services were less, and that stayed that way.

Societies would take the most undervalued land, force the huge backed up pressure into these vulnerable neighborhoods, and let the few lucky developers that were politically savvy enough to navigate the process make away with the profits.

Now that it's everywhere, there will be more competition between developers and there will be far less exploitation of an artificially restricted resource. Land is already restricted enough, zoning for density just makes it all the more scarce and exploitable by the powerful.

<comment><USER50> Living here in Portland, though, my fear is that it won't be developers taking a flyer to build these homes, it will be the investor class bankrolling the developers to build permanent rental properties.

Hoping I'm wrong, but the last few decades' antics with investors tells me I'm not.

<comment><USER47> What's with all the handwringing over investors and developers? Yes, some people will benefit from this decision, just as some people would have benefited from the opposite decision. Who cares? The only thing that will reduce housing prices is more housing being created.

<comment><USER48> People want more than just housing from housing. Some people want a system of wealth distribution to allow new entrants to the market (the young and/or disadvantaged) to build capital. Some want a place that they can call their own and customize as they see fit. Some want to be invested in a community. Some don't want to have to listen to and smell their neighbors through cheaply built shared walls.

If the existing capital holders build a bunch of rentals, then many of those goals are not possible.

<comment><USER40> People have all sorts of delusions. Cheaper housing, by and large, makes it _easier_ for new entrants to build wealth, whilst having a place that they can call their own.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> To what extent does the number of families in a building change with the law vs. just evolving as the environment evolves? I'm currently staying temporarily in the bay area, and it seems that many homes here have been "converted" from single family homes to full-time airbnb's with extra bedrooms and bathrooms tacked on in any way that they can manage. Functionally it's probably common for a suburban neighborhood to be a bunch of "4, 5, 6-plexes" when appearing to be a typical suburb of single family homes on the outside.

<comment><USER37>
      full-time airbnb's with extra bedrooms and bathrooms tacked on in any way that they can

... which is exactly a risk of killing "zoning" (capacity limits) restrictions. It's now far riskier for a property owner to rent to traditional tenants (especially with the threat of Section 8 acceptance becoming mandatory) than to cash out into the AirBnB market.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> America should follow the example of progressive countries.

Point 1. Residential highrises should become the main housing option

Point 2. Stop subsidising suburban lifestyle for the rich

Point 3. Massive public investments into infrastructure

Point 4. Replace zoning regulations with something less extremely specific or go for sanitary code type regulation

Point 5. Stop requiring people without cars to buy unneeded parking space on their own plot

<comment><USER17> _Point 2. Stop subsidising suburban lifestyle for the rich_

The average price of a house is $226500. ([https://www.zillow.com/home- values/](https://www.zillow.com/home-values/)).

Almost anyone can get an FHA mortgage with 3.5% down. The thought that only rich people can afford a home is not true for most of the country.

<comment><USER53> True, but "rich" is fairly subjective. I also don't think that point was implying that only rich people could afford homes, but that the suburban "lifestyle" and the associated costs of infrastructure were being "subsidized". For the most part, cities subsidize less urban areas.

<comment><USER17> Subsidized by who? Suburban areas are often separate municipalities with separate budgets and I would think that most infrastructure would be paid by property taxes and local sales taxes.

In fact here in Atlanta there is a trend toward upper class neighborhoods separating from Atlanta and creating separate cities - no this isn't a good thing.

<comment><USER53> It's not exactly true that all services in a local municipality are funded solely by local funds. For example, in your state of Georgia the state pays a share of public education. Most states' largest sources of revenue come from sales taxes which it should be clear comes disproportionately from cities as cities are disproportionately populated. Any state funded and especially state run service is going to be largely funded by city dollars. It's admittedly complex and varies state by state in degree, but overall it stands true that cities pay more taxes to their state in dollar amount by virtue of there being more people; therefore it seems fair to say that any state funds used for any area outside the cities is subsidized by the cities. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, just a valid observation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Excellent. Fingers crossed it works well and provides a blueprint for other cities and states.

</comment><comment><USER55> About time. Over the last generation almost all US cities have failed to add enough new housing to handle the growing population.

Want to reduce homelessness? Build homes.

Want to reduce ridiculously overpriced homes? Build homes.

</comment><comment><USER56> So what is a duplex? Nowhere does it say and it's not a term I've ever heard used in the UK? I guess "semi-detached" would be closest but not sure?

<comment><USER57> I think a semi-detached is a duplex, but the latter term is more broad, covering also two-story apartment buildings and such: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duplex_(building)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duplex_\(building\))

<comment><USER58> 'Semi-detached' can be used about the end unit of a long chain of terraced houses, so while a semi-detached can be part of a duplex, it might also not be.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> Fantastic. I hope with all my heart that rezoning at least slows down price increases. It should certainly be done as widely as possible.

But in the end I think we need to keep in mind that there will need to additional aggressive legislation to even keep prices flat relative to wages let alone reduce them.

<comment><USER60> On that note, does anyone know of any economist(s), or _thinkers_ , who a have a comprehensive plan to change the way the housing market works?

<comment><USER61> Alain Bertaud might have the opposite of what you might want to call a "comprehensive plan". He makes great suggestions on how to give control back to the market and achieve better outcomes than the quasi, soviet-style, planned economy that our housing market is in the US (my words not his). Great interview with him on econtalk about his new book: [http://www.econtalk.org/alain-bertaud-on-cities-planning- and...](http://www.econtalk.org/alain-bertaud-on-cities-planning-and-order- without-design/)

Edit: typo in author name.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> We're in a single-family home HOA in Portland that prohibits duplexes and DADUs, and everyone's confused about whether this supersedes the HOA rules. I think it doesn't; HOAs can still prevent something the law allows, but I'm not certain on that.

<comment><USER63> It depends on the wording of the law, I think. Many HOA agreements have severability clauses and also large antenna bans. But federal law explicitly allows antennas, so that antenna-ban clause is silently severed. It remains in the agreement text, so a naive homeowner might believe it remains in effect, and the HOA might attempt to enforce it using the same forms as all the clauses they can lawfully enforce, but they will always lose if the dispute goes to court.

The federal 1996 Telecommunications Act, and OTARD rule in the implementing regulations, explicitly prohibits rules preventing over-the-air reception antennas "by homeowner, townhome, condominium or cooperative association rules, including deed restrictions, covenants, by-laws and similar restrictions".

So the law proposed by HB 2001 _could_ sever the clause preventing duplexes or render the entire HOA agreement invalid (if no severability clause), and therefore make duplexes allowed in HOA neighborhoods.

But... it does not. It only reaches down to the "local government" level, which is the municipal or county zoning restrictions. The NIMBYest of the NIMBYs will already have HOA agreements that match or make more restrictive the zoning requirements of their municipalities. The effect will probably be to increase the prevalence of HOAs to impede progress, in lieu of zoning.

I am not a lawyer or legislator, but the bill should have been amended to burn out anti-density covenants, deed restrictions, and association by-laws.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> I'm not certain that this will create any affordable housing in any of the metro areas (Portland, Eugene, Bend).

I suspect that this will end up opening the doors for the investor class to fund massive amounts of development in anything resembling an urban core, turning the resulting housing into permanent rentals, tranching those rentals into the next investment instrument to be sold &c.

I'm from Portland, and I wish that this would increase the availability of affordable housing, but I feel that this is a lot of feel good, and it's just going to make my home town that much worse.

Here's to hoping I'm wrong.

<comment><USER64> Even if there's a massive investor driven housing development, ultimately the units have to be rented out which will put pressure on rentals down and make housing more affordable.

If rentals are lower, yield for ownership will also go lower leading to lower prices.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> I find it odd that this is something that the government can regulate. Surely it's nobody's business if a single building is split between two families?

</comment><comment><USER66> This will have a few predictable results: The developers that pushed this through will make a fortune. The government taxes will increase immensely as they can now squeeze in more people. The city will generate much more pollution than it did. At what point do you say enough is enough. Exponential growth is unsustainable. The best communities I've ever seen were zoned for minimum size 1 acre single family lots.

<comment><USER67> > The best communities I've ever seen were zoned for minimum size 1 acre > single family lots.

That isn't scalable enough without a major population correction. There are about 3.5 billion acres of arable land on the planet[1]. If we devoted all of that to rearing human families, we'd have to eat them.

(1) [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arable_land#Arable_land_area](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arable_land#Arable_land_area)

<comment><USER66> What they are doing isn't scalable without a major population correction. You hit the exact same issue someday no matter what. By encouraging exponential growth it just ensures when we do hit a true limit the losses are orders of magnitude worse. Also an increase in density is a decrease in quality of life. Why not live sustainable lives with a comfortable amount of resources instead of exponentially reproducing until everyone has nothing. If the plan doesn't scale 50k years into the future it is an abject fraud designed for short term profit at the expense of others. Math always wins.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> Fucking finally. I can't wait for California to get their shit together on this. Now supporters there will have an analogy over the next 5-10 years

</comment><comment><USER69> Seems reasonable, but being a Portland resident I'm already annoyed at how hard it is to find parking. Portland's mass transit is a joke (I can bike downtown end-to-end faster than MAX can crawl through it) and so people have no choice but to drive. What's the point of putting duplexes in neighborhoods without good transit and roads at capacity? California had a much more reasonable solution in SB827 and now SB50 [1] in that density increases would have only happened near transit.

I don't think the law will have the intended effects. Home prices tend to be sticky, and I'm not aware of any North American city that successfully built its way out of a housing affordability crisis. Wealth inequality is such that current property owners, and real estate speculators, will make out handesomely.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Senate_Bill_827](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Senate_Bill_827)

<comment><USER70> > Portland's mass transit is a joke (I can bike downtown end-to-end faster > than MAX can crawl through it)

TriMet is currently looking into moving MAX into a tunnel downtown, and with fewer stops [1]. Part of the reason it's _so slow_ right now through downtown is all the stops, and because it has to stop at lights.

[1] [https://www.oregonmetro.gov/public-projects/max-tunnel- study](https://www.oregonmetro.gov/public-projects/max-tunnel-study)

<comment><USER71> That is amazing news, thank you for posting it. It was a tragedy they didn't do a cut and cover tunnel for the green line when it went in. They had to shut down all the streets and move the sewer etc. anyway!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> As an SF homeowner I look forward to Cali passing the equivalent so my home (near BART) shoots up in value. Win/win.

<comment><USER73> That's great

</comment></comment><comment><USER74> Seems like a pretty immediate solution for housing and rental shortages. I was just talking to a A developer who mentioned that it costs so much to build in LA&OC California that it only makes sense to target the high end/luxury segment with new construction - at least for single-family homes.

IDK what the economics for new-construction of apartments is like, but I have to image its similar.

Certainly more constructive than Governor Newsom suing Huntington. ref: [https://abc7.com/society/gov-newsom-suing-huntington- beach-o...](https://abc7.com/society/gov-newsom-suing-huntington-beach-over- lack-of-low-income-housing/5107431/)

</comment><comment><USER75> This is a great idea! I hope California follows. Wherever a single family detached house stands, a two-family home should be allowed in its place.

</comment><comment><USER76> Is this primarily aimed at building duplexes on bare land? Or to convert existing single family homes to duplexes? For the latter, how are the economics? It is not cheap to prematurely tear down a house to build a duplex instead.

<comment><USER77> It may not be a common case, but there should be places where oversized homes can be divided into two units for a modest cost. Have to plumb in a second kitchen, redo some of the electrical, etc... but maybe cheaper than building a whole new house from scratch, especially if permitting on new construction is an obstacle. It needs a lot of custom engineering for every house though, which is expensive.

In the end you'd probably have to set it up as the world's smallest condo for tax and maintenance purposes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> Is this going to make a LOT of people rich on cottage rents? Pull in a trailer, hook it up, make $1000 / mo? I'm guessing the contractors in Portland, Bend, Eugene are getting calls now.

<comment><USER79> That's not how ADU legislation has worked out here in California. There are significant restrictions on the ADU that prohibit just "pulling in a trailer", and I imagine the Oregon legislation looks similar.

Here's an article explaining some of the restrictions in San Francisco, with some photos of garage conversions: [https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/New-use-for- San-...](https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/New-use-for-San- Francisco-garages-upscale-13778164.php#photo-17238670)

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> They kind of do this in SF with ADUs, accessory dwelling units. Want to convert your garage to a separate unit? City will help you with all the permitting.

<comment><USER81> But you agree that's not even close? You have one good house and a subpar living arrangement that can be only temporary or last resort, while in the other scenario you get two units that can both host a family without loss of dignity or comfort. It's night and day.

<comment><USER80> I've seen some beautiful ADUs in SF which basically removed the garage and converted the ground floor to a 2nd unit of the same size as the upper floor - AKA turned it into a duplex!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER82> The Bay area needs this badly. But the NIMBYs will not let this pass.

</comment><comment><USER83> As long as they don't touch the UGB.

</comment><comment><USER84> this is the step towards the USA matching the infrastructure development in the rest of the world.

</comment><comment><USER81> Well done neighbors, I hope some of your good sense infects us.

</comment><comment><USER5> Is anyone else concerned that this will lead to conditions like the beginning of the 20th century where 2 or 3 large families would live in a single residence, often times with 10+ people living and sleeping in the same room? Rezoning a residence to house twice the people without any adjustment in required square footage is a slippery slope towards turning low income housing into slums.

<comment><USER85> This isn't about re-zoning the use of existing houses, it's about what can be built in the future.

</comment></comment><comment><USER86> Like most things they do in Oregon, this will certainly not have the desired effect. Infrastructure in Portland is stressed enough without doubling density. Turning 1 $600K home into two $500k homes isn't going to help anyone but the speculating developers.

<comment><USER87> Your hypothetical example assumes that this measure leads available housing to double while prices fall about by about 15%, and even so your conclusion is that this doesn't help anyone?

<comment><USER49> This is a very common view in certain areas that otherwise have progressive views. In these terms, the profit of developers is an evil that exceeds the benefit of any person having housing. In particular, new people are often considered nuisances or a burden or something that is bad for the neighborhoods, even.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER88> The problem people don't want to address is these neighborhoods were not designed to handle this many people. They don't have the power, water, natural gas, sewerage, parking, etc to handle these many people. As a result everyone's quality of life is degraded.

The city loves the taxes though.

<comment><USER89> That's such a cop out. Do you imagine Manhattan and Tokyo went from being uninhabited wilderness to concrete jungles in one go? No, it was constant iteration over decades.

These are all solved problems. We know how to build denser cities, we just need the political will to do so.

<comment><USER37>
      uninhabited wilderness to concrete jungles

Many of us don't _want_ to live in concrete jungles.

<comment><USER57> So you should move to Oregon, since all this does is allow low density construction mixed with the existing very-low density construction.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Chienese version of batman origin - <AUTHOR> http://boingboing.net/2011/08/22/a-chinese-version-of-batmans-origins.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+boingboing%2FiBag+%28Boing+Boing%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

<comment><USER2> What Jim Carrey put on the Batman mask, he becomes... Spiderman! Scourge of criminal activates and criminals everywhere!</comment>


U.S. Patent #6,895,557: Web-based media submission tool - <AUTHOR> http://www.google.com/patents/US6895557

<comment><AUTHOR> Twitter recently got sued by a patent troll claiming infringement of this patent: [http://www.summit6.com/summit6_feb_2014.pdf](http://www.summit6.com/summit6_feb_2014.pdf).</comment>


French parliament passes porn age-verification legislation - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/07/french-parliament-passes-porn-age-verification-legislation/ <comment><USER2> I think this will go exactly how it went in the UK, postpone, postpone, postpone and then sort of cancelled.</comment>


Places to get valuable feedback for your every awesome work - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/OpenGenus/Feedback <comment><AUTHOR> I love this list. Very useful!</comment>


How to find MH370? - <AUTHOR> https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.09315 <comment><AUTHOR> This article also gives a readable background and summary of the problem and theory: [https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&obj...](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=12173137)</comment>


How to Make Visa Obey Your Every Desire: The Credit Card Concierge Experiment - <AUTHOR> http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2010/05/01/credit-card-concierge/ <comment><USER2> You know, honestly these requests weren't all that outrageous...

I've recently become rather disheartened at just how little "extra" it takes to impress American's these days. Many societies around the world take it for granted that services is a part of...well..."service". For example, when I was in Turkey with my wife, we were a just your average cafe. We really like the little tea spoons that they had, and wanted some for home. We asked the waiter if the cafe had any extra they would mind selling us. He told us that the ones they had were all dinged and used, and wouldn't it be better to have some brand new spoons? We agreed, and he sent one of the other boys working in the back down to the local store to buy some for us while we sat and sipped our tea.

Ordinary little cafe...nothing really that out of the ordinary...so why is this so foreign in America?

<comment><USER3> My parents both can speak a little of the language though they're not turkish at all. The overcharging of tourists there is ridiculous (in Istanbul at least). You pay a much higher price as a foreigner than any local. So it's possible you got a very high mark-up on the tea that paid for the spoons.

<comment><USER4> A few things here:

1\. How much more money do westerners travelling to Turkey make yearly, vs. native Turks? You might get overcharged, but it's not like you can't afford it.

2\. You might get overcharged, but it's still cheaper than it would be in richer countries.

3\. Most importantly, countries like Turkey tend (in my limited experience) to have a less fixed price structure. Bartering (at least in the markets) is completely beyond my ability, since this isn't something I grew up with in North America, but I have an Israeli friend who will back-and-forth with a vendor until he offers to sell for one tenth of his original price (and he's still making a killing).

The first two points make me out to be an apologist, but it's not like he's charging you $10 more for the tea vs. locals and using his massive margins to throw in a $0.50 set of tea spoons for free so you'll tell your friends.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I have the Schwab 2% cash back Signature card.

I've used the concierge service for some awesome things:

1\. I knew I was going to propose to my GF in St. Augustine on a long weekend but I'd never been there. So I asked for a complete scouting report. Lists of good restaurants (plus reservations), good places to ask her, etc. They came through in awesome style.

2\. We were shopping in Chicago and she fell in love with, but didn't buy, a Coach purse. Her birthday was a month later so, back home, a thousand miles away, I went to buy that purse. Sold out. They checked near by stores: Sold Out. I check websites: Sold Out.

I called my Concierge. They contacted Coach for me. They verified that every single Coach store was sold out of this purse, when the next shipment was coming in, which stores would get the purses from that very next shippment, and how much shipping would cost if I ordered from the closest one and had it delivered.

3\. When a Generic prescription drug became suddenly unavailable, I asked about "why". They refused to help because of the questions Medical nature. Even when I told them it was just personal FYI and I wasn't actually taking the medicine (a lie, but i thought it might work)

<comment><USER6> >They refused to help because of the questions Medical nature. Even when I told them it was just personal FYI and I wasn't actually taking the medicine (a lie, but i thought it might work)

I suspect that this is a liability issue.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> _"But that's a lot of work, so I'm hoping you guys can do it for me. Just call and give me a daily affirmation."_

 _"You want us to call and tell you you're a good person?"_

 _"That's right."_

So, was this the inspiration for Awesomeness Reminders? <http://www.awesomenessreminders.com/>

<comment><USER8> Yes

<comment><USER8> Maybe

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Main problem I see with this sort of thing:

The money to do this comes from _somewhere_. My location guesses: increased interest rates, and increased POS charges. All of which ultimately means less money for you, and less for everywhere you buy things.

Another interesting thing I've read somewhere, and would be interested in a link if someone knows of it: all/many of these higher-perk cards charge the merchants more when they're used. It's best for businesses if you use the most basic cards, or _far_ better if you use cash.

But I just dislike credit card companies. And their "rating" systems. I must be cranky right now or something, because I feel like spreading the dislike :\

<comment><USER10> As a foreigner, the US credit card and rating system puzzled me a bit.

But the most annoying thing about it is that it's difficult not to be part of it. If you have credit cards or not, you _will_ have a credit score and that score _will_ be used when you want to buy a house for example…

For a couple of years after moving here, I was using either cash or a debit card, but I switched to credit card for a lot of things mostly because you kind of have to play in the credit score game.

<comment><USER11> You only need to be a part of it if you ever want anyone to extend any sort of credit to you, no?

<comment><USER5> Including cell phones, satellite television, etc. in short, you ignore your fico at your own peril

<comment><USER12> I'm not sure your FICO matters too much to DirecTV.

If you don't want to participate in the credit system _and_ you ignore your FICO, you'll notice when you (a) buy/rent your home and (b) get a cell phone. I think that may be about it.

<comment><USER13> Or buy/lease a car (unless you have cash up front). Or if you're unluckily enough to want to work for an employer who runs a background check.

<comment><USER12> Someone really needs to set up a site that names and shames knowledge work employers who run credit checks on candidates. You don't want to work for any of them.

You're right, to an extent, about the cars: you will get poorer terms for your car with a wrecked FICO score. You will not however be at any risk of _not getting_ the car, unlike that apartment building you really like, which simply won't rent to you because of your credit.

<comment><USER14> I would be fine with credit checks and criminal background checks being run on all final stage candidates, with consent. I hired a felon once and ended up losing seven figures. Not doing background checks on someone in a key position with access to customer information, etc. seems irresponsible.

A low credit score should not be a disqualifier, but should be explained. If someone had gotten divorced or medical expenses or something, that isn't a concern (and I would consider advancing money to clear it up for any clearance investigations later), but if it is due to gambling, drug, etc. addiction, I would be very dubious unless there were a way to show it was not an ongoing risk. (similarly, there are some criminal convictions I would consider benign or even slightly positive, and others which would be disqualifies)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Bloomberg have somewhat offered this service.

One lucky enough to have a Bloomberg terminal (providing financial news and information services) have access to a helpdesk built into the software via the messaging system (to query data, news, etc). This helpdesk has had huge appeal in other areas - booking restaurants, book recommendations, ideas for things to do on holiday - for many many years.

When paying at least $15k/year for such a terminal (often much more), and a client often having hundreds installed, if not thousands, it is a beautiful example of going a little extra for a lot of goodwill.

<comment><USER16> The Bloomberg helpdesk was never designed to be used in that way, but generally the guys and gals staffing it were given quite a lot of flexibility in answering clients.

Bloomberg actually took quite an interesting approach to staffing their helpdesk, everyone (except for developers) who joins the company from university has to spend a few months working on the help desk. So all the help desk staff are highly educated locals rather than outsourced labour. They probably have some of the most capable helpdesk staff in the technology industry.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I wonder if you could harness this for serious information research. The grey area is interesting on _5\. We cannot research your school paper, or do your job for you_

examples: Find out if [your] anonymously uploaded website X violates anything in patent Y? What is the contact information for CEO in some big company Z? I could easily think of lots of others!

Might be worth a try at least and see how far they can really go :)

</comment><comment><USER18> I've done security assessments of outsourcers providing this service before. One was mostly aligned with credit card companies, one was an company that offered this in conjunction with travel insurance. Interestingly, all agents in both cases were in the US. (It's possible some call QA was offshored, I don't recall in these instances but that's very common.)

In my review, the providers had little familiarity with the data security controls of the credit card industry (aka PCI). One was PCI certified, one was not but 'working on it'. The one that had been certified had somehow convinced their QSA (the PCI auditor) to not review the systems their agents used, only the core infrastructure.

The provider with home-based agents let their agents use their own computers to service callers, and it was quiet possible that the agent had never met anyone from the hiring company face-to-face.

Now, as a matter of course, probably only 1-3% of the calls actually required the agent take a credit card number (to order something for the customer). Most of the time the agents were just answering questions. Most of the agents would never see the caller's credit card number from the issuing bank.

From a information security point-of-view I wouldn't have any problem using the providers I reviewed (although, even as a frequent traveller, I've _never_ had an occasion where it seemed like it would be useful), but I'd stop short of giving them my credit card number.

</comment><comment><USER19> I was excited to try this service out after reading the article. I called them up, and after a couple minutes on hold, was connected to Michael. I didn't need to enter my account number, but it's possible they used my phone number to know that I have a credit card.

I asked him if there were any local stores that sold caffeine-free Diet Mountain Dew. He put me on hold for a couple minutes and came back, asking if I had tried Wal-Mart or grocery stores. I told him I hadn't seen it there. He said that he found some Facebook page talking about caffeine-free Mountain Dew, but he was unable to access it because Facebook was blocked from his location. He suggested I search on google for it myself. He apologized for being unable to help me.

So I searched and the second hit pointed me to <http://www.pepsiproductfacts.com/storelocator/index600.html> and there is a store 19 miles from me that sells the "extremely limited" caffeine-free Diet Mountain Dew.

I'm not impressed.

<comment><USER20> Or rather, Google made the more lasting impression first: that finding things is easy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> This 4HWW blog post was submitted here about 6 months ago here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1321730>

In the comments section, user feb basically asked HN if our users could verify this is legit, but he didn't get a response then. Anyone?

<comment><USER10> My wife's card is a Signature (mine should be too I would think but is not for some reason).

I could look into it tomorrow.

I'm curious to know what they can really do for you. His examples were mostly finding and compiling information that wasn't necessarily hard to find but just annoying or possibly tedious.

That in itself could be interesting to take advantage of, especially if they're fast.

But could you do something a bit more advanced: let's say you're traveling for X days somewhere, maybe you could ask for them to put together for you a complete program of what's good to see there, places to eat, train schedule, while considering details like days museums are closed, weather... That sounds a bit much but if they can actually do that kind of things, it can get interesting.

What about patent or trademark search? Salary/stock options comparison in your sector? Best price for specific car? How can I jailbreak my phone? Can you send a letter to my landlord about the broken dishwasher? I'm curious about the limits really...

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I've had a Diners Club card with concierge service for a couple of years now, and have used the service only once. Based on talking to people who work in a concierge company they can in most cases only do the things you could've done with a little Googling yourself.

It is nice to have somebody look for flights, hotels or restaurants for you, but in general by doing it yourself you get it done a lot more quickly. 5 minutes to findband book a hotel using the phone browser, vs. about the same time on the phone, and waiting them 12 hours to get it done...

</comment><comment><USER23> Is it just me or does that sound like a fun job, to answer stranger's strange requests?

</comment><comment><USER24> I'm disappointed. I was hoping that they would explain how to efficiently use this.

I use the Amex Platinum concierge when I travel. "I need reservations at good restaurants for these three nights." They lock in the reservations and email me a schedule. Then I go back and try to use open table and/or trip advisor to find better stuff and cancel/replace as necessary.

I often get the feeling I am Doing It Wrong, and wish people would share the right way.

</comment><comment><USER25> As I was reading this article, I was thinking, "Really? You can ask that and they do it for you?". It just never occurred to me that I would need a personal assistant to help me find a tub of nachos (or help me with a crossword or any other chores). I just find it..weird.

On the other hand, this article pretty much sold me into determining if I need a Visa Signature card.

</comment><comment><USER26> I wonder how they'd scale up this service if suddenly everyone wanted it. It seems pretty awesome though, especially if you're the type of person who deals with lots of small problems daily.

<comment><USER27> It doesn't sound like they actually do much of anything beyond typing your request into Google. It's not as if they sent someone to Austin to buy a gallon of queso dip, or whatever.

The reference desk at a major metropolitan library would probably be able to field some of the inquiries the author tried, and without charging whatever ungodly annual fee Visa is probably getting for that card.

<comment><USER28> Actually, I suspect its some Googling, but also a lot of phone calls. For example, getting in store stock info usually requires calling.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Any idea how much these cost, or how much it would cost to get this service without the card?

Will they order and buy stuff for you (e.g. from Amazon), or just tell you where it is?

<comment><USER11> <http://www.quintessentially.com/join-us/> says it starts at #1000/year.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> _"Money is no object," I said, "but I am on a budget."_

<comment><USER31> Possible translation: "Whatever it takes, but no more"?</comment></comment>


Yahoo: "Software Developer - A Career For People Who Don't Like People" - <AUTHOR> http://education.yahoo.net/articles/six_solo_careers.htm?kid=1MNCA

<comment><USER2> Anybody who gets into software development because they think machines are predictable and reliable is in for something of a surprise, I think.</comment>


Government surveillance must be subject to stringent, transparent oversight - <AUTHOR> http://webfoundation.org/2015/07/government-surveillance-must-be-subject-to-stringent-transparent-oversight/

<comment><USER2> Who will watch the watchers? And who will watch them? How can the stringent, transparent oversight also be reliable? How can the watcher's results be reliable even when we do not trust them.</comment>


Journal rejects studies contradicting precognition - <AUTHOR> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20447-journal-rejects-studies-contradicting-precognition.html

<comment><USER2> Richard Wiseman, interviewed for the submitted article, is a psychologist who studies human cognitive biases. His concern regarding Bem's purported studies on precognition is that if journals reject studies showing no effect, while accepting flawed studies appearing to show precognition, this results in a file drawer problem

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias#The_file_drawe...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias#The_file_drawer_effect)

in which publication bias among the published studies will then skew any subsequent attempt at meta-analysis of the published studies. The file drawer effect is of particular concern in meta-analysis of purported extrasensory perception.

<http://www.skepdic.com/filedrawer.html>

By the way, Wiseman is perhaps best known online as the author of the Colour- changing Card Trick website, featuring videos of an experiment that demonstrates selective attention in human perception.

[http://www.quirkology.com/USA/Video_ColourChangingTrick.shtm...](http://www.quirkology.com/USA/Video_ColourChangingTrick.shtml)

If you haven't seen the video before, it is well worth watching.

I hope the more responsible journals of psychology will step up their efforts to publish commentaries on the study design

<http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html>

of ESP studies and publish in general more studies showing failures of replication of earlier study findings.

</comment><comment><USER3> Did they reject the studies BEFORE they were submitted or AFTER?

</comment><comment><USER4> As a response to the original study, please refer to "Why Psychologists Must Change the Way They Analyze Their Data: The Case of Psi": [http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp- content/uploads/2010/11/Wag...](http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp- content/uploads/2010/11/Wagenmakers-Why-Psychologists-Must-Change-the-Way- They-Analyze-Their-Data.pdf)

The main point of it is that the parapsychologists have done nothing wrong: they're following the same methods and using the same techniques as the actual psychologists. The real problem is that those methods and techniques are not good enough.

Also related, "Parapsychology: The Control Group for Science": [http://lesswrong.com/lw/1ib/parapsychology_the_control_group...](http://lesswrong.com/lw/1ib/parapsychology_the_control_group_for_science/)

<comment><USER5> I don't know how the lesswrong people came to that conclusion about parapsychology a-priori. This is a problem in Science in general. People use parametric-value-based reasoning (e.g. significance values) to get binary conclusions (existence or not of physical processes etc).

<http://dilbert.com/fast/1998-01-19/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The TL;DR version: "This journal does not publish replication studies, whether successful or unsuccessful"

<comment><USER7> Which, to me, seems to be an admission that the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology isn't actually a scientific journal. An initial experiment/study is only a part of the process. If you get extraordinary results out of an experiment, but no one else sees the same results with the same experiment, well, something was up with your run of it. It is vital to the body of scientific knowledge that re-runs of published experiments are performed, recorded, and published. Otherwise, there's no way to know whether the original result was real or a fluke (or fraudulent).

<comment><USER8> When dealing with failed replicability it is important not to conflate a poorly designed experiment with a poorly written methods section. Often there is tacit or socially negotiated knowledge required to properly replicate an experiment. This doesn't mean the science is bad, it means science is more social than some would like to admit. For some interesting reading on this check out Harry Collins's paper "The Seven Sexes: A Study in the Sociology of a Phenomenon, or the Replication of Experiments in Physics"[1]

[1] <http://soc.sagepub.com/content/9/2/205.short>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm curious how this will play out in the scientific world - if there's a slew of failed attempts to reproduce the findings, this will be the new cold fusion, and such an embarrassment may actually affect the way papers get published.

In the layman world, of course, the original paper will be used as justification for whole shelves of pseudoscience books, and the public won't actually hear about any failed attempts to reproduce the claims.

</comment><comment><USER10> This is exactly what Richard Feynman described in his 1974 commencement address at Caltech.

<http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm></comment>


Setup Python and Django on Mac OS X Lion - <AUTHOR> http://hackercodex.com/2011/08/30/python-install-django-on-mac-osx-lion-10.7/

<comment><USER2> Pythonbrew is another good option for dealing with Python and multiple versions of Python.

<https://github.com/utahta/pythonbrew>

</comment><comment><USER3> Great step-by-step instructions and set of "best practices" for getting Python, Django and more installed on OS X version 10.7.x (Lion).

</comment><comment><USER4> After all, not everybody can afford a linux box for their dev :p</comment>


How the Fed Boosts the 1%: Even the Upper Middle Loses Household Wealth to 1% - <AUTHOR> https://wolfstreet.com/2019/11/13/how-the-fed-boosts-the-1-even-the-upper-middle-class-loses-share-of-household-wealth-to-the-1-the-bottom-half-gets-screwed/ <comment><USER2> > Everyone knows that if you're in the bottom 50% of households in terms of > wealth in this country, you're essentially screwed.

This kind of relative comparison has never made sense to me. So if the bottom 50% means 500 sq ft per person, 3k calories, a car, health care, pension et al, then you're still "screwed" because others have 1k sq ft, 5k calories, 2 cars, luxurious health+pension?

> The wealth of the bottom half of households has ticked up by $1.4 trillion > to $2 trillion, a tiny fraction of the wealth of the 1%.

So the bottom 50% now has 333% more wealth than they did 10 yrs ago?

This article is only concerned with people getting a bigger _share_ of the pie, not if the pie is growing for all.

edit: corrected "bottom 1%" => "bottom 50%" typo

<comment><USER3> People just want more free stuff generally. Work less for more, yes some people got a leg up but it doesn't automatically grant you their wealth, someone had to earn that money at some point.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This analysis needs to take into account total wealth growth rather than fraction of wealth.</comment>


A universal measure of intelligence - <AUTHOR> http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-universal-intelligence.html <comment><USER2> Any new measure of intelligence is really just a new definition of intelligence.

<comment><USER3> The point you're making is biting and socially justified, but if you can accept that there is some measure of intelligence/performance (it's probably pretty damn high dimensional) at least so much as to help explain why an avocado can't do software engineering, then it's worth considering that each new measure helps to get us a more complete understanding thereof.

Furthermore, if it's popular enough (which it probably won't be) then it becomes ammunition against reemphasizing the multitudinous aspects of intelligence.

So while the snark is pretty well deserved in light of the way people treat IQ... I say it's worth applauding further research.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Basing an intelligence metric on Kolmogorov complexity seems like a really interesting idea. But Kolmogorov complexity is not computable so I don't understand how it can be used in practice. Anyone know of any free papers that provide insight into this ?

<comment><USER5> It's computable enough.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Oh joy, another dubious article from physorg.com!

With the science sub-reddit's recent acquisition of real scientist moderators, I think we have finally reached the point where the science submissions on HN are less credible then those on reddit.

</comment><comment><USER7> Article is really light on details.. But they mention that they are basing their intelligence metric on an organism's Kolmogorov complexity. It sounds to me like they are quantifying randomness, not intelligence.

<comment><USER8> I believe they meant the Kolmogorov complexity of the environment constituting the problem posed to the agent -- not the complexity of the agent itself. I don't have access to the paper, though. (Edit: the paper confirms this -- thanks, rubidium.)

<comment><USER9> Actual paper can be found at one of the authors websites: [http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~dld/Publications/HernandezOra...](http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~dld/Publications/HernandezOrallo+DoweArtificialIntelligenceJArticle.pdf).

Generally applicable hint: google the paper title. There's often a free pdf posted somewhere, usually at an author's webpage.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm guessing they mean something like this: repeatedly pose a random reinforcement-learning problem and record the agent's score. The "IQ" is the Kolmogorov complexity of the problems at which the agent goes from usually acing it to usually bombing. If you pick a random program (as your random problem), its K-complexity is probably near the length of the program, so you don't need to be able to compute the (uncomputable) K-complexity to get a good estimate of the above score.

(Based on reading a few words before about Shane Legg's work in the same area, not yet published AFAIK. This is just a guess since there were very few details on that too.)

Update: from the paper (thanks to rubidium), on first skim, the above is basically right. They sum up weighted rewards instead of looking for a K-complexity that separates good from bad performance -- which I'd thought of but wasn't sure how to weight scores from problems of different complexity.

</comment><comment><USER10> There can't be an algorithmic test for intelligence, other than by an equally or greater intelligent agent, because anything automated has answers static enough that you can just code specific solutions for them.

<comment><USER11> Read up on RSA encryption it might just blow your mind :)

PS: Creating a problem and measuring the solution need not be as hard as solving the problem without the "Key".

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I hate when articles like this talk about the research, but don't offer examples of what kind of questions they would ask. I'm much more interested in knowing what kinds of questions they would ask people and how I would do in said questionnaire.</comment>


Blockchain-Based QA: The End of Fake Products in E-Commerce? - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@alitech_2017/blockchain-based-qa-the-end-of-fake-products-in-e-commerce-6f9b28a75735 <comment><USER2> This is an ambitious venture. I'm curious to see the results. Good luck during the rollout!</comment>


Detecting and Geolocating Jammers and Spoofers - <AUTHOR> https://insidegnss.com/detecting-and-geolocating-jammers-and-spoofers/ <comment><USER2> If anyone is interested in this sort of thing, I highly recommend getting into your local Ham Radio club and learning about Fox Hunting events.

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't know about other countries, but I'm pretty sure using a wide band jammer in a built up area in the US or UK will get you noticed and imprisoned in a very short period of time... People will definitely notice.

<comment><USER4> >I'm pretty sure using a wide band jammer in a built up area in the US or UK will get you noticed and imprisoned in a very short period of time

How are they going to find you if dropped the jammer in someone else's trashbin? If you time the collection schedule just right, you can get a week or two of jamming assuming your battery lasts that long.

<comment><USER5> Hah, devilish idea. I was thinking you could stick them in Lime scooters but once one was found the jig would be up.

Ideally you'd want something where people would earn money (bitcoin?) for operating it, they just stick it in their bag when they catch a bus/train somewhere, it only turns on briefly/sporadically, when commanded, etc.</comment></comment></comment>


Troubleshooting Deep Neural Networks: a decision tree for debugging your model - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/josh_tobin_/status/1088830262794833921 <comment><USER2> Actual write-up here[0], rather than on twitter

[0] [http://josh-tobin.com/troubleshooting-deep-neural-networks](http://josh- tobin.com/troubleshooting-deep-neural-networks)</comment>


TechCrunch redesign – thoughts? - <AUTHOR> https://beta.techcrunch.com/ <comment><USER2> I think it is more aesthetic and less cluttered looking. My only qualm is when the screen width gets too small the header changes. There is an awkward amount of whitespace in the smaller screen size header. It seems as if a design this deliberate should have been properly tested.</comment>


Scala on iOS - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/roboscala/roboscala-samples

<comment><USER2> I've only been exposed to Scala through a Coursera course, but it was a very enjoyable experience. I find myself using things I learned from that course in almost every program I've written since.

</comment><comment><USER3> wohoo, ScalaJS, Scala-iOS, Scala everywhere ;-)</comment>


Weld: Fast parallel code generation for data analytics frameworks - <AUTHOR> https://weld-project.github.io/ <comment><USER2> Wow, this is amazing how easily fusing can be done with just a few linear typed primitives.

The cool part is that if you have a for loop of vecbuilders and inside the for loop you have vecbuilders as well, the code can be fused quite easily. This is very hard to do with other data structures.

The paper is much better than the site and very easy to understand: [https://cs.stanford.edu/~matei/papers/2017/cidr_weld.pdf](https://cs.stanford.edu/~matei/papers/2017/cidr_weld.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER3> I didn't quite get it from the initial skim of this page.

But here's the key bit:

> [existing solutions slow] ... due to extensive data movement across the > functions. Weld's take on solving this problem is to lazily build up a > computation for the entire workflow, optimizing and evaluating it only when > a result is needed.

The "Background" [1] section of the tutorial has more info too.

I've done lots of optimizations before with CPU/GPU computations and I've definitely noticed that minimizing trips across the bus and doing computation during bus activity is critical to saturating the processors/memory. But would we see the orders-of-magnitude improvements shown on this page for CPU-only work? I can't quite tell what was measured in the graphs.

[1] [https://github.com/weld- project/weld/blob/master/docs/tutori...](https://github.com/weld- project/weld/blob/master/docs/tutorial.md#weld-background)</comment>


Good UI Design: Make It Easy, Show Me You Care - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/good_ui_design_make_it_easy_show_me_you_care.php <comment><USER2> Gradual engagement is absolutely critical. A good rule of thumb when developing a user experience is asking -- what would be appropriate if the website were a person? When I first meet someone, I expect a hello, and an introduction... not a 10 page questionnaire.

Incidentally this concept has been discussed at length by Prof. Cliff Nass at Stanford (the infamous originator of the MS Office Clippy), that people treat computers like people. Well, then if your app is a person, then make sure your app is a good, polite person who makes life easier.</comment>


'Alien' creator H.R. Giger is dead - <AUTHOR> http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/culture/Alien_creator_H.R._Giger_is_dead.html?cid=38569780 <comment><USER2> RIP. He was a nice guy and a great artist, but the last years he was quite disabled by (I think) a stroke and it was almost impossible to talk to him. My friend used to visit him to discuss work they did together and I went with him one time; he talked a few times with him after that stroke but it was never the same. I was a big fan right after I saw Alien begin 80s and it was nice to meet him while he was still producing art.

<comment><USER3> I was a big fan (had been since I first saw the images for Alien as an 11 year old in the UK), however my wife (who is Swiss and knew his son, apparently) is less of a fan of him as a person. I'll spare the details (since, in the interest of fairness I cannot remember the whole story accurately and would not want to mis-represent it in this forum) but yes.. like most people he had his less than perfect moments.

But this should come as no surprise to anyone who's lived a bit. One can be well respected for ones art, but be less respected (in some quarters) for how one acts.

Regardless, I am saddened by the news. It is a great loss IMO.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> That's really sad. I just recently watched "Jodorowksy's Dune" ([http://jodorowskysdune.com/](http://jodorowskysdune.com/)), a documentary on the planned but never realized "Dune" movie by Alejandro Jodorowsky, for which H.R. Giger did a lot of artwork and which features an interview with him in his home in Switzerland. If you look at the designs that Giger did for this movie, you can already see the "Alien" style all over it.

<comment><USER5> The Baron's castle in Jodorowsky's Dune looks amazing and terrifying. RIP Giger

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> If you're ever in Switzerland and a fan of H.R. Giger, you should check out his great museum in Gruyère. [1] Additionally, the idyllic mountain village is well worth a visit on its own.

[1] [http://www.hrgigermuseum.com/](http://www.hrgigermuseum.com/)

<comment><USER7> I was there with my wife in November and in one small town you have mountains, a castle, cheese, a Tibet museum, and aliens. His art was far more provocative than I anticipated. I thought it was funny that there was an adults-only room. Some could argue that nearly everything belonged in there. Across from the museum is an amazing bar that he designed. You should go there.

<comment><USER8> I did visit Gruyère but I did not visit the museum. I did visit the bar though and I also recommend it, in particular for the chairs ;)

That said, I thought it was very funny to have this museum in the middle of this (small) medieval town.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> My favorite H.R. Giger story was from when he met the rock band Emerson Lake and Palmer and agreed to do the album art for Brain Salad Surgery. The album name - innuendo for a sex act - inspired an equally sexual album cover. [1] The original image was a futuristic woman with a penis covering her mouth.

The band loved it, but the record company refused to release the album. The band, placed in a difficult position, petitioned to Geiger to adjust the artwork. Geiger refused to bow to the band's and record company's demands, and in the end the record company had to hire an airbrush artist to remove it as much as possible... leading to the "shaft of light" along the neck.

[1] [http://images.coveralia.com/audio/e/Emerson,_Lake_y_Palmer-B...](http://images.coveralia.com/audio/e/Emerson,_Lake_y_Palmer- Brain_Salad_Surgery-Interior_Frontal.jpg?167) (SFW)

<comment><USER10> This reminds me of Penis Landscape [1], a painting of his that was used by the Dead Kennedys in the album Frankenchrist [2]. Jello Biafra was trialed for distributing harmful material to minors, but was not convicted. He even went to Oprah [3] to talk about it and confront Tipper Gore about censorship and the PMRC.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis_Landscape](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis_Landscape) (NSFW)

[2] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankenchrist](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankenchrist)

[3] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpUeo6wR7M4&list=PL0BD020825...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpUeo6wR7M4&list=PL0BD02082558BC33B)

<comment><USER11> Yup, it also kind of broke up the band, in a way... Check out this interview, for some hindsight from Klaus Flouride:

[http://www.markprindle.com/flouride-i.htm](http://www.markprindle.com/flouride-i.htm)

East Bay Ray and D.H. Peligro don't speak quite as directly about the band's break-up, but their interviews and perspective are interesting too:

[http://www.markprindle.com/peligro-i.htm](http://www.markprindle.com/peligro-i.htm)

[http://www.markprindle.com/east-i.htm](http://www.markprindle.com/east-i.htm)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> A truly unique talent. In memory, you should check out Aphex Twin's "Window Licker" directed by Chris Cunningham (HN will probably be most familiar with Bjork's "All is Full of Love" music video). A whole host of talent came together there to make one of the most fucked up things you'll ever witness. Suffice to say a big red _NSFW_ warning goes out on this one!

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MBaEEODzU0](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MBaEEODzU0)

[EDIT: I mean _MOST DEFINITELY NOT SAFE FOR WORK!!!!_ ]

<comment><USER13> Huh, I didn't know that the face was based on Giger's work.

<comment><USER12> Me neither til I finally picked up a book on Giger and there's the Windowlicker staring at me from the first page I flicked to. I always bought into a rumour (possibly just amongst my friends) that it was a munge of Aphex Twin's face and Chris Cunningham's face.

It was this piece that first gave me that odd moment we're seeing a lot of in this thread as I had always assumed Giger was a contemporary of Escher or even earlier. Seeing Windowlicker was dated 1999 really gave me a surprise.

<comment><USER14> He did a piece of artwork for the front cover for Triptykon's album Melana Chasmata that came out this year. Not sure when the artwork was done though.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melana_Chasmata](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melana_Chasmata)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I was always haunted and fascinated by Giger's imagination. What first came into mind was the album cover for Emerson, Lake and Palmer's "Brain Salad Surgery". By synthesizing Thanatos and Eros, both primordial in human nature, Giger created instrinsically-appealing artworks. A great loss to the world.

</comment><comment><USER16> I got to meet the artist when his 'Alien' creation was on display at the California Science Center in Exposition Park. They had a number of sets from the movie on display and the full size creature that was what they build CGI and other latex models from. I remember "Wow, this guy seems completely normal for someone who has the ability to envision something so twisted." It is a rare gift to be able to think about impossible things.

<comment><USER17> If you are not "normal" \- it's hard to communicate.

If it's hard to communicate - you cannot accomplish much.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm amazed he wasn't dead years ago. Seventy four is a good twenty years younger than I kind of assumed he would be. He was only forty when he did the design for Alien? I know he already had his artistic style famous before that, meaning he must have been a wee tacker when he started out. Amazing.

Also: vale. A talented artist with a distinctive voice.

</comment><comment><USER19> I remember picking up an Omni magazine when I was a prepubescent tadpole. The cover had this amazing art that caught my eye. Guess who had drawn it?

Only later did I read it and become fascinated with science. Guess what I do now?

It's amazing how much this man did for the world through his work. Very influential to many people in many ways.

He will be missed.

<comment><USER20> >Guess what I do now?

Exobiologist at Weyland Industries?

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> So long, and thanks for all the nightmares.

</comment><comment><USER22> Although well know for Alien, Giger actually made tons of other stuff (including several bars !). Here's a good book about him that I've read :

[http://www.taschen.com/pages/en/catalogue/art/all/01777/fact...](http://www.taschen.com/pages/en/catalogue/art/all/01777/facts.hr_giger_arh.htm)

<comment><USER23> I own a copy and also recommend it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> For those interested in his work, I really recommend viewing the recent documentary Jodorowsky's Dune, a failed film project Giger and several other proto-luminaries worked on (inspiring much of the iconic imagery in Alien, Star Wars, and Indiana Jones). Giger appears throughout the documentary. I believe it's still playing in the Bay Area.

</comment><comment><USER25> Is it wrong of me to hope that he designed his own casket and mausoleum?

</comment><comment><USER26> I know this won't add much to the discussion, but I really hope he designed his 0wn casket using his signature style—that would be really fun to see and a great way to show one last piece of artwork.

</comment><comment><USER27> What a great genius. What a great loss.

Celebrate his life today by watching Alien!

<comment><USER28> Good idea, but [ __SPOILER ALERT!! __] remember to watch the original version, the one where you don't see the alien till the last minute of the movie.

<comment><USER29> You might want to add a spoiler alert at the beginning of your comment. I'm sure most of HN has already seen the movie but for those who haven't, knowing that can ruin the suspense.

<comment><USER30> [Spoiler?] If the movie is called "Alien", is it really a spoiler to say that you see the alien by the end? I suspect that most of the movie is spent dreading the eventuality that we all expect. ;) Granted it's been a long time since I saw the movie, so I might have forgotten why it's a spoiler.

edit: I suspect that I saw Aliens before Alien, and therefore already had an expectation of what it would look like. Thanks to the sibling/cousin comments for explaining that :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Ah, what a loss.

I remember being astonished by Giger's vision in Alien. For years I hunted down posters, calendars, and books, which weren't always available or affordable. Like others here, I relished the Dark Seed game for its tribute to Giger.

This takes me back to an earlier stage of my life, and makes me very sad. What a vision!

</comment><comment><USER32> Sad to see him go, great artist!

If you have a chance, check "Alejandro Jodorowsky's Dune". They have one of his last interviews talking about how he got started and how that failed movie was the seed for his ideas for Alien with Jean Giraud.

</comment><comment><USER33> Ironically, his futuristic work will be incredibly influential far into the future. Terrible news.

RIP H.R. Giger

[https://imgur.com/gallery/SsFg0Hu/](https://imgur.com/gallery/SsFg0Hu/)

</comment><comment><USER34> Wow. For some reason, I thought he was dead a long time ago. RIP

<comment><USER35> I think his work had that unique classic timeless glow that belong to artists since gone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Very sad. I was a huge fan even before the Alien movies.

</comment><comment><USER37> Darkseed was a chok when i was young. I still remember the game. RIP

</comment><comment><USER38> He deserves a black bar.

</comment><comment><USER39> great artist!

</comment><comment><USER40> Up The great site</comment>