Why do Americans not drive diesels? - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/autos/story/20130109-why-do-americans-not-buy-diesels <comment><USER2> This piece really does not hit on the reason Diesel is not popular in the US. Back in the 1970s energy crisis, diesel cars drew some interest, and unfortunately General Motors obliged with some horrendous products. Smelly, smokey, slow, and highly trouble prone diesel engine that was essentially a gasoline 350 cubic inch V8 block with diesel heads slapped onto it. Used in Oldsmobiles, Chevys, and Cadillacs, it was a disaster and ruined the diesel concept for decades.

See [http://www.autosavant.com/2009/08/11/the-cars-that-killed- gm...](http://www.autosavant.com/2009/08/11/the-cars-that-killed-gm-the- oldsmobile-diesel/) for some history.

<comment><USER3> "What's good for GM is good for America" used to be a quote around Washington. What an awful company, and a cautionary tale about taking "public/private partnership" way too far. GM also ruined Los Angeles -- look up the transit system LA/OC used to have prior to GM's purchase of it and lobbying. LA would be a much nicer and more livable city had GM not had such influence.

GM really should have been allowed to die in 2008.

<comment><USER4> AFAIK, the reason why it wasn't was that it would ruin the supply chains of the other automakers.

<comment><USER5> Not sure why you're being downvoted. That's a huge part of the reason: Due to the nature of the auto industry, many suppliers only have a few customers; take away a third of a company's business, and there's a good chance it will fail.

The entire economy of Michigan (and many neighboring states) would have collapsed. Over here in West Michigan, we have many companies—ranging from mom-and-pop injection mold shops with 50 employees to large companies like Gentex, Delphi, etc. Those companies were already struggling back in 2008; GM going away would have meant the death of most of them.

I hate many of GM's historical business practices as much as anyone (there used to be two streetcar lines within a quarter-mile of my home, dammit), but the saving of GM was a critical component in preventing a catastrophic depression, especially for Michigan—which was already suffering before the Great Recession hit.

<comment><USER6> IIRC, even companies like Toyota who were not in trouble wanted to keep the supply chain around and thus favored the bailout.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Americans really _want_ to drive diesels. There is a huge demand for diesel volkswagens.

The supply just isn't there; maybe there is a lag between cost-unconscious new-car buyers [ordering new cars], and cost-conscious used-car buyers [buying what the new car buyers leave].

Source: I used to work in the automotive remarketing industry.

<comment><USER8> Loved our Volkswagen Sportwagen TDI.

One of the problems is that VW that they add premium options to the TDI marque. So you can't get a bare bones Jetta TDI without the highest trim level, fancy wheels, and other things that add to the cost. On top of that the gasoline ones are efficient enough where the price difference becomes a non- factor, even when taking the MPG into account.

They are damn fun to drive though, torquey without the compromises of a 4 cylinder gasoline engine. The used market on the sportwagens is great too, which is why we ultimately traded it in for a Tiguan since the demand for the wagens was high enough to make that a relatively easy financial decision.

Unfortunately VW doesn't do diesel Tiguans in the US, which is weird, you'd think the SUV market would be a no-brainer for TDI.

<comment><USER9> I seriously considered the Golf TDI, and didn't mind the premium options, but I ended up not liking the high-torque of the turbo diesel on the front (both my wife and I could picture us slamming into the back of someone in DC traffic), and went with the GTI instead.

<comment><USER10> Are you serious? Isn't the GTI still faster?

<comment><USER9> The GTI is _faster_ but has less up-front torque. The issue was not hurtling down the highway at high speed (both can do that perfectly ably), but the feeling we both got that the combination of early torque and turbo lag just begging for the car to surge forward unexpectedly and rear end someone.

The GTI gets rid of one of those problems, and is a spectacular car in its own right.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Curiously in Germany Diesel is actually cheaper than regular gas at the gas station. This is because it's taxed differently. So a Diesel car saves Germans money two times (less fuel consumption and less price per tank) as compared to a gas engine car, which is why they are extremely popular over here.

That said, on an absolute level in Germany Diesel is still about 1.7x more expensive than Diesel in the US and about 2x more expensive than gas in the US.

<comment><USER12> Same case currently in India, where petrol is heavily taxed and diesel is subsidized (Ostensibly as a farmers subsidy to run irrigation pumps but also because diesel prices are strongly tied to price of essential commodities). Price per litre is about 1 usd for petrol and 80 cents for diesel. This might change in the future as the current govt. seeks to end diesel subsidies.

Also, It should be noted that the Total Cost of Ownership benefits is not clear cut. Diesel generally has higher Miles per gallon rating, and is cheaper in some countries like India. But diesel engines are more expensive to make, maintain (bills for routine service are higher) and do require a expensive rebuild after a few hundred thousand kilometers (Newer diesel engines have got much better in this regard).

On a side note, it is quite hard to find hard data on the true TCO of cars that can help consumers make a decision.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Diesel is still a dirty fuel and has done a lot of health damage in Europe. The US has lucked out of this one. See e.g. [http://www.channel4.com/info/press/news/the-great-car-con- ch...](http://www.channel4.com/info/press/news/the-great-car-con- channel-4-dispatches)

<comment><USER14> >Diesel is still a dirty fuel and has done a lot of health damage in Europe.

Gasoline is also a dirty fuel that does a lot of health damage, but the particles in the exhaust are much smaller and less visible, so people mistakenly assume it's cleaner and better than visible Diesel smoke.

Gasoline is arguably worse, since the tiny invisible particulate matter in the exhaust can stay airborne much longer than the larger, heavier particles in Diesel exhaust.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Diesel in the US is expensive (currently more than a dollar/gal). This is due to tax differences between the fuels.

But the article makes a point that I find irksome:

"with lots of relaxed muscle available at low rpms"

Diesels can't rev high (harder to burn, heavier reciprocating parts). So diesels are tuned for low rpm and they all have turbo chargers. By contrast gasoline cars can rev high, so they are tuned for it. Most gasoline cars aren't turbo charged and those that are, are given turbos for the high end. Tune a gas engine right, give it a turbo as well, and it'll get all the diesel's low end power.

I like diesels, but they are absolutely non sensical in the US.

\- The high price of diesel cancels the mpg advantage. \- The "torquey" argument is total BS (see below _) - that 's why a car maker includes a transmission. \- Nor is engine longevity true anymore ( or inherent to diesels): an average driver's car body (or electronics, or accessories, or rods, ect) will rot before the engine dies.

_While I'm at it, Power = torque * rpm. There is no such thing as a "torquey" vs "powerful" engine. If you know one, you know the other. The "torque" vs. "Power" discussion is a proxy for the Power (or torque) vs. rpm and how broad it is. There is actually no reason to know the torque (unlike the curve itself) of an engine __

 __Unless you 're designing the engine, when you actually have to know the torsional stress on the materials.

<comment><USER16> >> "I like diesels, but they are absolutely non sensical in the US."

Here's a counterpoint: In my hometown, by far the best-selling passenger vehicles are the Dodge Ram diesels. And having driven a couple of them, they do feel pretty sensical (and very satisfying).

Source: My friend owns a bunch of dealerships

<comment><USER15> What do you mean by sensical or satisfying?

Your friend's diesel is turbo charged, unlike any gasoline powered light truck in the US. And their displacements are, for the most part, larger. Tuned for low end power, and you get the sensation of "easy" power because you don't have to rev the engine. My old grand marquis had a "measly" 200 hp from a 4.6 l gasoline, less than my sister's 1.8 T VW. My 200 were always available, my sister's golf had to scream.

So what? Don't get queasy about downshifting and making your engine scream, in moderation. On a modern car, with our roads the way they are, the engine will outlast the car.

Don't get me wrong. On a large pickup, and given the appropriate task, diesels make sense in the USA. But not for most people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I would love to drive a diesel, but the choice is limited to mostly VW. There are no minivans in US market that run on Diesel and SUVs that run on diesel are marked about 4k+ compared to their gasoline cousins. The other thing is cost, Diesel costs more and if you factor the mileage/cost in most cases gasoline comes ahead. The beauty of Diesel engines is ability to run on Biodiesel, which is better than ethanol/gasoline flex-fuel engines which for whatever reason are popular (in terms of availability). All in all Europeans have tremendous choice with their Diesel vehicles, Americans do not. It is egg and chicken problem. I think on top of it there is some Diesel pollution related regulation, which is stringent in US than in Europe, preventing car manufacturers simply moving around European Diesel models to US.

edit: mostly german manufacturers VW, MB are trying to bring diesel, where as Japanese and American manufacturers are barely testing waters, actually FIAT- Chrysler is the one testing waters.

<comment><USER18> Car makers like Toyota, Mazda and the like all make diesel versions of the same cars-- they sell them in the UK and Australia. They cannot import them to the USA because of the "anti-smog" rules. IT's not chicken and egg-- the cars are there, and produced for other markets.

It's pure regulation.

<comment><USER19> What is it that prevents Toyota and Mazda from selling those diesel cars when most manufacturers are already selling pickups with large diesels?

<comment><USER20> Not sure, but there could be regulatory reasons. In the US there are these funny quotas for having to have so and so many cars below certain fuel consumption levels. And those quotas do not apply to pickup trucks, because they are not cars.

This is rather silly, but it's the kind of thing that comes up when environmentalists and industry lobbyists are unleashed among politicians.

<comment><USER21> > This is rather silly, but it's the kind of thing that comes up when > environmentalists and industry lobbyists are unleashed among politicians.

Industry lobbyists - accepted. But why should environmentalists accept such stupid, environmentally harmful laws?

<comment><USER20> It's not easy to see how the mechanisms actually work, but I suppose it happens because those negotiations are more about power games than actual, rational processes towards specific goals.

The relevant emission regulations are described in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Average_Fuel_Economy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Average_Fuel_Economy)

"CAFE has separate standards for "passenger cars" and "light trucks", despite the majority of "light trucks" actually being used as passenger cars. The market share of "light trucks" grew steadily from 9.7% in 1979 to 47% in 2001 and remained in 50% numbers up to 2011."

Thus, the very legislation designed to reduce emissions has resulted in Americans buying bigger and bigger vehicles. From Europe, the rationale for this legislation is hard to understand.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it would be feasible to move all or most cars in the US to use diesel. Diesel, gasoline, and jet fuel are all petroleum distillates that boil off at different temperatures. So each barrel of oil contains so many units of gasoline, so many units of diesel, and so many units of jet fuel/kerosene/mineral oil/whatever.

And I believe that you get much more gasoline out of a barrel of oil than you get diesel, so moving many cars over to diesel would actually increase oil consumption it seems.

<comment><USER2> Used to be this way. Diesel used to be something of a waste product from refinining gasoline. As a result it was both somewhat dirty and also cheaper than gasoline.

Today, refining technology and hydrocracking allows a barrel of oil to be refined almost completely into whatever end product the refiner wants. Diesel, kerosene, jet fuel (which are all pretty much the same thing actually) or gasoline. So now these refined products are priced more by their energy content which is why the pricing has flipped and diesel now costs more per gallon than gasoline (but can still be more economical overall).

<comment><USER23> There didn't use to be any "diesel fuel", Diesel designed his engine to work on plant oils and other renewable (for some value of renewable that's better than gasoline, but more at odds with food production). The oil industry realized that they could _also_ produce something that could fuel diesel engines, and they called it diesel fuel.

Modern diesel engines are very different -- but for eg. industrial and military use, you'll still see some resilient engines that can burn pretty much anything you throw at them, from butter to diesel fuel.

Shame he fell of a boat in the English channel and drowned.

<comment><USER24> You can fuel a Humvee with JP-8, which is jet engine fuel. It's been a long time, but I remember there being problems if you switched fuels -- if you had been using regular truck diesel and switched to JP-8 you could have engine problems because you'd still have some residual truck diesel mixing with the JP-8.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> From my research and back of the napkin estimates, the operation cost of a diesel vehicle is the same as a gasoline vehicle (MPG gains are offset completely by fuel price in my area). Assuming that the two engines cost the same I think the TCO is higher for diesel due to increased maintenance costs. But ultimately, the reason I purposefully chose not to buy is diesel is pretty obvious: price. For example, if the operational expense is nearly the same and TCO is likely higher, why would I spend $5.7k more for a Passat TDI when I could get one for less?

<comment><USER26> Not to mention the higher maintenance costs associated with the Urea and the turbo on the engine.

In my area the price of gas has gone down very much. Even the premium I use in my car has decreased significantly. Diesel on the other hand has stayed the same more or less. If these lower gas prices are here to stay then I dont find it beneficial to buy a diesel engine.

Diesel Price + Price for Diesel Engine + Extra Maintenance > Gas powered car + associated costs

<comment><USER27> Urea isn't really a factor. Usage is something like a gallon per 1000 miles or less, and it's just a couple dollars per gallon.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> The article plays into the mythology of Americans not knowing about diesels with lines like "It is high time, America, to give diesels a better look."

However, all of us drivers have far too much life experience with driving behind/around giant bus and semi trucks that lay down a choking smokescreen.

Like it or not, diesels in America have a history of laying down choking smokescreens. Lack of regulation, lack of inspection, who knows.

Possibly new diesels or car diesels aren't as toxic. If you want to sell diesels to Americans you need to wait for them to forget about the last time they were "gassed" because they were nearby a bus or truck exhaust.

The other problem, living in a northern climate where diesel gels in the winter, its a huge hassle for the few diesel owners we actually have. And as if starting a gasoline engine at -15F isn't enough of a struggle, consider the poor diesel owner. They could sell well in Miami or New Orleans without the fuel issues, but inevitably someones going to move up north and the trash talking will commence. With extensive maintenance, expensive maintenance, they can be almost as reliable in the cold as a gasoline engine... almost. Why not save the extra maint money and buy a cheaper lighter higher powered gas engine? I have no question that the net gain to the environment tilts on the side of diesel in Louisiana, and it Might even net be cheaper. In the north... I strongly suspect the net overall system environmental costs of gas are significantly lower, as is the total system wide cost.

<comment><USER29> > Possibly new diesels or car diesels aren't as toxic.

They aren't. That's the entire point of the article, hence "It is high time, America, to give diesels a better look."

<comment><USER28> Ugh not getting it. The problem isn't the new ones being better, its that until every last one of the old ones is melted down, it'll be a PR nightmare trying to sell new diesels to people who were just choked in a school bus smoke cloud yesterday or choked in a semi truck cloud this morning. It doesn't mean anything to those customers that the new diesels aren't like that, or the cloud generator was a 1990 model. All that matters is they can almost still smell that stinking cloud.

One effective although expensive way to sell diesels in 2015 would be to buy every pre-2005 or so diesel and melt it down into scrap metal. We can't afford that, although over a very long period of time it'll eventually take place naturally.

Another way would be to enforce emissions limits and emissions testing such that nobody ever sees a 1995 diesel truck laying down a smoke cloud. We've pretty much chosen not to do that, as a society.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I'm confused about the state of diesel engines. There were a few documentaries about the health issues caused(Japan banned diesel entirely). Also the politics putting these issues under the rug (France government massive subventions would be a public shame if they generated illnesses). Meanwhile reading Wikipedia, it says that modern diesel engines are heavily filtered and not toxic.

<comment><USER31> Same here. IIRC France used to embrace diesel until recently, when they realised particle pollution was difficult to prevent.

<comment><USER30> I google 'banned diesel' and found contradictory news articles spanning a decade.

Tokyo did ban diesel long ago, but in 2012 there were discussion about allowing them again. France is now trying to avoid them. Knowing about Japan I thought it made sense (with a little big companies / lobby / plot feeling), but now it seems a misguided attempt at being eco-friendly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> A little late for that. Tesla`s Model 3 is coming in 2017, and as great as diesels are, it won`t hold a candle to the efficiency of a pure electric drivetrain. Tesla`s supercharger network will be vast by then, so range won`t be a problem either.

A place like Canada could use diesel, due to our brutal winters, but most of the USA is basically tropical in comparison. Electrics just make sense there, because of the weather and the automobile culture in general.

The age of the fossil fuel personal car is entering its last decade.

<comment><USER2> Nonsense. Modern diesel passenger cars can approach 1000 miles range on a tank of fuel. Tesla is nowhere close to that and probably never will be.

And I'm talking about nice cars, too. Not tin cans.

[http://www.autoblog.com/2010/05/25/bmw-320d-goes- over-1-000-...](http://www.autoblog.com/2010/05/25/bmw-320d-goes- over-1-000-miles-on-one-tank-of-fuel/)

<comment><USER32> > Ford decided to drive from England to Munich and back to see how many miles > he could squeeze out of a single tank. To extend the drive, Ford kept the > windows up and the air conditioning turned off, but otherwise drove about > 65-70 mph on the motorways and autobahns. By the time the tank ran dry, Ford > had covered 1,013 miles and got to within 70 miles of Calais on the return > route. That's an average of 57.4 mpg at 59.3 mph.

Since when do drivers optimize for max miles per tank of fuel? 57.4mpg is extremely low compared to a Tesla's 97mpge [1]. Diesels are great, they just won't make sense when the 35,000$ Model 3 comes out.

1\. [http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2013_Tesla_Model_S.sh...](http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2013_Tesla_Model_S.shtml)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I'm a Canadian, but this article equally applies to us. I've been waiting for years now for Mazda or Subaru to bring one of their diesel cars to Canada. Now and then you see articles like this [1] in the Canadian press celebrating that we will soon have diesel cars in Canada, but it never seems to happen. I had really high hopes when Mazda announced they were bringing the Skyactive-D to Canada for the end of 2013, but there has been nothing but delays since [2].

I spend some time in Korea for work and always drive diesel rental cars and modern diesels are great. I once almost filled one with gasoline because I didn't even realize it was diesel until a Korean co-worker corrected me.

In the end its probably very good for my pocketbook as I've just kept driving my 10 year old Mazda 3 and waiting for the diesels that never arrive.

[1] [http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/auto- shows/north-...](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/auto-shows/north- america/canadians-finally-have-more-diesel-vehicle-choices/article16364088/)

[2] [http://www.forbes.com/sites/dalebuss/2014/01/09/mazda- delays...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/dalebuss/2014/01/09/mazda-delays- diesel-again-as-it-cant-get-the-engine-right/)

</comment><comment><USER34> Another factor is maintenance and service costs. They might be more reliable, but if you do need some service or maintenance, you'll need to take it to the dealer as there aren't as many experienced diesel car mechanics. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is one factor that has kept me away from diesel (apart from availability of diesel at most pumps near me).

</comment><comment><USER35> Because in the mid 1970s Oldsmobile decided to produce a 350cu in(5.7litre) diesel based on the gasoline version of the engine. It failed spectacularly since it was not rugged enough to withstand the pressures of compression combustion. Plus GM had a crisis of quality at the time so it just sucked. While you could get German diesels all the while it was too expensive to be mainstream and most people's experience with diesel is that of heavy duty trucks. These are noisy, produce huge amounts of soot and are sometimes(note the word sometimes) driven by folks who must compensate for their manhood with such niceties as Calvin pissing on a different brands logo, taking the engine branding and making it a sexual double entendre, putting a giant 8" exhaust pipe in the bed(or more than one) or the ever popular set of testicles hanging from the bumper. So diesel suffers from an image problem here in the US.

<comment><USER2> The smoke-belching pickups have been modified. They don't come that way from the factory; diesel today is very clean.

There is a certain subculture of diesel pickup truck owners who alter the engine management computer with aftermarket chips to make it inject a ton of extra fuel, which doesn't burn properly and creates the black clouds of smoke.

<comment><USER35> I totally agree. However particularly in the southern US where I live, these modified ridiculous diesels are a pretty vocal minority. To the point where anecdotally, at least, people associate diesel to that. I'm a huge diesel proponent, my next car will likely be an "oil burner"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> When I got my last car if I could have gotten the Euro-diesel version (which supposedly gets > 50MPG vs. the American petrol version getting 30-something) here in the states I would have. I don't have anything against diesel, I've just never seen it offered on anything outside of a truck, let alone a budget subcompact.

</comment><comment><USER37> I'm worried by the diesel we have, let alone a rush to further adoption. I think medical research has a way to go before it educates us fully on what inhaling all that <= PM2.5 is doing to us. The stuff has been found _inside_ our blood cells. Can't imagine anything good coming of that.

I'm skeptical that any filtration system is going to solve that problem. All of the practical systems I've read about either allow a substantial amount of small particulates through, or require some kind of regular maintenance which will screw the rest of us when it's not done.

If we were serious about all of this we (in the US) would convert our heavy duty truck fleet to natural gas. I read one study stating that this would reduce our oil usage by 20%, which would be a strategic accomplishment. The air quality improvement would be a welcome byproduct.

</comment><comment><USER38> I wonder why CNG[1] is not that popular in other countries. It is very cheap, it can be installed on any car (gas and even diesels) and AFAIK it produces less pollution.

"CNG may be found above oil deposits, or may be collected from landfills or wastewater treatment plants where it is known as biogas[2]."

In Argentina most gas stations have Petrol and Diesel and I'd say ~60% of them have also CNG. It is very easy to find a CNG station on cities, but harder on rural areas.

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

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

<comment><USER39> CNG has a low power density.

<comment><USER24> The military uses a lot of CNG-converted vehicles when civilian vehicles are needed (all the things you think of as a military vehicle is diesel, but there's a lot of little sedans and big vans for people who need to drive off- base for work). The government can get away with this because military bases are pretty much self-contained and you can put as many CNG fueling stations in as you want to. As I recall, though, the range between fill-ups is terrible compared to gasoline and once you got off base there was pretty much nowhere to fuel the things.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Diesels haven't really been worth using until the last 10 or even 5 years. Modern diesels do 4L/100km (~60mpg) and have 300Nm torque. A gasoline engine of the same class has half the torque and twice the consumption. The cost of fuel is usually also the same in countries that drive diesels.

So it's understandable why a country didn't have diesels 10 years ago, they just weren't very good. With the health issues surrounding partcle emissions and so on I don't blame the US for not changing their diesel regulation and import tradition in a hurry. There are lots of other crazy regulation (and cultural!) things to be changed first, such as the whole pickup truck madness.

</comment><comment><USER41> I drove a 2000 Jetta TDI for a short time about 12 years ago. The fuel economy was way better than gasoline (something like 40% more?), and the price of diesel was cheaper (15%?)

Now the price of diesel is always more than gasoline (12% today). When I bought my new car, I had priced out a TDI Jetta, which only came in higher end trims. The amount of money I would save wouldn't break even with the additional cost of the car (over a gasonline model) until about 300k km of fuel savings, which is longer than the average lifespan of a car (diesels probably live longer though). Sure I would have a nicer car, but it was out of my price range and I would be stuck with an under powered engine.

</comment><comment><USER42> Like in most "pro-diesel" pieces, the author doesn't consider maintenance costs, fuel quality and the sound (especially with TDI engines). Oh well.

<comment><USER43> You need to take a look at the TDI. You're talking about American diesel. German diesel is quiet, reliable, and cheap to maintain.

<comment><USER42> No, I know very well what I'm talking about. I see (and hear) those cars every time I go out to the street. Old, new, large, small.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> After spending a lot of time in London, I am glad Americans don't embrace diesel like they do in Europe. The place just reeks of diesel and 2 strokes.

<comment><USER45> With all due respect have you spent any time in dense American cities? They aren't exactly smog free...

Or is your complaint that you prefer the smog from gas over the smog from diesel?

Regardless there are a lot of great arguments against diesel in this thread (e.g. increased cost Vs. MpG, maintence cost + additional car cost Vs. gas, and so on), this argument ("the smog!") doesn't really feel like one of them.

I've spent a lot of time in London AND American cities, and neither are pleasant. I count the days until most cars are electric and we can breath again. Even hybrids seem like a marked improvement over gas or diesel (in particular during traffic jams).

<comment><USER46> Europe is trying to move away from diesel because it is making their air pollution worse than the US.

[http://www.bbc.com/news/science- environment-30381223](http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30381223)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> It was my understanding that California's CARB emissions standards were specifically written to keep foreign diesel vehicles off CA roads.

<comment><USER48> They were specifically written because LA was an unlivable smoggy hell. Diesel particulates and ground level ozone was killing people and causing everything from asthma to cancer.

I was regularly told to stay indoors growing up in LA. You still get a couple dozen smog days a year, but only a couple extreme days. That is _way_ down from the 150-200 days of extreme smog a year that forced me indoors as a kid.

<comment><USER49> As a soon-to-be resident of LA I'm very glad to hear that the smog situation is much improved.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Simple, diesel costs more per gallon, it's not as widely sold compared to gasoline (not every station may have it), and there are less car models availavle with diesel as an option. Therefore, even if you just look at it statistically there will be less diesel cars on the road in the USA.

<comment><USER51> Diesel has more power/volume. In Europe, it also costs less.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Diesel stores more energy, but you also get more gasoline out of a barrel of oil.

Gasoline is more efficient in terms of miles you can drive per barrel of crude. It also burns cleaner of course, and with the newer gasoline engines, the gap between gas and diesel in terms of MPG isn't that great.

</comment><comment><USER53> 145 comments and no one has mentioned the obvious: refining diesel will increase the transport cost of goods and materials. This will add cost to the US trucking industry, which has a big lobby. And they have a valid case that increasing transport costs will hurt the economy.

</comment><comment><USER54> Conversely, I thought this was an interesting paper regarding reasons behind the scale of diesel adoption in Europe. [https://www3.nd.edu/~jthurk/Papers/MMT.pdf](https://www3.nd.edu/~jthurk/Papers/MMT.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER55> Cost is more if your purchasing new, but used is a great choice financially. I bought my 2011 TDI Gold 6spd for 13k with 68k miles, it gets like 51mpg highway and 38 mixed. I fill it up once every two and a half weeks.

</comment><comment><USER56> It is an interesting question but at this point, I hope we skip this iteration and just move into electric (obviously barring large trucks were electric is a little less feasabily at the moment).

<comment><USER57> Actually, not really. Large trucks could work like trains have for the past several decades: diesel generators produce electricity, which powers electric engines what propel the train.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5YfYWTKSXY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5YfYWTKSXY)

</comment><comment><USER59> Diesel pickup trucks are quite popular, particularly for people working in professions where they are already running diesel-powered heavy equipment (Of course, it's not technically legal, but the off-road diesel that bulldozers and such run on is the same as the on-road you buy at the pump, just with a different color dye and about a dollar less taxes per gallon...).

<comment><USER46> I hate the jerks that drive on the roads with high sulfur offroad diesel. I wonder how much the fine is, it should be very high.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> can't read this in the UK. wtf?

<comment><USER61> Curiously is says that we cannot read this in the UK:

"We're sorry but this site is not accessible from the UK as it is part of our international service and is not funded by the licence fee. It is run commercially by BBC Worldwide, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC, the profits made from it go back to BBC programme-makers to help fund great new BBC programmes. You can find out more about BBC Worldwide and its digital activities at www.bbcworldwide.com."

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> I'd love to get one of the Subaru Diesels that are sold overseas.

<comment><USER2> They won't import their very cool Boxer Diesels because they don't meet California's (and a few other states that follow CARB) draconian emissions requirements. CARB is hostile to diesel. Yes there are 45+ other states they could sell them in but California is the biggest car market and if they can't sell there they won't bother.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> Even with their great low end torque, diesels do not have the raw acceleration that gas cars do. For American roads and driving styles, horsepower rules.

<comment><USER64> How many americans let their car go past 4k rpm regularly? Those are the only people that wouldn't benefit from a diesels power curve. Though modern gasoline engines with a turbo is pretty close to the same experience.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> Diesel is more expensive than gas.

<comment><USER66> Not everywhere and not all the time, especially not considering a 30% better mpg, as the article mentions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> Can someone copy and paste the article. Its behind a location based IP wall:

"BBC Worldwide (International Site) We're sorry but this site is not accessible from the UK as it is part of our international service and is not funded by the licence fee. It is run commercially by BBC Worldwide, a wholly- owned subsidiary of the BBC, the profits made from it go back to BBC programme-makers to help fund great new BBC programmes. You can find out more about BBC Worldwide and its digital activities at www.bbcworldwide.com."

Such a stupid policy to be honest. I live in the Uk and pay my licence fees too.....

<comment><USER68> BBC Worldwide is a propaganda service, much like RT, PRESS TV, Deutsche Welle, or Voice of America.

None of these are created for a home audience, they are to advance the interests of their host nations globally.

<comment><USER69> BBC Worldwide is a commercial enterprise, set up to make money from BBC productions; the UK government may like the perception of the UK it creates abroad, but that's not its explicit purpose. The explicit propaganda arm of the BBC, the equivalent of Voice of America, is the BBC World Service, which until last year was directly funded by the UK Foreign Office.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Europe is making a U-turn on diesel cars because of the health consequences. They may be more efficient but they are the the reason EU cities have dirtier air than American cities.

[http://www.bbc.com/news/science- environment-30381223](http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30381223)

</comment><comment><USER70> Probably, like so many other things in our culture, because the multi-national corps. ran the numbers and came to the conclusion that the profit margin would be higher for gasoline, and then did whatever needed to persuade consumers to steer away from this technology.

What else could explain how GM produced those engines?

Although I try to steer clear from hardcore conspiracy theories, sometimes it really is that simple.

<comment><USER20> I think a perfect explanation is that GM was incompetent and complacent.

<comment><USER70> Right...ok that's a valid corollary to Occam's razor and I respect that POV.

It just odd, to me at least, that with such a logical and profitable path laid before them, as the article reminds, that GM could be _that_ incompetent when it came to diesel.

You really think there was absolutely no bean-counting influences when it came to the development of diesel at GM?

<comment><USER20> Bean-counting may well have been a contributor to that incompetence.

Incompetence is not restricted to GM, of course. American cars in general have a pretty bad quality reputation in Europe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I purchased a new car in 2014. Having a familiarity with Diesel engines, I wanted to buy a Diesel. Even better- one of the cars I was keen about was available in Diesel form.... but in the UK only. The american version seemed to get about half the gas milage!

The reason we can't get Diesels is the environmentalist "anti-smog" campaigns of the 70s and 80s, produced emissions standards that prevent Mazda from just importing that car they sell freely in the UK.

Mazda is has been trying to get their Mazda3 Diesel version imported to the USA for a couple years. It's becoming a bit of a joke because they keep thinking they are going to be able to do it and then not being able to get the permits.

Environmentalists really hated diesels in the 70s and the 80s because "smog" and the particulate matter that diesels produce was the big scary thing.

Now gas milage is the big desire but the emissions standards make that nearly impossible.

When I was a kid I had a Toyota Tercel station wagon. That car got 40MPG Highway! And it wasn't an econobox- it was 4WD and a big old station wagon (well big for japanese standards.) Meanwhile, I just bought a 2014 RAV4--- 30 years newer with 30 years more advanced technology-- it's about the same size and weight, also with a 4 cylinder engine but much more efficient computer controlled shifting and the like-- yet it only gets 20mpg highway.

MPG and emissions are a tradeoff-- and the regulatory demands of environmentalists don't seem to take this into account.

<comment><USER71> _Environmentalists really hated diesels in the 70s and the 80s because "smog" and the particulate matter that diesels produce was the big scary thing._

Yes, because during the 70s and 80s smog was a really scary thing. You know the problems China has today? Well, now you understand the direction California was headed in the 70s.

Of course, it's pretty easy to look back, now, and deride the politicians of the day, but you also aren't experiencing lung cancer and birth defects because they headed off the issue by enacting laws that have protected you for the last 30 years.

 _Now gas milage is the big desire but the emissions standards make that nearly impossible._

That's BS. TDI diesels (edit: burning ULSD) are, today, every bit as clean as gasoline cars _and_ significantly more fuel efficient, while operating in a wide range of climates.

<comment><USER18> 80s Tercel got 40MPG 2014 Rav4 gets 20MPG Same gasoline, both 4 cylinder. The RAV4 is much more advanced.

It's emissions that have killed gas milage.

<comment><USER20> The 80s Tercel weighed something like 900 kg, while an RAV4 weighs 1150 kg. This also has an impact.

And the RAV4 has many more goodies that eat electricity - and did the Tercel even have aircon? Yes, the catalyser burns some fuel, but it is not the only thing there.

The biggest thing probably is that the RAV4 is much more powerful, and in the measurement cycle, the more power there is in the engine, the more of it is used, so the nominal consumption goes up. And to some extent this happens in real life as well. Modern cars are quite overpowered for the actual purposes of transport. Power is nice, because you can feel it when you kick the gas pedal. But that does eat fuel.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Infrastructure as Software - <AUTHOR> http://nsdavidson.com/blog/2015/01/04/infrastructure-as-software/

<comment><USER2> Really great article</comment>


Chartburst - Connecting unsigned musicians with the giants of the industry... - <AUTHOR>

Chartburst connects unsigned musicians with some of the worlds biggest record labels (think Sony, Warner Bros, Atlantic Records and many more). We do this via our user-voted, genre-specific charts. The top 5 submissions are then forwarded to label talent scouts for consideration and guaranteed feedback.
Please submit your email at chartburst.com for early access when we launch in beta in a few weeks!
All feedback appreciated!
Francis Gane Founder & CEO <comment><USER2> how is this different than blazetrak?

<comment><AUTHOR> Blazetrak (if I'm not greatly mistaken) pays their professionals and celebrities for their participation on the site. We think doing this is debateable... Our site is exclusively used by record label A&R contacts who are only using the site in order to find new talent for their respective labels. They have nothing to gain financially by using our site which gives our users peace of mind as they know that those reviewing their music are 100% committed to finding new acts.</comment></comment>


Anyone want to get together this Friday in Mountain View? - <AUTHOR>

We're having a meetup this Friday night before Startup School.  If you're in town and want to get to know some of your fellow YCers, please feel free to stop by.  Here's the link to the meetup:
http://entrepreneur.meetup.com/1737/
See you soon. <comment><USER2> Hi, iamelgringo. I will not RSVP because my flight from the east coast doesn't arrive until 8pm. Depending on how things go, I will still try to make it. Looking forward to finally meeting you and the others!

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> No sweat, guys. If you can make it, cool. If not, that's fine as well.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm afraid that it will be a last minute decision for me as well.</comment>


McConnell bill would legalize hemp as agricultural product - <AUTHOR> http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/380287-mcconnell-bill-would-legalize-hemp-as-agricultural-product <comment><USER2> I do not believe with the current administration and Jeff Sessions as Attorney General - who seems particularly anti-marijuana - that this has any chance of success.

Of course hemp is not marijuana, but that has not stopped the DEA from making every effort to make them synonymous. The DEA has gone so far as to create rules that are not based on US laws, and in fact are counter to US federal laws in an effort to restrict hemp. This is gotten them a slap on the wrist at least once by federal court.

Hemp is a fantastic plant with many unique and important uses. One has to wonder why the US has, since the 1930s I believe, been so against it. One might suspect the pharmaceutical industry has a vested interest in seeing hemp (and its naughty cousin, marijuana) banned since there are health products with documented human benefits that compare more favorably to some drugs made by companies.

One might also suspect the private prison industry whose growth has swelled under drug policies instituted in the 1980 which dramatically increased the populations of people locked up for minor drug offenses.

In short, this is nice to hear about, but it is more likely to be a show piece for McConnell to please his Kentucky constituents with.

<comment><USER3> > Hemp is a fantastic plant with many unique and important uses. One has to > wonder why the US has, since the 1930s I believe, been so against it. One > might suspect the pharmaceutical industry has a vested interest in seeing > hemp (and its naughty cousin, marijuana) banned

Many countries around the world do not have the same restrictions on hemp industrial production that the USA does, and yet, hemp isn't all that widely used and other sources for materials are often preferred instead. I suspect a lot of the praise of hemp as some kind of miracle material comes from those who just want legal marijuana and they'll say anything to get it, not people who particularly care about industrial manufacturing.

<comment><USER4> Name a dominant manufacturing countries that has legal hemp?

Exporting hemp is also an issue. The USA foreign policy forced most of the world to make cannabis illegal since the 70s.

Since hemp was illegal, capital was invested in cotton and wood industrial tools.

As hemp production increases so will the technology to produce goods.

<comment><USER5> Er, China for one. Also France, Canada, UK, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Korea, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Thailand, ...

Over 30 according to a quick look at wikipedia.

<comment><USER6> Its funny to watch someone get slapped down with the ole' "name one," Rush Limbaugh tactic. He uses it because people can't reply, since radio is one way. Of course, if you use it on a two way communication, better look it up first.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> My wife has a history of seizures, depression and anxiety which we've treated with a cocktail of medicines (Cymbalta, Lyrica, Ativan, Klonopin etc, etc). She recently started using a full spectrum CBD oil and it has made a MASSIVE difference and it has allowed her to taper off all of her drugs and she is now happier and less anxious than she has been for a long time. The THC component of the oil is less than 0.4% so it has no psychoactive effect at all, and while it may not be a wonder cure-all I think a lot of people could benefit from at least trying it so I'm all in favor of any legalization efforts.

<comment><USER8> Hemp and Marijuana (where THC comes from) is not the same thing.

[https://ministryofhemp.com/hemp/not- marijuana/](https://ministryofhemp.com/hemp/not-marijuana/)

<comment><USER7> The oil she uses is made from hemp, hence the low THC and why (as I understand it) we can legally buy it across state lines.

<comment><USER9> I'm not saying that you're wrong, but most CBD oils on the market are not derived from hemp plants...they just don't contain enough THC to legally prohibit interstate shipping.

<comment><USER10> There is cannabis very high in THC, but low in CBD (those are generally the sativa, makes one high) and there's cannabis high in CBD but low in THC (those are generally the indica, makes one stoned). Example source with info at Sensiseeds FAQ (English version) [1]. Quoting (just the effect difference):

"The effect of indica is generally classified as a 'stone', meaning that it is more centred on the body. Indicas may enhance physical sensations such as taste, touch and sound.

The indica effect is noted for being physically and mentally relaxing and it may be soporific in larger doses.

Despite their lower weight and potentially longer flowering time, sativas are valued by many growers for their 'high' effect.

This high may be characterised as cerebral, energetic, creative, giggly or even psychedelic. It is less overpowering than the indica 'stone', and less likely to send the user to sleep."

[1] [https://sensiseeds.com/en/info/faq/difference-between- indica...](https://sensiseeds.com/en/info/faq/difference-between-indica-and- sativa/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> A WWII newsreel encouraging farmers to grow hemp: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8tG_0AJvnw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8tG_0AJvnw)

<comment><USER12> It was a big war crop in North Dakota. I do believe the rope on the USS Constitution is help.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> The Constitution is written on hemp. Truly, legal hemp is what The Framers intended.

<comment><USER14> Source for this? A little searching is telling me this is a myth.

<comment><USER15> How about a source that disproves it entirely instead? [https://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q145.html](https://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q145.html)

<comment><USER16> > How about a source that disproves it entirely instead?

As pointed out in your link, the copy in the National Archives isn't written on hemp, but the _first drafts_ of the Constitution - ie, as it was literally being written - likely were.

OP misstated it slightly, or in a way that's a bit misleading, but it's not incorrect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Legalize it.

</comment><comment><USER18> Wow, so are the hemp products available (like hemp string) not actual hemp? I had no idea it was illegal since it's not weed.

<comment><USER19> Most are imported: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp#United_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp#United_States)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Hemp is a great rotation crop that adds nitrogen back into the soil. And unlike alfalfa, hemp can get some money.</comment>


Ask HN: How are car "Computers" programmed? - <AUTHOR> They seem like a mystery to me. What are they programmed with? What language is used? <comment><USER2> They're microcontrollers, almost certainly written in C, which is compiled to a firmware binary and installed on the chip's flash storage.</comment>


Is the average sinuosity of the world's rivers equal to pi? - <AUTHOR> http://pimeariver.com/ <comment><USER2> Do rivers actually have a well-defined length? I know coastlines do not, and rivers seem similar.

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

<comment><USER3> The coastline paradox is a matter of accuracy (significant digits). As you "zoom in" on the coast this is what happens to the length:

100km > 120km > 128km > 129.5km > 129.52km > 129.528km > 129.6281km > ...

If you have to "zoom in" to see a length feature it means that the length feature is small and therefore the contribution to the overall length that these features provide diminishes. Something like a sigmoid[1], it would approach a limit (except in the case of some fractals, but not coastlines) - it can increase infinitely but at tinier and tinier increments. Eventually you reach the size of atoms and you are now talking about fractals and not real- life coastlines.

While it would technically apply to rivers as well, the website seems to be using a single significant digit. The above example becomes:

100km > 120km > 128km > 129.5km > 129.5km > 129.5km > 129.6km > ...

So we can accurately measure a coast/river length up to a specific significant digit.

[1]: [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Sigmoid_...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Sigmoid_curve_for_an_autocatalytical_reaction.jpg)

<comment><USER4> > As you "zoom in" on the coast this is what happens to the length: 100km > > 120km > 128km > 129.5km > 129.52km > 129.528km > 129.6281km > ...

I don't think that's true. In real life this series _does not_ converge unless you specify a minimum feature size, which you hinted at. This isn't just a mathematical curiosity; real life coastlines are fractal and have no well- defined length, as the parent poster's link explains.

[Edited wording.]

<comment><USER3> > To measure a coastline you have to specify a minimum feature size.

Not coastlines: only fractals. The name of the paradox is really unfortunate because it doesn't apply the coastlines "all the way down." You can't keep subdividing a coastline because eventually you start working with curves meaning that you can use calculus and meaning that you can work out limits.

The actual issue with real-life coastline (and river) length is that it's continuously changing.

[Edit to your edit]: yep. However the important result is that we can actually arrive at a length for a river, regardless of the mathematical thought experiment.

<comment><USER4> Agreed that the fact it's continuously changing is an additional issue, but I don't see the "eventually you start working with curves" argument. Where are these curves on a typical coastline?

If you're measuring the coastline on a map, that argument holds, but the map is only one representation of the reality, and they've already made decisions regarding minimum feature size implicit in the construction of the map.

But yes, also agreed that measuring rivers should be fine, because you can represent it as a one-dimensional line along the 'centre of mass' of each segment of the river, which should give well-defined values regardless of what the 'edges' of the river look like.

<comment><USER3> > Where are these curves on a typical coastline?

Between atom nuclei.

<comment><USER4> How so? Do you fit the positions of your nuclei to a spline to get your curve? How about quantum uncertainty in its position? How do you assign whether a given nuclei belongs to the 'coast' or to the 'sea', etc. I don't think it holds.

<comment><USER3> > How about quantum uncertainty in its position?

Aw crap, _really_ good point. You're right.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Why on earth would the rivers of the world have an average sinuosity of pi? Rivers are super dynamic and are effectively a side effect of localized water cycles and geology. This seems like Music of the Spheres... Aka looking for harmony in a chaotic universe.

<comment><USER6> An explanation of this is put forth in both the video and paper linked to in the opening paragraph. The principle is that bends in rivers tend to grow as erosion happens on the outside of the bend and soil deposition on the inside. This increases sinuosity until the point at which the bend comes full circle, forms an oxbox lake, and returns the local region of the river to a straight line with sinuosity of 1. The value of pi is supposed to come out when you consider all of a river's curves and wiggles on all length scales.

The right answer may not be pi, but the data shown make a compelling case that rivers do tend to some average value.

As a sidenote, there are active human efforts to keep certain rivers, like the Mississippi, from meandering too far from their current locations. I don't know how many of the world's rivers have such efforts being applied to them, but it's not unreasonable to think that this could have some effect.

<comment><USER7> I suspect damming (and other human intervention as you note) in general causes restrictions in sinuosity, artificially either preventing on creating local regions of sinuosity = 1.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> One thought - should it be a weighted average? I.e. the longer the river, the more bearing it's ratio has on the result.

<comment><USER9> Maybe the harmonic mean? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_mean](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_mean)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Crowd sourcing to disprove a published paper is the real story here.

(Although I'm not sure the paper actually said it was true, just the hundreds of articles that reported on it)

</comment><comment><USER11> It would be nice if the distribution graphic of the sinuosity has units.

Also, there is a clear outlier with sinuosity 7.6. Which river is it?

<comment><USER12> The Lukuga -- #40 on the list.

I suspect there is an error in the data. The project lists the Lukuga River as being 1904 km long. But Wikipedia[1] only has 320 km, which would give it a much more ordinary sinuosity of 1.27.

For a river that might actually have a very high sinuosity, take a look at the Fraser River -- #20 on the list, with sinuosity listed as 5.12.

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> What's going on with the HN title font? That square-with-the-bottom-missing character seems to be the proper codepoint for lowercase-pi, but it's definitely a not a recognizable rendering of lowercase-pi. Even in sans serif, the top bar should extend past the corners on the left and right.

</comment><comment><USER14> Great project! Seems like one could scrape the data from Wikipedia. I entered a few rivers by just copying data out of the Wikipedia side bars for them. Any reason that wasn't done?

</comment><comment><USER15> Author here, feel free to contact me if you're interested in this or a scientist in a related field - lsjroberts [at] outlook {dot} com

Thanks for the feedback, I'm working on expanding the project to import data from a couple of sources, you can follow it at [http://github.com/lsjroberts/pi-me-a-river](http://github.com/lsjroberts/pi- me-a-river)

</comment><comment><USER16> What's the reasoning behind why this should be the case? Something to do with the curvature of the Earth?

<comment><USER17> There's a link to a video that explains it.

tl;dw: when rivers are very sinuous, the kinks turn into oxbow lakes and separate from the river, so that limits how sinuous they can get. On the other hand, rivers' bends are constantly amplified by erosion. Researchers modeling these phenomena showed that under certain assumptions, these forces are in equilibrium at a sinuosity of ᴨ.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> from visual inspection the histogram seems to peak at 1.6 the golden mean

</comment><comment><USER19> I guess the answer is no.

</comment><comment><USER20> Need a really good reason to read past "equal to π (3.141593)".

</comment><comment><USER21> This is somewhat pedantic, but the average anything of anything can never be _equal to_ π; it's an irrational number, and averages (arithmetic means) are ratios.

What should be said is that the average might _approach_ π.

EDIT: I'm wrong, read the replies.

<comment><USER22> If you're going to be pedantic, do it right.

The average of 0 and 2π is π, so an average can certainly be π. Yes, the average of a finite number of rational numbers cannot be π since π is irrational. But why would the sinuosity of any river be rational? The sinuosity of a circle is exactly π, for example. The true sinuosity of any given river is almost certainly irrational as well, since irrational numbers vastly outnumber rational ones in a very relevant sense: if you pick a real number uniformly at random between 0 and 1, there is literally zero chance that you will pick a rational number. Similarly, there is zero chance that the sinuosity of any river will be π or that the average of any finite number of rivers will be π. However, what they mean when they say this is this more precise fact: if there were an infinite number of rivers formed like those on Earth, the average sinuosity of that infinite collection of rivers would be exactly π.

There. That's how to be pedantic.

<comment><USER23> _> If you're going to be pedantic, do it right._

Let's do it.

 _> The true sinuosity of any given river is almost certainly irrational as well, since irrational numbers vastly outnumber rational ones in a very relevant sense: if you pick a real number uniformly at random between 0 and 1, there is literally zero chance that you will pick a rational number._

Apparently you have access to measuring devices that can spit out irrational numbers. I'm impressed. No other scientist has ever seen such a thing. Unfortunately, because the computable numbers are countable, the set of irrational numbers that you will almost surely see in your setup will almost surely be uncomputable. In other words, not only will you almost surely select a number that cannot be the result of a measurement of finite precision, but you will almost surely select one that has no finite description at all.

So you will almost surely never get a measurement of the length of a river. The average of an empty set is undefined, and oofabz's objection above pertains: rivers almost surely lack lengths.

(Less pedantically: matt_kantor's pedantry was essentially correct, even if in an unintended way. Irrational numbers do not exist in the world of physical measurements. Abstracting from this reality, as StefanKarpinski did, can lead to ridulous models, because the real numbers are wholly artificial. Make probabilistic assertions about physical realities modeled with real numbers at your own peril.)

<comment><USER24> This is a trivially absurd argument for two reasons:

First, it would be extremely straightforward to make a measuring device that spits out irrational numbers. Take the output, truncate at half the accuracy, and append an irrational to the output.

Second, outputting an irrational number as a measurement _does not_ imply that it's able to output any member of the complement of the rationals in the reals. You also conflate the computable numbers with the describable numbers -- but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you believe strong Church-Turing and aren't just committing an elementary error.

There are ways in which set theoretic concerns apply to the real world, but they are few and far between, and this is not among them. You're essentially in line with people who attempt to use Goedel's proofs to make grandiose pronouncement about human thought. It. Does. Not. Apply.

<comment><USER23> _> ... outputting an irrational number as a measurement _does not* imply that it's able to output any member of the complement of the rationals in the reals.*

It's my fault, I'm sure, but you have missed the point entirely. The argument to which I responded, and which I extended absurdly, does imply that every real number is a valid output of a chance setup, and further assumes that each real number, including "any member of the complement of the rationals in the reals", is an equally likely outcome of that setup. That is anyway the conventionally understood definition of "pick a real number uniformly at random between 0 and 1".

I would attempt to clarify the rest of what I wrote, but your condescension dissuades me.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Is Google Too Big to Sue Over Gmail Privacy Concerns? - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-03-06/google-fights-gmail-privacy-lawsuits-bid-for-class-action-status

<comment><USER2> I read it as "internet companies should remember real life rights have precedence and they can't hide behind TOS 'contracts'". I wish there were more reports like that, this is really important.</comment>


OS X Devs Fail Usability: Tabbing Hotkeys - <AUTHOR> http://jiaaro.com/os-x-devs-fail-usability-tabbing-hotkeys

<comment><USER2> I'm not sure why it's OSX devs faults for inconsistent use of hotkeys. It should really be on the developers of those specific apps. It's not like Apple developed apps have this general issue. If Windows and Linux are dealing with this issue better, how are they doing it? I strongly suspect that it is simply app developers doing as they please (or how they see fit for their particular circumstance).

On the other hand I suppose they could stress that a little more in the HIG or other SDK guidlines.

<comment><AUTHOR> Windows and linux seem to be doing better because ctrl + tab and ctrl + shift + tab don't intuitively mean anything like Cmd + arrow does on OS X

so even though the convention on windows and linux is not as easy to guess, it's also doesn't make intuitive sense to be used for anything else

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> CMD+} and CMD+{ appear to be the OS X keys for switching tabs.

They just worked for me in Safari, Chrome, MacVim, iTerm 2 and Terminal.</comment>


Windows on ARM needs more support from developers - <AUTHOR> https://andregarzia.com/2020/01/windows-on-arm-needs-more-support-from-developers.html <comment><USER2> Part of the problem IMHO is that Windows 10 ARM64 devices are shipping in S Mode by default. In other words, Windows Store apps only unless users change it.</comment>


America's Up and Coming Tech Boom Cities - <AUTHOR> http://infinigeek.com/up-and-coming-tech-boom-cities-in-america/ <comment><USER2> "Seattle, Washington" up and coming? There are a lot of good things about Seattle but it is not up and coming.</comment>


Ask HN: Downvoting threshold - <AUTHOR> From the FAQ:

  Why don't I see down arrows?
  There are no down arrows on submissions. They only appear on comments after users reach a certain karma threshold.
 Does anyone know what this threshold is? <comment><USER3> The ability to downvote may feel like a milestone, but flagging has far more impact on the overall quality of the feed. In addition, there's always the question of what difference will the ability to downvote make to the quality of your comments?

A couple of years ago it went from 200 to 500. I was about at 180 at the time. The net result was that I kept searching for better material to submit and trying to improve my writing.

To put it another way, everyone is one good submission or ten good comments away from the threshold the day they create an account.

<comment><USER4> > To put it another way, everyone is one good submission or ten good comments > away from the threshold the day they create an account.

That's a bit _too_ optimistic. My best comment has 36 points, yours has 58; your best submission has an impressive-yet-insufficient 291 points. 500 points is doable, but it's not trivial.

<comment><USER3> You're assuming my comments and submissions are good on an absolute scale. I'm not. A lot of well timed snark helped me get to 500. Back when comment scores were visible, a well considered snarky comment on a rising new submission would tend to collect upvotes, and I would seek them out. That's much harder to do these days because snark is much less popular and thus more frequently downvoted.

My point wasn't that it is trivial, but rather that 200 points or 500 points or 1000 points is obtainable and that the better one's contributions are, the more easily realistic karma goals may be met. Three hundred points seemed like a lot at the time, for a short time, then it was just another number - <USER2> I've probably lost that many points via downvotes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> it increases over time: [http://jacquesmattheij.com/The+Unofficial+HN+FAQ#cantdownvot...](http://jacquesmattheij.com/The+Unofficial+HN+FAQ#cantdownvote)

I think it's around 500 - 1000 at the moment, I recall getting the downvote option around 500.

</comment><comment><USER6> Last I heard, it had been raised to 500. However, I am not the most active member so that may not be current info.

<comment><USER7> It appeared for me around the time I hit 500. Since then I only used it once and it didn't feel anywhere near as maniacal as I'd hoped.</comment></comment>


Anytime Algorithm - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anytime_algorithm#:~:text=In%20computer%20science%2C%20an%20anytime,the%20longer%20it%20keeps%20running. <comment><USER2> Highlighting text with a wikpedia link is a really useful feature. I wasn't aware it existed. How did you find out about it? Is there a list of such tricks somewhere on wikipedia?

The description of anytime computing reminded me of reservoir computing, but not for any specific reason, so here's a link with a highlight to reservoir computing: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservoir_computing#:~:text=Re...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservoir_computing#:~:text=Reservoir%20computing%20is%20a%20framework%20for%20computation%20derived%20from%20recurrent%20neural%20network%20theory%20that%20maps%20input%20signals%20into%20higher%20dimensional%20computational%20spaces%20through%20the%20dynamics%20of%20a%20fixed,%20non- linear%20system%20called%20a%20reservoir).

Another association is with Scott continuity from denotational semantics where algorithms are modeled as continuous functions on Scott domains. Like with anytime computing continuous functions converge gradually to their output: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_theory#:~:text=Domain%2...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_theory#:~:text=Domain%20theory%20is%20a%20branch%20of%20mathematics,general%20way%20and%20has%20close%20relations%20to%20topology).

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the links! A bit off topic, but Domain theory reminds me of Cuelang which manages types/values using a lattice data structure. This allows you to define configuration by progressively refining types until all values are concrete, at which point they can no longer be changed.

The Logic of CUE: [https://cuelang.org/docs/concepts/logic/](https://cuelang.org/docs/concepts/logic/)

<comment><USER2> Good to know. Anyone using it? Are there good examples I can take a look at?

Your comparison makes sense after I looked at the CUE docs. The explanation for booleans is exactly how it's modeled as a domain, it is isomorphic to the lattice of subsets of the 2 element set with true and false. Domains and lattices are closely related, I think there might even be a duality theorem that says they're equivalent (probably Stone duality but I'm not sure).</comment></comment></comment>


Stealing Webpages Rendered on Your Browser by Exploiting GPU Vulnerabilities [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.cc.gatech.edu/~slee3036/papers/lee:gpu.pdf <comment><USER2> I'm pretty sure this is old news - like fixed several years ago news.

Can we get a (2014) in the title? (Basing year on citations + url of same paper at [https://www.ieee- security.org/TC/SP2014/papers/StealingWebpa...](https://www.ieee- security.org/TC/SP2014/papers/StealingWebpagesRenderedonYourBrowserbyExploitingGPUVulnerabilities.pdf))

<comment><USER3> It's not only old news compared to 2014, but it's also old news this year. Here's similar research from UCR: [http://www.cs.ucr.edu/~zhiyunq/pub/ccs18_gpu_side_channel.pd...](http://www.cs.ucr.edu/~zhiyunq/pub/ccs18_gpu_side_channel.pdf)

<comment><USER2> That paper describes two very different attacks from the 2014 paper. The old news was being able to get memory with stale data from previous processes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> this is kind of ridiculous isn't it? If you're a native app you can just read the user's profile in c:\Users\name\AppData or ~/Library/Application Support or ~/.config/

In all cases Chrome or Firefox there's a bunch of sqlite3 and/or json files that have all your cookies, your history, your login info. No need to try to guess from GPU memory contents.

The GPU thing seems like an OS level issue. One app should not be able to read another app's data. The OS should be clearing both CPU and GPU memory for all apps. Not relying on each app to be perfect.

For the profile thing it seems like all 3 OSes should provide per app storage that only that app can read. I noticed at least on MacOS Mojave if you do a `find ~/. -name "foo"` you'll get permission messages for several folders in ~/Library like "Terminal would like to access your contacts (stored ~/Library/Application Support/AddressBook) and if you click "Don't Allow" then find gets a permission error for that folder.

Seems like they need to do the same thing for all app folders and only the app assigned to that folder gets permission to read.

<comment><USER5> Have you checked out Ubuntu's snap system? It provides fine permissions for applications, alongside a certain amount of application isolation.

[https://snapcraft.io/](https://snapcraft.io/)</comment></comment>


Google says ad blockers will save online ads  - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/16/google_on_adblockers/ <comment><USER2> Wow, the first half was all good and informative, than the second half the authors started to dump all his opinion as known, absolute facts.

The fact is that Google, a multi billion dollar company which make ~90% of its revenue through ads, not only allows ad blocking extensions to be installed in its browser (which is rapidly gaining market share) but also not-so-evil enough not to tinker with the Top 10 extension list and allow an ad blocking extension to be listed as the second most downloaded extension. (2 of the top 10 extensions are ad blockers: <https://chrome.google.com/extensions/list/popular>).

To top it off, they are forthcoming about the ad blockers and how they view it and discussed it openly with everyone, by justifying it as a good thing. They agree with something most of us already know is that the single biggest reason we use ad blocking extensions is because of the intrusive and extremely annoying ads. If ads were non-intrusive and fast and targeted most people wouldn't bother with ad blockers. Google, the biggest online ad company gets it. This is good news.

And this is what the author writes?

"And of course, there's no guarantee that Google will always allow ad blockers."

Is the author really this ignorant? You don't even have to rely on extension to block ads. Hello privoxy: <http://www.privoxy.org/>

<comment><USER3> Agreed. Google should really be applauded. I'm bored of all this "Ah but google have access to all my data. What if they turn evil".

There was a recent story about Google adding a _cookie_ so that people without google accounts/not logged in, got some extra functionality. Instead of being applauded for improving the product, people started moaning that they were harvesting data from everyone. Tracking peoples movements on the web so they can sell that data. I don't know why there's this recent "But what if Google start being evil" meme, but I think I'll trust them until they do show signs of abusing that trust.

<comment><USER4> OT, but why do people keep saying "Google have too much power," "Google have 60 billion dollars", etc. ? It's a singular noun. The circle _is_ round. Google _is_ powerful. _It_ is turning evil. We _are_ hungry. etc.

This is not meant to flame, I'm really curious why/when the usage shifted.

<comment><USER5> British English

<comment><USER6> Really?

I would have written those sentences as: "Google has too much Power", "Google has 60 billion dollars"

The usage of _have_ seems wrong to me

<comment><USER3> Both are common/valid, at least in the UK, but the plural is more common here than singular afaik.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I don't buy it. The assumptions seem to be that A) annoying ads work in the short term and B) annoying ads cause people to use ad blockers. Sure, it follows that it is in the ad industry's long-term interest to avoid destroying themselves through annoyance. However, _individual_ advertisers still have the incentives to be annoying, since the costs (more adblock) are distributed to all advertisers, but the benefits accrue entirely to them.

Maybe individual advertisers can avoid being annoying and hope that adblockers only target the biggest offenders.

<comment><USER8> It's a straightforward collective action problem. However, annoying interruption ads work only when they can successfully interrupt people - through pop-ups, flashing, grabbing focus, and all the other annoying things they do.

It seems to me that the widespread adoption of adblocking software can only hurt the annoying, short-term thinking advertisers and help the not-annoying, long-term thinking advertisers.

As it gets easier to avoid annoying ads, the PR cost of being annoying will continue to rise until it starts hurting annoying advertisers in the short term - in effect, internalizing the negative externality of their activities.

<comment><USER9> And that spam email stuff is going to stop arriving, too.

<comment><USER10> Hey, if there were a plugin for Outlook that blocked _all_ commercial messages (spam or not), I'm sure many people would use it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I don't believe the market will balance itself at all. Online publishers are reliant on advertiser revenue, and there's far too much ad space to fill solely with useful ads for useful products. At the same time, the vast majority of AdBlock users block almost everything - including the 'useful ads for useful products' and the high-value branded advertisements that pay by the impression and really don't care whether you click on them or not, just as long as you _see_ them.

Right now, online publishers view ad blocking as an annoying evil not worth combatting - under the assumption that <5% of all users block advertisements, that the users that do often aren't advertisers' most desirable demographic, and that playing cat-and-mouse with ad blockers is more annoying than it's worth. But as the percentage of users using ad blockers rises, more online publishers will be open to technical solutions to this problem. I know of multiple projects that incorporate server-to-server ad calls (so the ads are served from the same domain as the content) and slicing of ads into multiple smaller images (so the ads aren't standard IAB image sizes, but chunks of the key content are.) Other projects I've seen tie the presence of advertising to key site functionality, making it impossible to use the site effectively without referencing a visible advertisement. As ad blocking increases to the point where it's material to publishers, blocking ad blocking will spawn a lot of startups.

There's already a good example of this: the increasing use of Local Shared Objects (also known as 'Flash cookies') to store data formerly stored in cookies and even to respawn data in deleted cookies. Use of Local Shared Objects for advertising purposes was extremely rare several years ago. As the proportion of users regularly deleting the cookies that contained unique IDs for ad targeting and frequency capping crept up, the market didn't 'balance' by forgoing unique identifiers in cookies - it found a technical workaround by repurposing rarely-deleted LSOs.

I never really understand it when ad-blocking advocates evangelize to the general public - the more there are, the more likely it is that their blocking will in turn be blocked.

<comment><USER12> _the vast majority of AdBlock users block almost everything - including the 'useful ads for useful products'_

Is there such an option in AdBlock? If there is, I wouldn't mind seeing those ads. Currently they get blocked along with the rest, though.

<comment><USER10> No, not really. You can subscribe to different block lists, but last I checked the goal of all the lists (or at least all the default lists) is to block _all_ ads.

And anyway many of the block rules target ad networks and platforms. One site may use doubleclick.net's ad servers to serve up great, well-targeted ads and someone else may use the same system to server really obnoxious ads.

Personally, I don't subscribe to any lists and add all the block rules by hand. I really just don't want anything that moves or talks to me. But it ain't easy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I don't want to see graphical ads with tits (I'm looking at you Evony), ripped bodies, or oral cavities (teeth whitening). All of that stuff is, just like porn, opt in. Its also why I sign new PC users up to Gmail and not Yahoo Mail. Anything else, and especially contextual text ads, is fine by me.

That's why I agree with Google's position.

<comment><USER14> I don't care about tits, skin or toofs, but I am incredibly easily distracted, and a single blinking flash ad can totally plummet my concentration.

<comment><USER15> I can't have a real conversation at any restaurant that shows sports or the like. I find my eyes wander to the bright and active pictures too often. I usually try to position myself facing away, but it doesn't always work. I blame a huge part of it on not having a TV, so I'm not used to tuning it out.

The same thing occurs on the web. I find it very hard to read text if there is something flashing right next to it. For this reason I install NoScript as one of my first add-ons on new systems. It blocks the worst offenders and adds a layer of security to boot.

Simply blocking unauthorized scripts is usually good enough for a while, but eventually I'll get to a few pages with non-flash, non-javascript ads that are so annoying I go out and install AdBlock anyway.

I'm happy to meet in the middle, but I don't intend to waste my time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is the historical Google line and a pretty fair one at that. Those of us that are extremely savvy enough to use ad blockers everywhere are also rather cognizant of where ads appear and usually consciously ignore the ads. Most average users won't find the ads so objectionable as to warrant blocking them or dealing with the hassle of installing extensions.

Firefox has over 90M active daily users _. The Adblock Plus plugin is by far the biggest and most compelling Ad Blocker - it has 11M active daily users right now_ _. Google seems willing to live with this 12% opt-out in effect. I suspect of those 12% of users, most of those wouldn't click ads anyways, so it's not a big deal in the end.

_ \- [http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2009/05/firefox- hits-27...](http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2009/05/firefox- hits-270-million-users.html) __-<https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/statistics/addon/1865>

</comment><comment><USER17> I've never minded Google ads at all. In fact I quite like them. The reason I have an ad-blocker is because of the many sites featuring sexually explicit advertising with no warning - a big no-no when you use the internet as a reference at work.

I'm not sure if I trust their motives entirely, but Google's theory about the market balancing itself is right on, IMHO.

</comment><comment><USER18> _"There will always be some group of people who want to block ads for personal reasons. But if we do a good job on the advertising side, people won't want to block ads. People will find them actually useful.

"I think there will be a nice equilibrium. If people get too aggressive with ads, then ad blockers will become more popular and companies will get less aggressive with ads. The market will sort itself."_

As an Adwords advertiser, I agree. Maybe it's because I am selling a B2B product, but I have no interest in 'aggressive' ads that trick gullible people clicking them (the phrasing from this post last week: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=989729>)

P.S. The headline seriously distorts Google's argument. Saying that the market will balance itself out as aggressive ads and ad blockers play off each other is not 'ad blockers will save online ads.' In fact, the Google rep doesn't make that statement at all.

</comment><comment><USER3> >> "But the truth of the matter is that most people won't install ad blockers on Chrome because people are fundamentally lazy."

BS. Most people don't install ad blockers because they don't want them. Not everyone is a new age hippy anti consumerism activist.

If an advert annoys you, don't visit that website again. Vote with your feet. That's being honest.

I not lazy, and I won't be installing adblock. I don't think doing so is good for the web.

<comment><USER19> I rather think it's because a lot of people don't really know how. Like a lot of others, I don't mind advertisin in principle; indeed, I think they have utility and sometimes click on them because I'm actually interested in what's being sold.

...BUT not the ones that float in when I've already started reading the page, or that take over my screen when I unwittingly roll over them with the mouse (and obscure their close button), or that feature hot pink silhouettes of people dancing in a .gif loop to sell me car insurance, or use what's apparently some guy's mugshot to tell me about some shady mortgage refinance scheme.

For every informative, polite, and compelling advertisement that represents a meaningful commercial communication, there are about 99 that are equivalent to being shouted at via megaphone.

<comment><USER3> Absolutely not my experience. Also do bear in mind that most people also have TVs. And weirdly, out of choice!!! So they're quite used to adverts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I believe this other article was posted about a month ago and may be very germane: [http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArtic...](http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=115210&lfe=1)

In brief: only 32% of Internet users clicked on at least one ad in a month, and 8% of users accounted for 85% of ad clicks.

The people using ad blocking software are not the people often clicking on these ads, and most of the clicks come from people who click on a lot of ads and are (I'm guessing by this behavior) unlikely to install an ad blocker. In other words, ad blocking is not a threat.

</comment><comment><USER20> I agree with Google that advertisers will eventually sort themselves out. I have no objections at all to discreet banner ads, but irritating/puerile animations or anything which obscures the text I'm trying to read or forces me to click on a close button I find unacceptable. For the foreseeable future I'll continue to use Adblock/Ad-Art, but if advertising becomes more sensible and restrained I may have no need to use those.

<comment><USER21> I'm not sure if advertisers will sort _themselves_ out... but I hope websites that care about their readership will learn what ads to refuse.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Irony: <http://imgur.com/4QOPv.png>. Note that the only ads so blocked are flash ads.

<comment><USER23> I don't have flash installed in my primary browser (Opera). When I want to view flash, I boot up Firefox and paste the URL over.

I also have a shellscript to download Youtube videos and feed them to mplayer, since my computer is too slow for most Flash video.</comment></comment>