The Strange Saga of Kowloon Walled City - <AUTHOR> https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/kowloon-walled-city <comment><USER2> _> Even a new treaty in 1898, which granted Hong Kong, Kowloon, and further territories in Canton to Britain for 99 years, kept the Walled City under Chinese control. A year later, in May 1899, rumors circulated that Chinese soldiers were massing again in the Walled City, so the British sent troops across the water. They expected battle—perhaps another war—but found only the Mandarin. The irate official left too, and the British took the city, though the Chinese never renounced their claim. Missionaries moved in and built churches and schools, pig farmers from the surrounding hills took plots of land within the walls. There was almost no administrative control, and the city became a slum. Yet whenever the Hong Kong government tried to clear it to turn it into a park—evicting the residents in the process—the Chinese government always stepped in. After all, this tiny rectangle of land was still officially their territory._

Answers a question I'd had for a while: what was special about this piece of land that made it effectively lawless?

<comment><USER3> my understanding was that it was in administrative limbo. Britain owned Hong Kong, and China claimed authority over just to spite them. So Britain left it alone. But China didn't care enough to actually administer it. And besides, it was disconnected from the mainland and only i tiny insignificant plot of land. So why bother setting up all the infrastructure just for a tiny slum?

<comment><USER4> More complex than that even.

If Hong Kong was British under treaty then this area is not covered by British control. If the British exercise control then they are saying the treaty is invalid.

The Chinese didn't exercise control because to do so would validate a treaty that they objected to after the fact; that the original colony was seeded in perpertuity . They didn't want to fully disown it because they claimed the whole colony back, not just New Territories.

It was clear by the 1970s that since the Chinese could just cut the water supply off to Hong Kong if they wanted to, that the compromise solution was to pretend that the 99 years New Territories lease treaty had always covered the whole colony and just agree to handover with a two systems one state solution.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I was studying in Kowloon City, the area where Kowloon Walled City is located at. I met a girl who was exceptionally hardworking as she told me she needed good grades to get good grades and hence earning money to get a better living for her family in the future. We were around 5~6 at the time.

Later I learnt that she lived inside the Walled City and her father was an unlicensed dentist. Drug addicts and dealers were so natural to her as she walked pass them everyday on the way back home after school.

20+ years later her dream come true and now she is a specialist. I wonder if the poor living standard inside Walled City somehow has a positive impact on her personality. Anyway, she told me that it was a truely amazing experience to have lived in the City, but she would rather not to if given the choice.

<comment><USER6> >I met a girl who was exceptionally hardworking as she told me she needed good grades to get good grades

You generally do yes

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Some cross section is nicely illustrated at

[https://www.thisiscolossal.com/2014/11/an-illustrated- cross-...](https://www.thisiscolossal.com/2014/11/an-illustrated-cross- section-of-hong-kongs-infamous-kowloon-walled-city/)

</comment><comment><USER8> In the city of Kawasaki, Japan there was an arcade whose interior was modeled to look like Kowloon Walled City. The builders supposedly flew in literal trash from the actual Kowloon Walled City to use in the arcade. Sadly, they closed permanently at the end of November last year:

[https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/anata-no- warehouse](https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/anata-no-warehouse)

<comment><USER9> Damned, that really sucks! :P We went there last Jully and it was marvelous. Not just the part modelled after Kowloon Walled City, but also the arcade itself, best arcade machine selection from anywhere we went. Even the other visitors we met were pretty cool, showing their crazy skills on the music arcades and sometimes ever wearing stylish cyperpunk styled clothes. :)

Oh well, at least we saw it while it was still operational.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> _"On average, residents received around $380,000 for their individual flats."_

I found that extremely high in 1987-89 dollars, but then realised this must be Hong Kong dollars. [https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/bank-of-england- spot/histo...](https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/bank-of-england- spot/historical-spot-exchange-rates/usd/USD-to-HKD-1987) gave me an exchange rate of somewhere between 7 and 8 Hong Kong dollars to a US dollar.

I think that still was a considerable sum, around 1990 in China.

<comment><USER11> That's funny, since home prices in HK average something like 1.2 million US now I didn't blink twice at that number.

<comment><USER10> I wouldn't blink, either, except that this was a slum (even by Chinese standards of the time), and that it was densely populated. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City)) says it had 5,000,000 people per square mile. Dividing by 20 floors still gives you 250,000 people per square mile.

If I calculate that correctly, that's ballpark 100 square feet per inhabitant, and that area included shared space. I would guess the average 'apartment' would have about half that, and only the better ones would have windows facing outside.

<comment><USER12> 100sqf per inhabitant isn't particularly uncommon in Hong Kong, even in normal flats. It's quite common to fit an entire family in 300-400 sqf and that flat will set you back nearly US$1m on HK Island.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> There's a sort of a documentary on Kowloon, from back in the day: [https://youtube.com/watch?v=S-rj8m7Ssow](https://youtube.com/watch?v=S-rj8m7Ssow)

<comment><USER14> The Steam game linked to in the comments ([https://store.steampowered.com/app/1178490/ParanormalHK/](https://store.steampowered.com/app/1178490/ParanormalHK/)) looks promising.

<comment><USER14> Amazingly, there's more than one: [https://store.steampowered.com/app/1182090/Mr_Pumpkin_2_Kowl...](https://store.steampowered.com/app/1182090/Mr_Pumpkin_2_Kowloon_walled_city/)

<comment><USER15> I never went to see Kowloon in real life but I have the fondest memories of it through the detailed renditions and special atmosphere of Shenmue II on the Sega Dreamcast.

The story takes place in 1986; you play a young Japanese man in search for the killer of his father. The whole Hong Kong experience especially, still feels very much like (time) travel.

The game is also available on steam (and on console marketplaces AFAIK):

[https://store.steampowered.com/app/758330/Shenmue_I__II/](https://store.steampowered.com/app/758330/Shenmue_I__II/)

<comment><USER16> I'm playing through the third at the moment. It has managed to recreate the atmosphere of the first two games in a respectable way (given the reduced budget) (even if IMO it's lacking some polish)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The continued (and growing) popularity of KWC seems to me to indicate a real desire for a more organic, free-form style of living space and architecture as opposed to the IKEA / Dubai / generic mall style that we seem to be building everywhere. I wonder if something similar will ever arise in the near future...my guess is that we'll have to wait for space travel to really kick off to see more flexible forms of government and construction.

In any case, the closest thing today in Hong Kong to the Walled City is probably Chungking Mansions. Not quite as anarchic or run down, but it does have a family resemblance. I recommend the book _Ghetto at the Center of the World: Chungking Mansions, Hong Kong_ for more about the interesting global mix of people and economics that goes on there.

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

[https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/G/bo11...](https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/G/bo11234886.html)

<comment><USER18> Such styles of living space and architecture are only popular until there's a fire or earthquake. Then everybody dies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> A cool coffee table book on this subject is "Kowloon large illustrated" (ISBN 4000080709) by Iwanami Shoten. Even if you can't read Japanese, the photos and illustrations are great.

<comment><USER20> Chasing the Dragon (Jackie Pullinger) is the account of a British woman who moved to Hong Kong and felt led by God to help the underprivileged in Kowloon City, with dramatic results. No illustrations, but a riveting read (if you have an open mind).

<comment><USER21> There's also a photo book by her about it called Crack in the Wall. Don't think it's currently in print but worth tracking down a secondhand copy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I thought I recognized the name of this place. It is featured in the game Shadowrun: Hong Kong [1]. Highly recommend it, lot of fun.

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

<comment><USER23> It also appears in Iron Fist comics as something _very_ different.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> There are more photos, and discussion of installing electricity and water, on this website. (It seems to be by the same author as the Atlas Obscura article, or at least the same photographer.)

[https://cityofdarkness.co.uk/category/the_city/](https://cityofdarkness.co.uk/category/the_city/)

</comment><comment><USER25> I'm curious about the economics of constructing such a place: 13 story buildings under such conditions seem a non sequitur.

<comment><USER26> It accreted, it wasn't planned. They just built things on top of other things.

<comment><USER25> 13 stories seems too much to "accrete". Architectural or economic, it's a startling achievement of anarchy.

<comment><USER24> The book suggests a construction contractor would approach the owners of a smaller building, and in return for replacing it with a much larger one, they would own the lower X floors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Bloodsport 1988 had a scene in the Kowloon Walled City

I think it and the Japanese footage is the only known film from inside?

A good excuse as any to re/watch a classic movie.

<comment><USER28> Call of Duty: Black Ops has an extensive session in Kowloon Walled City.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I think having a modern version of this would be kind of cool. Something that's managed with laws and isn't a slum. I'd imagine having everything you need in an enclosed space would be appealing to some people.

<comment><USER13> Firstly, afaik many high-rises are already set up this way, especially in China or Hong Kong where they get pretty dense.

Also IIRC there's a settlement in Alaska or Canada that's just one apartment building, population of 200-something. Personally I wouldn't be able to live there, with everyone knowing who's sleeping with whom.

Secondly, I don't know how _enclosed_ you want the space, but in many European cities, you get everything you need and most of what you want in a rather short walking distance―instead of having to drive. Plus you get sun and fresh air, as opposed to what was there in Kowloon.

<comment><USER30> Are you thinking of Begich Towers in Whittier, Alaska? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begich_Towers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begich_Towers)

<comment><USER29> Huh learned the term arcology today. I think that's a pretty fitting word to describe what I meant.

<comment><USER31> Someone didn't grow up playing Sim City 2000...

[https://simcity.fandom.com/wiki/Arcology](https://simcity.fandom.com/wiki/Arcology)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> > The result was a city outside the law: There was no tax, no regulation of > businesses, no health or planning systems, no police presence.

interesting...i wonder if it could be considered one of the only known "libertarian" type of cities/places?

are there any other known places like this? did they fair any better?

<comment><USER17> Not quite the same thing, but: between 1918 and 1921, there was an 'anarchist territory' with a population of 7 million people in eastern Ukraine. By all accounts it was essentially stateless and had no real authority. Alas, it got entangled in the Russian Civil War and was dismantled in the 1921 by the Soviets.

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

<comment><USER33> You can experience something similar today in Moldova. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistria](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistria)

<comment><USER32> super interesting, appreciate the link

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Reminds me of the Java ecosystem</comment>


Compile-time state machines in C++ - <AUTHOR> https://www.fluentcpp.com/2019/09/24/expressive-code-for-state-machines-in-cpp/ <comment><AUTHOR> I'm the author of the article. This came first as an attempt to enforce a protocol at compile-time, in C++.

Feel free to AMA!</comment>


A Walking Tour of New York's Massive Surveillance Network - <AUTHOR> https://theintercept.com/2016/09/24/a-walking-tour-of-new-yorks-massive-surveillance-network/ <comment><USER2> "The building is home to the city's Domain Awareness System, which collects and analyzes information from police cameras, radars, license plate readers and more. The Domain Awareness System was built in partnership with Microsoft, which is selling the software to other cities, with New York getting a cut of the profits."

Weren't we supposed to be panicking about Palantir being used to report fire code violations only yesterday? Now I don't even know where to direct my outrage and paranoia!

Still, it seems unclear to me what people thought a "Smart City" was supposed to be. That this data would be generated (very expensively) and simply not utilized by law enforcement? It says the author's goal is really to generate curiosity, and based on this article (plus living in lower Manhattan) I think I might need to run out and get a copy.</comment>


Klusterfuck is a dead-simple serverless platform for kubernetes - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/n-k/klusterfuck <comment><USER2> I just downvoted this and decided to explain why (and knowing this comment will be downvoted probably, too). Using profanity is not appropriate. Being in tech does not justify this behavior. [https://www.hanselman.com/blog/ProfanityDoesntWork.aspx](https://www.hanselman.com/blog/ProfanityDoesntWork.aspx)

Not to mention I'm not even going to read the README file of this project as long as this software is licensed under WTFPL, which is basically a joke.

<comment><USER3> @alpb then I am not sure how we can justify the PagerDuty home page.

<comment><USER2> There's no justification. Just Silicon Valley brogrammer culture.</comment></comment></comment>


The 48 Laws of Power - <AUTHOR> http://www2.tech.purdue.edu/cgt/courses/cgt411/covey/48_laws_of_power.htm Do you agree?! <comment><USER2> This appears to be material from this book

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_48_Laws_of_Power>

Don't miss the first sentence of the "cultural impact" section. Lol.

<comment><AUTHOR> :D

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> ... and 48 sure-fire ways to be labeled as an asshole once your scheme that uses everyone as "a pawn" has been found-out.

<comment><USER4> You climbed to a position that enables you to take credit and spoils for the work of X serfs, and then you jump ship. You seek a position where you are in charge of X serfs and work your way up to XX serfs. And then you jump ship again, with an XXX goal. By the sixth move, you are the CEO of a multinational.</comment></comment>


Introducing a gun insurance? - <AUTHOR>

An fb friend (or should I say a social neighbor) just posted a comment with what I think is a brilliant idea (I won't mention his name since I'm not sure he wants to be quoted).<p>He suggested we introduce a gun insurance very similar to the car insurance. I think this is a brillant idea for many reasons. What do you think? <comment><USER2> What's the point? There's something like 500 unintentional firearm deaths per year. With 100,000,000 million gun owners we're talking about $5/yr or something.

To put that in perspective, every year 25,000 people die from falling.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think one should also consider intentional firearm deaths. I might be wrong and the analogy might not be appropriate but high premiums could disuade people at risk from owning a firearm in the first place and maybe prevent some of the intentional violent crimes.

<comment><USER2> Insurance doesn't pay for intentional acts and criminals don't buy insurance. Sorry, this idea is ridiculous.

<comment><AUTHOR> You're right, it's not very common for an insurance to cover intentional acts. Assume for a second it was possible and assume that most people who buy firearms are not criminals at the time of the purchase and assume this insurance is mandatory like your car liability insurance then maybe high premium for people at risk will deter some of them from buying a firearm and possibly from committing a crime. It also has the benefit of protecting the victims and their families but that's not my main point. The reason I find this idea very interesting is because of its built-in incentive to detect people at risk and deter them from buying a weapon and maybe committing a crime.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> What are you buying for your insurance? With car insurance you're buying protection for yourself against a risk that either you cause an accident or someone else causes an accident that you are involved in.

<comment><AUTHOR> I was referring to a liability insurance, if you kill or injure somebody (outside of legitime defense) with your firearm the insurance.

<comment><USER3> So who receives the insurance claim? If I shoot my mother in law, does my wife as an only child get a check?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, your wife or your mother in law if you miss and she's still alive but what I think is more interesting is the built in incentive for the insurance to identify people at risk and charge them with such a high premium that it would deter some of them from buying a firearm and maybe eventually from a committing a deadly crime.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Can you explain further -- do you mean liability insurance, ie for accidents or injuries to others? Would it be required?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, the idea would be to mandate all gun owners to pay for liability insurance the same way we do for cars and let the private insurance industry assess risks and calculate premiums.

<comment><USER4> I think this is incredibly interesting. The most out-of-the-box idea I've heard yet. There are lots of impracticalities, but it deserves to be part of the discussion.

Is it getting traction anywhere?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> i been trying to get an re-insurance co interested in marriage insurance. Any takers?</comment>


Ask HN: What would you like to see in the Golang course? - <AUTHOR> I'm working on a training course (text/video) devoted to Golang. Curious if there are any (advanced?) topics, which would definitely be worth to add to the course. Any ideas/recommendations? <comment><USER2> Relevant to my interests! Here's some stuff I would have enjoyed learning prior to learning it the hard way:

a) Databases. What's the right way to work with them in Golang?

b) Suppose you're building an API which has some shared state. (Like, I don't know, a stock exchange's order book or something, to pick an example randomly.) What's the best way to model that such that you can access it concurrently in an arbitrary number of simultaneous HTTP requests?

c) Supposing that one understands goroutines at a Golang 101 level, where does one go from there? I ended up having lots of fun on e.g. fanning out data incoming from N sources to one channel back out to M consumers which each need a copy of everything on that channel. This felt excessively painful to me. How do I do it in a way which is not excessively painful?

<comment><USER3> I found this link a while ago, but I still haven't sat down and gone through it.

[http://go-database-sql.org/](http://go-database-sql.org/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Go concurrency and distributed programming patterns, with examples for different problems that devs often face, including how to test them.

Database examples need to provide instructions for getting to a working configuration, testing with a different database, etc.

honestly go look at Stack overflow and see where people get stuck.

</comment><comment><USER5> 1\. Better understanding of goroutines & channels (what patio11 already mentioned). 2\. Some more insight into error handling (maybe something on the lines of [http://www.golangpatterns.info/error- handling](http://www.golangpatterns.info/error-handling))

</comment><comment><USER6> I would like to see practical use cases. A step beyond the gobyexample site. Something more like the Perl cookbook

<comment><USER7> +1. I've been through a couple of tutorials and I now know and love golang. I would like someone to dive in a little deeper and demonstrate golang's strength.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Evolution? Okay, maybe this is political, but in a training course I'd really need to see how a language has evolved to meet new challenges. Because if it's not a top-5 language, and it's not evolving, then why should someone care?

</comment><comment><USER9> for most developers Golang is not the first or primary language.

how to port a ruby, python or java code to golang would be useful.

there are libraries like gox, but I would like a good tutorial to cross platform applications.

personally I would like to learn to build gui apps, android apps in go.

<comment><AUTHOR> Mobile apps are part of the plan. Not sure about the state of gomobile, but afaik it's still experimental.

gui - this is an interesting one. Thanks! I'll try to cover it.</comment></comment>


The Social Ideology of the Motorcar (1973) - <AUTHOR> http://unevenearth.org/2018/08/the-social-ideology-of-the-motorcar/ <comment><USER2> There's lots of interesting stuff there, and ideas that have become familiar to people who don't necessarily share the author's overall prescriptions (some related views were expressed in English in _The Death and Life of Great American Cities_ by Jane Jacobs, 12 years earlier).

There was one claim here that confused me:

> Unlike the horse rider, the wagon driver, or the cyclist, the motorist was > going to depend for the fuel supply, as well as for the smallest kind of > repair, on dealers and specialists in engines, lubrication, and ignition, > and on the interchangeability of parts. Unlike all previous owners of a > means of locomotion, the motorist's relationship to his or her vehicle was > to be that of user and consumer-and not owner and master. This vehicle, in > other words, would oblige the owner to consume and use a host of commercial > services and industrial products that could only be provided by some third > party.

I wonder if this was different in France, but in the U.S. quite a lot of car owners have prided themselves on their ability to maintain and repair their own cars (which has certainly become more difficult over time in a host of intentional and unintentional ways). It's hard for me to think of American car owners of earlier decades too easily agreeing that they were "user and consumer-and not owner and master" of a car.

Also, I thought that there was a fairly considerable period of time in which bicycle mechanics were commonly the _same people_ as automobile and motorcycle mechanics. (In fact, there was a brief period of time in which _airplane mechanics_ were the same people as bicycle mechanics!) They used related parts which were sometimes manufactured by the same firms and sometimes worked on the same principles. Even today, the Schraeder valve is used on both automobile tires and (many) bicycle tires, and cyclists can still fill their tires at gas stations (although it's not necessarily a good idea).

I've seen some shops in Latin America that are both bicycle and motorcycle mechanics, although I'm sure the overlap in the specific parts and tools they use for each has decreased over time. I've also seen a near-continuum between bicycles, motorized bicycles, mopeds, scooters, motorcycles, and cars where it's quite possible for me to imagine the same person using related skills to work on any two of these.

There's a trend in almost all of our technology away from ease of repair and away from user familiarity with repair and maintenance. I'm concerned and sad about that on a number of levels, but I don't quite understand how the automobile partakes of a kind of original sin in this respect which the bicycle doesn't.

(Also, I have a bicycle now that has fancier and harder-to-make-from-scratch components in _almost every way_ than the first cars did -- frame materials, tires, brakes, suspension, manufacturing quality of the gears, and probably a number of other things I'm forgetting. If Henry Ford could have used comparably good stuff on his cars, it would have been a big improvement.)

Also, to belabor the point a little bit, most horse riders by 1900 or whatever probably didn't know how to make their own saddles, stirrups, reins, or horseshoes, and would have been in quite a bit of trouble if they didn't have an equestrian supply industry to turn to. Or horse breeders to sell them new horses when their old horses died!

<comment><USER3> > but in the U.S. quite a lot of car owners have prided themselves on their > ability to maintain and repair their own cars

You're still dependent on _a host of commercial services and industrial products_ in the form of oils and lubricants, replacement parts such as windscreen wipers, gaskets, seals, bushes, shock absorbers, tyres. I can't think, right now, of a single car part I can make by myself. Even if you have a lathe you're going to need stock material to spin down.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > "The typical American devotes more than 1500 hours a year (which is 30 hours > a week, or 4 hours a day, including Sundays) to his [or her] car. This > includes the time spent behind the wheel, both in motion and stopped, the > hours of work to pay for it and to pay for gas, tires, tolls, insurance, > tickets, and taxes .Thus it takes this American 1500 hours to go 6000 miles > (in the course of a year). Three and a half miles take him (or her) one > hour. In countries that do not have a transportation industry, people travel > at exactly this speed on foot, with the added advantage that they can go > wherever they want and aren't restricted to asphalt roads."

I'd love to see modern numbers for this.

</comment><comment> temp-dude-87844 This essay observes that the advantages conferred by cars were significantly dampened once the cityscape evolved to benefit from those advantages. At a time when cars weren't so widespread, they allowed freedom of movement, freedom of leisure travel, and a fast, personal commute from a leafy suburb instead of having to live in crowded cities. But the availability of cars allowed those suburbs to be worthwhile to develop and many moved (for complex reasons that include a mix of personal, economic, discretionary, aspirational, classist, and racist), and many years later enough people have cars in an area that not having one is a significant hindrance.

When this is observed, some interpret it as a tragedy of the commons. But while noting a class struggle, it's this socialist essay that accidentally makes a surprisingly capitalistic point: that much of one's outcomes depends on comparative advantage, and this advantage can disappear when everyone else catches up. In parts of the world dominated by the car, living close to one's work and adjacent to serviceable public transit can become the comparative advantage in turn. This is a major factor in gentrification and center city housing prices, as landowners, landlords, and developers are eager to maximize their earnings on their inelastic holdings while renters are eager to outbid others until reaching their personal ceiling.

As a society, we've once again externalized the costs of transportation to the people but at costs significantly higher than before motorization, we've turned housing into an auction, and we've (accidentally, or perhaps deliberately) made it significantly more difficult to live a life that's not dependent on continuous, recurring expenditures to landholders, resource extractors and processors, and middlemen.

</comment><comment><USER5> I like the article but this bothered me: "Everyone was going to depend for their daily needs on a commodity that a single industry held as a monopoly." Every "single industry" has a monopoly on that industry... it's a tautology.

<comment><USER6> Not really. In this case the commodity is transportation. What are modes of transportation? Walking, bikes, trains, buses, and personal automobiles (among some others). In New York City the automobile industry doesn't have a monopoly on daily transportation needs, millions of people take the subway every day. In Amsterdam transportation needs are partly met by people who ride their bikes a total of 2 million passenger-kilometers on an average day. Similarly, walking is a bigger share of daily travel needs in pedestrian friendly cities than it is in many automobile focused cities.

That is an important point, especially in the 20th century, because the common nature of the automobile naturally leads all automakers towards sharing common cause on certain big issues (like road building and use; parking availability and cost; petroleum production, use, and taxation; land use; and so on), many of which differ strongly from the desires tied to other ways of meeting transportation needs or of the public at large. "Monopoly" is the wrong term, but oligopoly is accurate, and equally concerning.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This has to be the dumbest argument against the automobile that I have yet read, and there have been many posted on HN over the years. The idea that the value and utility of the automobile is diminished because everybody has one is absurd. I'm sure this argument has some appeal to people living in large, congested cities, but that is going to be a very small percentage of commuters in the nation. For the remainder which we seldom hear from they are presumably quite happy with the freedom and utility a personal automobile provides.

<comment><USER6> > _" The idea that the value and utility of the automobile is diminished > because everybody has one is absurd."_

You missed it entirely. The argument is that it is _unreasonable and unsustainable_ to expect that everybody should own one. We have normalized many of the costs of near universal automobile ownership today, but in many ways it is unsustainable, particularly as urbanization increases and particularly as cities are the main economic drivers in the modern era. We're killing ourselves with the idea that everybody not only should own a beach house but has to own a beach house in order to function in society and the economy, and there just isn't enough beach front property for that to be realistic.</comment></comment>


Voilà turns Jupyter notebooks to standalone web applications - <AUTHOR> https://blog.jupyter.org/and-voil%C3%A0-f6a2c08a4a93 <comment><USER2> _side note:_ I hope everyone is aware of _Jupyter Lab_ , the successor of Jupyter Notebooks -- it's been basically version 1.0 for over a year:

[https://blog.jupyter.org/jupyterlab-is-ready-for- users-5a6f0...](https://blog.jupyter.org/jupyterlab-is-ready-for- users-5a6f039b8906)

<comment><USER3> ...a lot of us are practically addicted to Jupyter Notebook Extensions [1] features and these _aren 't compatibly with Jupyter Lab_ and _Jupyter Lab didn 't add equivalent builtin features._

Once you get used to little things like (a) auto-TOC/outline of current doc in a sidebar (with highlight for current running cells and other goodies), (b) auto scroll to end of output, (c) browser notifications for end of long running calculations (so you can be alerted of stuff being done while browsing in other tabs) etc. etc. _you really can 't live without them!_

It's this little things that matter 100x more than freely rearrangeable tab- grids and detachable outputs and terminals... these are cool but it's the other small details that make a bigger difference in productivity!

(As someone who also has some frontend web experience I was planning to maybe try and code these and contribute, but I never find the time, and last time I looked I couldn't find a good entry point to start learning about jupyter lab's frontend code...)

[1] [https://github.com/ipython- contrib/jupyter_contrib_nbextensi...](https://github.com/ipython- contrib/jupyter_contrib_nbextensions)

<comment><USER4> I'm not sure what you mean. Jupyter-lab has extensions, such as the toc?

<comment><USER5> Without knowing anything about what I'm saying, I think parents complaint is that Jupiter notebook extension don't work in labs, and that the labs extension system does not allow for as much customisation, leaving parent to stick to the notebook server.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> There's a somehow similar project called Panel: [http://panel.pyviz.org/](http://panel.pyviz.org/) However it's limited to Bokeh widgets whereas Voila is framework and language agnostic. As I understand it Panel allows to start Bokeh servers from notebooks.

<comment><USER7> I'd also like to know how Voilà compares to Panel.

The recent Panel announcement stated that it was widget/graphing library agnostic and mentioned plotly and Altair explicitly. I have not used it myself though.

<comment><USER8> Panel and Voila attacked the same problem (moving easily between Jupyter and standalone server contexts) from completely opposite directions. This difference has some implications on their design and function.

Voila is based on ipywidgets running in Jupyter notebooks, and to make a standalone dashboard they had to create a standalone server that can securely execute Jupyter cells and display the results without allowing arbitrary code execution. The server is thus a work in progress, while the Jupyter integration was already solid.

Panel is based on Bokeh models, and because Bokeh models already had a full- blown standalone server, the task for Panel was to make Bokeh models (a) work seamlessly in Jupyter (previously they were awkward and limited in that context), (b) support other plotting libraries (by wrapping everything as a Bokeh model), and (c) have an API that's easier to use than native Bokeh for easy prototyping and design. Solid, secure server support came for free.

Once both libraries support each others models (soon!) and get a bit more polished, then off the top of my head, the main differences will be:

\- Panel can use a Jupyter notebook, but it works equally well with a plain Python file; the notebook is just a source of Python code for it. Panel can be used fully even without Jupyter installed. Voila is closely tied to the Jupyter cell-based execution model, which is good or bad depending on your point of view. \- Panel allows you to construct a "server view" of your notebook that can be completely independent of what is shown in the notebook, even though it is specified inside the notebook. I use that capability to have the same notebook go step by step analyzing a given dataset in detail, and then separately designate what should be shown in the server context, which is very handy; the boss sees one view, I work on another, and it all stays in sync. Voila works with notebook cell outputs only, and so I don't think it's possible to have fully different views of your data in the two contexts. \- Panel supports building complex GUIs, with hierarchies of nested objects that each define their own editable parameters, without having to tie any of that code to Jupyter, Bokeh, or any other GUI or plotting system. This approach is really important for building large, complex codebases (e.g. simulators or data-analysis systems) that sometimes are used in dashboards, sometimes in notebooks, sometimes in batch runs, and sometimes on e.g. large remote computing systems.

I'm sure there are lots more differences, but that's enough for now!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is huge - This basically allows your analysts and data scientists to have a company wide impact by productionizing your code.

Plotly dash tried to do this, but was a bit weird to use.

<comment><USER10> I've been using the Jupyter AppMode plugin for a few years, it has been very useful for internal tools. Voilà looks similar, with more sheen, it's going to enable true rapid SPA development.

<comment><USER11> Voila author here: a major difference with AppMode is that AppMode is merely hiding the notebook interface, but still allows for arbitrary code execution.

Voila is meant for producing secure web apps.

<comment><USER9> hi - its very interesting that you talk about security. what's the deployment story here ?

in fact, now that i think of it - can you generate an output folder with a Dockerfile ? so a mere docker build will produce a running docker compatible "build" folder ?

Also, can you have a mode where you hide the source code ? i just get the output data ? for world viewable dashboards.

<comment><USER11> There are some details about this in the blog post. \- no execution request is sent by the front-end. \- code is stripped out unless explicitely stated otherwise. For deployment, we are working on several scenarios around JupyterHub.

<comment><USER9> your blog post still _displays the code_. Not sure if that can be turned off as well.

Please consider the request for a Docker based output build in addition to whatever you do for jupyterhub

<comment><USER12> From the blog post:

> with --strip_sources=False, input cells will be included in the resulting > web application (as read-only pygment snippets).

So the sources are presumably not there by default.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Is there any work on bringing Python into the browser like with JavaScript? At the beginning of the year, I was looking at the best way of making an interactive textbook either with Python (requiring a backend it seemed), or with JavaScript via D3. You can still use Jupyter Notebooks with JS; there's a library called BeakerX by Two Sigma that does this.

I went the D3 route but it was hard to stay motivated when most of the time I was just learning how d3 and JavaScript worked instead of the interactability part itself. Closet project I found is Pyodide which was posted here [1]. Wondering if I should wait for someone to come up with a magicul implementation before restarting since this area seems to be experimental (?).

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19677721](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19677721)

<comment> fleur-de-lotus Sorry, i am not a native speaker. What is a 'Closet project'? Do you mean it is not open-source?

<comment><USER14> I think it was a typo, they meant "closest project", or most similar.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is awesome!

Is there a way to host these somewhere easily?

Like a git push of a notebook to a repo and you get voila powered renders (and I assume some kind of automagic lightweight kernel behind the scenes which executes the code if required).

It reminds me of DeepNote[0] though that is geared towards the producers of notebooks rather than consumers.

[0]: [https://beta.deepnote.org/](https://beta.deepnote.org/)

<comment><USER16> At Kyso [1] we let you do this (I'm one of the founders) - you can run Jupyterlab online and start servers inside Jupyterlab that you can share with the world (Jupyterlab will run on instance-id.cloud.kyso.io).

You can install viola and then just run it on port 8000 from within the jupyterlab terminal and you can share the url with anyone (it will be instance-id-8000.cloud.kyso.io)

We're actually thinking of supporting Viola natively in the next few weeks, what kind of app do you want to run?

[1] [https://kyso.io](https://kyso.io)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> If this interests you, check out Papermill and NTeract:

[https://github.com/nteract/papermill](https://github.com/nteract/papermill)

[https://github.com/nteract](https://github.com/nteract)

</comment><comment><USER16> If it spawns a new kernel for each request it will be very slow no?

<comment><USER16> Or at least each page load will be slow and memory intensive for the server

<comment><USER18> It is a bit slow, but there's some exploration of keeping a hot pool of prexecuted kernels available. At the end of the day it's still 1 user 1 kernel though, and this is important for security/isolation reasons.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Any real-life examples? The blog only seems to contain animated gifs.

<comment><USER20> [http://voila-gallery.org](http://voila-gallery.org) is their gallery of examples. It's built using jupyter hub, which spawns a python kernel for every new user.

UX is not great, you have to go to [http://voila- gallery.org/hub/logout](http://voila-gallery.org/hub/logout) after you've started an example dashboard to be able to see another.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> why just jupyter? why not pure python as well?

<comment><USER22> What do you mean? Jupyter notebooks are usually pure Python apart from (sometimes) interactive widgets, which have Javascript behind them since it's in a browser. I don't think this is much use without widgets, so maybe you mean something else?

<comment><USER21> I mean why can't I write python outside of jupyter and generate these dashboards? Or can I?

<comment><USER8> You can if you use Panel (panel.pyviz.org); it does not depend on Jupyter in any way (but like Voila, works well in Jupyter).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I wonder if this works with Jupyterhub-spawned notebooks, definitely want to try.

</comment><comment><USER24> so, it has come to that

</comment><comment><USER25> For years I thought Jupyter Notebook was hardware, a specific laptop made for scientists. Am I alone thinking it's a confusing name?

<comment> purple-again No you are not alone. I have no crossover with the Python world aside from hearing about it on HN and Reddit. I too assumed it was like a Bloomberg terminal for data scientists and was surprised to discover it's just a virtual environment wrapper you install. Poor name for the project if you are marketing it outside of your domain which I doubt they care much about.

<comment><USER26> It's not a virtual environment wrapper... It's closer to an environment for coding in the browser.</comment></comment></comment>


How to make your wordpress.org blog realtime - <AUTHOR> http://blog.superfeedr.com/meta/how-to-make-your-wordpress-blog-realtime/

<comment><USER2> Free plan and a $200/mo plan. Considering I used to pay a friend $10 to do this every time I made a post or two on a niche site... its well worth the price of free, and possibly $200 if you're a serious blogger with a few million applications to update each time you post. Its also a white hat SEO technique. You're basically backlinking to yourself, but doing it for the benefit of the social masses, etc.

(Also, I tested it myself. My fresh post was in Google Reader in <2 mins.)</comment>


Early laptop designer Bill Moggridge dies at 69 - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/early-laptop-designer-bill-moggridge-dies-at-69-computer-used-by-military-nasa-in-1980s/2012/09/09/8f6b7c90-faab-11e1-a65a-d6e62f9f2a5a_story.html <comment><USER2> "Few people think about it or are aware of it. But there is nothing made by human beings that does not involve a design decision somewhere."

Rest in peace Bill. Copper Hewitt remembering Bills work. <http://www.cooperhewitt.org/remembering-bill/life-work>

</comment><comment><USER3> Here's a clip from the documentary Objectified where Moggridge talks about designing a laptop: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHEA-jbo1aI>.

<comment><USER4> Interesting documentary! Too bad I got to know about him today, when he is no more!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Really enjoyed his book (Designing Interactions, see www.designinginteractions.com). Here's another article about him:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/10/technology/william- moggrid...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/10/technology/william-moggridge- laptop-pioneer-dies-at-69.html)</comment>


The history of Norton Commander (and other early MS-DOS utilities) - <AUTHOR> http://www.softpanorama.org/OFM/Paradigm/Ch03/norton_commander.shtml

<comment><USER2> As a fan of midnightcommander on linux, I did some research attempting to confirm that it was a clone or copy of Norton Commander. I found on some old forgotten ftp sites of DOS stuff a similar program called "dc", presumably for "disk commander", that was a very trimmed down and fast version of the same concept. I think dc looked more like mc in some of it's keystroke mappings. I have no idea if dc copied mc or vice versa, however.

I believe dc was given away in a floppy disk inserted in a computer shopper magazine sometime in the early 90s.

I built a floppy based linux to emulate the use of a parallel port "laplink" to shift files -- you stick the disk in each computer, and mc pops up with the files on the remote computer on the left and the local files on the right, and you can copy them back and forth.

I would not might having mc on my android phone. Maybe I will try to port it.

</comment><comment><USER3> Coincidentally, I used the phrase, "since these were the days of DOS and Norton Commander, QBasic was to be my playground," on a goal statement for a PH.D. program earlier today.

HN to the rescue again confirming the chronology for me, without the need for me to ask.

</comment><comment><USER4> This prompted me to see if there was a decent clone of NC for Unix, and it looks like Midnight Commander is well-reviewed and open-source:

<http://www.midnight-commander.org/>

</comment><comment><USER5> I never did get to grips with the likes of NC or XTG. They always seemed to slow me down, kind of like they were designed for dummies. If I wanted to do some serious shifting of files, I was happy with DOS, if I wanted something visual, then Gem was there... Maybe I just started too late with PCs.

</comment><comment><USER6> I remember always using a cleverly named utility called "list" instead of NC. It was faster and lighter weight. I had it renamed to "l" and stuck in my path somewhere on all of my machines so I could pull it up in 2 keystrokes.

Finally had to get rid of it somewhere around Windows 98

</comment><comment><USER7> I use mc on osx/linux, and far on Windows. Great products!

</comment><comment><USER8> That takes me back, I used to use NC on my 486 at university, great app in its day.</comment>


Cities Are Saying 'No' to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics, and FCC Bullying - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/cities-are-saying-no-to-5g-citing-health-aestheticsand-fcc-bullying-11566619391?mod=rsswn <comment><USER2> There's such weird marketing zealotry behind 5G. They're acting like it's going to completely reshape society, but at best it's just... faster internet. In places where the internet is already pretty fast.

I can only assume it's a mixture of political and economic stakeholders that have their own reasons for really wanting it to succeed (looking competitive against China, selling new phones, etc.)

<comment><USER3> > _at best it 's just... faster internet_

Counterpoint: streaming audio and video were singularly enabled by faster internet. That is restructuring multibillion-dollar industries. The iPhone, one could argue, and through it real-time social media, are products of mobile internet.

There are legitimate new capabilities that will likely erupt from cheaper, faster mobile internet. If the playground is in Shenzhen versus Silicon Valley, that's where resources should be allocated to explore that potential.

I'm not arguing for 5G. (I don't know enough about it.) But "it's just faster internet" is a facile counterargument.

<comment><USER4> Funny how people even on a tech website seems to be stuck at "640 KB is enough for everyone".

When technology gets a lot cheaper, a lot more powerful, a lot less power consuming, the magic of the market creates completely new categories of use that unlock new demand at consumers.

Right now your phone has a sim-card. There might be one in your tablet or your car too. But there is not one in your TV or the lights in your bathroom. But at some point telecommunications technology is going to be so cheap that drawing a wire to connect a button to a light is going to be the expensive option.

5G is a step on the way.

<comment><USER5> Obviously sentiments like "640 KB is enough for everyone" hilariously failed to predict the value of faster and more powerful computers. At the same time, most people's personal use of computers hasn't kept up with the capabilities of the high-end of consumer grade products. Lots of people only really use a web browser, and even an ad-infested website will run fine on most 10-20 year old computers.

You can say "we don't need to frantically rush to deploy 5G" without also saying "nobody will ever benefit from 5G".

<comment><USER4> > You can say "we don't need to frantically rush to deploy 5G" without also > saying "nobody will ever benefit from 5G".

Sure. But that just means that the products exploiting this technology won't be developed in your neighbourhood but instead in Korea or China.

<comment><USER6> How would and how many lives will be made better with 5g? Will it help people with debt? Will it increase housing supply to lower home ownership/renting costs? Will it help people stop overdosing? Maybe cool the climate a little?

No. Itll help people watch someone on youtube play Fortnite.

<comment><USER7> Just because you're mostly correct doesn't mean you're correct. My watch is always asking me if I've fallen and need emergency services (I horse around a lot), but wearable connected medical devices are and will be a big thing. I have lots of friends and family who kill time taking online courses or watching educational videos.

This is the same argument badmouthing the Internet because of social media which ignores that the presocial media Internet is still there and just as vibrant.

<comment><USER6> You can already stream online courses and watch educational videos with 4g... same with wireless medical devices. What does 5g offer that 4g already hasn't?

<comment><USER8> 5g has higher capacity, but shorter range, so cells will need to be closer together, i.e. greater density - therefore location tracking precision will appear to improve, so the big corporations will be better able to finely tune targeted ads in HD to a more specific demographic of consumers.

5G offers:-

\- bigger numbers and promise of a brighter future for consumers that are impressed by that kind of thing and are happy to trade their privacy for perceived benefits / status.

\- And probably some more tangible benefits for those who would attempt to track or advertise as much as possible to monetize the masses.

\- And as you clearly understand, nothing particularly beneficial to the rest of us, but we'll join in when eventually forced to through one upgrade or another as usual.

<comment><USER9> There might be incidental location disclosure, but even with 2/3/4G the network operator has pretty good location information, typical precision being 10s of meters or even less.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Nilay Patel wrote an editorial over at The Verge titled "Wait, why the hell is the 'race to 5G' even a race?": [https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/23/18637213/5g-race-us- leade...](https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/23/18637213/5g-race-us-leadership- china-fcc-lte)

> All I'm asking is that the next time you hear a wireless industry person > talk about the "race" to 5G, stop and ask them why it's a race. Ask who the > competitors are, and what happens if we come in second place. See if you buy > the answer. I suspect you won't hear anything convincing.

Faster internet is of course great in and of itself, but I'm not convinced it's deserving of public subsidies or regulatory exemptions, particularly in large cities that already have access to fast broadband. Furthermore, I'm quite concerned about NASA's warning that 5G will weaken our ability to forecast the weather, including life-or-death phenomena like hurricanes.

<comment><USER3> > _I 'm quite concerned about NASA's warning that 5G will weaken our ability > to forecast the weather_

NASA issued no such warning.

5G would interfere with _one_ satellite-based moisture measure around populated areas. NOAA's commentary was around how that _one measure_ would need to be statistically tweaked or supplemented. (The headlines resulted from NOAA's head warning the Congress that if the latter didn't give him funding for these tweaks, our forecasts would become dramatically worse.)

Hurricanes, moreover, build over oceans. AT&T can't keep a call in my Manhattan apartment; it's going to be a while before 5G signals are making it to the middle of the Atlantic.

<comment><USER10> I was repeating what I've read. When The Washington Post reported[1] about NOAA director Neil Jacobs's testimony before congress on the issue, they wrote:

> With this reduced forecast skill, the European model would not have > predicted 2012′s Superstorm Sandy hitting the Northeast coast several days > in advance, Jacobs said. Instead, the model would have steered the storm out > to sea. Lead time to prepare for the storm would have been cut short.

Was The Washington Post mistaken?

[1] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/05/23/head- noaa-...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/05/23/head-noaa-says-g- deployment-could-set-weather-forecasts-back-years-wireless-industry-denies- it/)

<comment><USER3> > _Was The Washington Post mistaken?_

No, they're reporting on a valid dialectic. The topic of the story is the discussion, not the science. (The _Post_ is a political paper. That their May story produced zero further reporting from reputable sources is a hint.)

In lieu of listening to the hearing [1], the American Institute of Physicists (AIP) provides a good summary [2].

TL; DR The Science Committee is debating emission limits. Nobody suggests scrapping 5G.

[1] [https://science.house.gov/hearings/the-future-of- forecasting...](https://science.house.gov/hearings/the-future-of-forecasting- building-a-stronger-us-weather-enterprise/)

[2] [https://www.aip.org/fyi/2019/noaa-warns-5g-spectrum- interfer...](https://www.aip.org/fyi/2019/noaa-warns-5g-spectrum-interference- presents-major-threat-weather-forecasts)

<comment><USER10> > Nobody suggests scrapping 5G.

Neither am I! I am suggesting (and advocating) that we slow down so that these concerns can be taken seriously. Quoting from The Verge again:

> How did the wireless industry respond to [meteorological concerns]? By > writing a blog post accusing meteorologists from across three government > agencies of "risking our 5G leadership." The implication, of course, is that > worrying about detecting major weather events could make us lose the race.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is a shitty issue, because you have the uncertainty of health claims, with extreme claims that may even be ginned up to discredit opposition.

My beef with 5G is the arguments for these disruptive rollouts are almost entirely bullshit. The United States is not in a race to drop a telephone pole with a short range antenna in front of my home.

In the name of national security, Verizon and AT&T essentially get to do whatever they want, with no third party input. The FCC mandates lower rates for pole rent and allows new poles to be placed anywhere. In my case, Verizon put a pole in my neighbors lawn about 12 feet from an existing pole.

Why does Verizon get a government subsidized ability to roll out infrastructure? Why doesn't Spectrum or Comcast get it for their fiber and coax plant?

<comment><USER12> Any pending suits against this FCC decision? Or against Verizon for that unnecessary pole placement?

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Really surprised to see the beating heart of tech that is HN turn into a luddite forum on this occasion.

Last week I got upgraded from 4G to 5G for home broadband here in London, UK. It just became commercially available in my area (on Three)

As I said in another comment, my average speeds went up from 5-10Mbps to 150-250Mbps and peak ones from 20-25Mbps to 350-400Mbps.

It absolutely is the game changer it's advertised to be in terms of enabling new real-world use cases.

Remember how video streaming was theoretically possible on 3G but totally shit in practice until 4G came along ? 5G is a similar kind of step up. You can expect an order magnitude more bandwidth on mobile than with 4G, and that matters.

In other words : the hype is real.

<comment><USER14> My 4G connection in Austria has been able to do 120Mbps for years now, sometimes even 180Mbps. What you are seeing might simply be that you are mostly alone in your cell, and not really 5G related. Once more people have a 5G modem, things will get worse for you again.

<comment><USER15> By design, 5G uses many more and smaller antennas, so it solves exactly the problem you are pointing at.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It's very weird to see so many tech people siding with NIMBYs and hypochondriacs against technological advance.

This is just a microcosm if a larger problem: municipal governments hold back progress. Right now, my Maryland county is lobbying to get veto power over a much-needed expansion of bridge capacity between the western and eastern shores of the Chesapeake Bay. Folks are also lobbying hard to shut down already-built light rail stations in the county. Municipalities make it impossible to densify urban areas, demolish obsolete buildings, build transit, build fiber, etc. Remember when San Francisco used to stop fiber deployment because some people thought the fiber cabinets were ugly? 5G is just the latest in a long list of things where a minority of loud voices holds up progress for everyone.

Technologists are jealous of why places like Japan have such great infrastructure. They do because they don't give local interests veto power over infrastructure. They don't let environmental and historical preservation laws turn every attempt at infrastructure development into years to decades of litigation. Tokyo is criss-crossed with spiderwebs of fiber on utility poles. They don't hold that up because some NIMBYs complained about the view. That's how you make progress.

<comment><USER17> I can't stand the term "NIMBY's". What does that really mean? Is "NIMBYism" actually that surprising? When someone settles down somewhere and invests in a home, they will complain if you come in and try to do something to worsen their environment. What else can you expect? Is being a NIMBY just the opposite of being a pushover?

<comment><USER18> Investing in a particular plot of land doesn't mean you get to veto everybody else's choices of what they do with their invested plot of land. Pure democracy violates individual freedoms.

You do you, and I'll do me.

<comment><USER17> Usually when someone invests in a plot of land, they're also considering what surrounds their plot of land. Obviously you don't own the rights to the surroundings, but it's reasonable to expect you would have something to say about it if those surroundings were to get ruined somehow.

<comment><USER19> Everything hinges on the definition of "ruined."

If you take that to mean "a waste disposal plant gets built right next to your house" then you have a point.

If you take that to mean "we're replacing this single family home with a small apartment building" then you're really going too far.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I remember the abundant "cell phones cause cancer" and "WiFi is like a microwave" scares 20 years ago, they all ended when people got their hands on nice and shiny touchscreen smartphones.

<comment> kube-system Not to imply that you are, but I prefer to embrace nuance rather than neglect it myself by dismissing misunderstandings of it.

WiFi is a lot like a microwave, just with some important differences. WiFi is just modulated and about 1/1000th the power.

There are real reasons why SAR regulations exist.

I blame the misunderstanding squarely on journalists who picked up early stories about SAR limit studies and did an awful job of explaining them.

<comment><USER20> By that logic a needle is a sword, a candle is a forest fire, and a cat is a lion. I question the value of drawing commonalities if this kind.

<comment><USER21> Kinda. It would be like if all you knew of cats were vicious lions, then one day a house cat came about and a journalist correctly called it a cat. Is your perspective wrong or baseless? Absolutely not, in this world most cats are lions and can rip your face off. Your perspective just hasn't expanded yet to include the docile cat, so of course you react in fear.

You aren't at fault, neither is the person telling you that both lions and house cats are both cats. Over time, these early misunderstandings iron themselves out, and everyone sees a lion for a lion and a domestic cat for a domestic cat. Ignore the early public recoil from any new concept, it's not worth fretting over.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> One thing that a lot of people do not understand is that 5G can operate in any frequency band. In fact, for many 4G radios it is nothing more than a software upgrade, no change to the physical device or power levels, just faster and lower throughput.

<comment><USER23> The fact that the general public doesn't know this is a failure of the carriers and FCC. Instead of clearly stating what the differences are and maybe not putting everything in the 5G bucket they got greedy and thought they could get it all.

If the high frequency set was left out of 5Gs first round no one would have objected to the upgrade.

I find the "We need 5G so we can have real time translation and autonomous cars" one of the dumbest arguments that can be made and it's pandering to an uneducated public. Why do we need more speed and connectivity for those things when we have better and better ML processors on Teslas and Google moving some voice recognition algos directly to devices? It's a bullshit argument.

<comment><USER24> > If the high frequency set was left out of 5Gs first round no one would have > objected to the upgrade.

There's a subset that will object to anything involving radio because it's electro-magnetic RADIATION and RADIATION causes cancer!

<comment><USER25> Can we convince these people that sound is phononic RADIATION and they should therefore stop talking?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> The most important information in this piece is the FCC making rules favoring the very telecoms they are supposed to be regulating. Not that anyone familiar with this administration (or that scumbag Pai) is surprised.

<comment><USER27> Yeah, specifically the sub-6GHz C-band that it is basically ripping out of the hands of traditional radio media companies (ie, npr, etc) that use it for satellite distribution of radio shows. There's been a lot of complaints from radio people about this but the telcos have more money so they'll get it.

<comment><USER28> Which also makes total sense to me: I use radio maybe once a year, mobile data once an hour.

<comment><USER29> I don't use a wheelchair at all, but I see value in having laws that mandate accessibility. Public policy needs to be set on the basis of societal goals, not individual impulses.

<comment><USER28> I fail to see how that should make a passive low-bandwidth data source prevail over active high- under any circumstances.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Reality is, it's also far more expensive to install 5g. It requires more fiber lines to run to more poles. Also, the telecom companies lobbied on state levels the max cities can charge for renting out putting stuff on poles. Plus trying to get cities to foot the bill. We are at the speed point of diminishing returns, 5g being said point. It's more money for not a real quality of life increase. I dont want my city to spend tax money on that.

<comment><USER30> _It 's more money for not a real quality of life increase. I dont want my city to spend tax money on that._

This is what it comes down to for me. We have housing crises, debt crises, infrastructure funding crises, and opiate crises all across the country. There are real and significant returns to investment on fixing those. Let's start there.

<comment><USER6> Agreed. Especially the opioid crisis. I think it's a "relatively easy" problem to solve. I'm totally for tax money to go to people who truly want to get cleaned up and put on the right path. I think that'll help a good chunk of people with a well funded program of the drugs that help kick the cravings and a work reentry system. Much better than having my municipality or county pay for 5g.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Since I don't download uncompressed 4k video anymore, I'm personally getting practically all of the value of the internet (to me) from merely having a cheap cable connection at home. I've never been certain who 5g or fiber is really targeting. Amazon works fine, Netflix works fine, downloading an OS or language tool set isn't too heinous. High data speed to a phone is uninteresting, but YMMV. As usual, improvements become less useful on the margin.

The one use case I've run into might be robot cars, probably lower latency/higher bandwidth. I don't know enough about where the intelligence actually lives or how much in the way of inter-car communications is actually required though.

<comment><USER32> Faster upload speeds enable new applications -- easier high res streaming, self-hosted storage (stream from home to your phone regardless of whether what you want is on a commercial streaming platform), just plain less waiting when creating and uploading creative work

<comment><USER33> Faster upload speeds is something that I wish was more prevalent. Most ISPs that I have experience of prioritise download speeds over upload, but for my use case there is a point where increased download speed doesn't give me any measurable benefit, but being able to upload at a decent rate would be a huge benefit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Can someone with know how tell me if 5G is actually good tech? I feel like carriers just wanted to launch a new product called 5G, and just threw together some not that great tech behind it.

Is 5G actually innovative? Are we talking order of magnitude improvements over 4G?

Cause right now all I hear is that 5G achieves faster speeds and added throughput by simply putting more towers and access points around. That doesn't sound like innovative engineering. At that point, just wire fiber everywhere and create a giant Wifi mesh network with an access point at every house. Like that would give faster internet, but not very innovative.

Normally a good innovative tech would cost less, take up less resources, and achieve higher speeds and throughput. I'm not sure 5G is that from what I heard.

EDIT: Even if you downvote, I am asking a question that I'm interested in hearing answers for, so please still try and answer my questions. Thank you.

<comment><USER35> >Is 5G actually innovative? Are we talking order of magnitude improvements over 4G?

5G theoretically is similar to when cable modems moved from DOCSIS 2 to DOCSIS 3. Docsis 2 ran over a single channel (a single frequency range) and if that channel filled up it could switch to another channel. Docsis 3.0 allowed modems to bond to multiple channels at once, significantly reducing the ability for the line to fill up, and giving people much greater speeds. This is when average speeds in the cable modem internet world went from 12mbps to 100mbps.

In a similar vain, 5G can span the entire frequency range (up to 96ghz I believe), so the closer someone is to a pole the higher their frequency range can span, reducing bandwidth on lower frequencies and providing higher speeds. Those who are far from the pole might be running 5g at the 4g frequency range, but because that will be only a few people far enough away, the bandwidth should be faster and more responsive, even on the 4g range.

People on this thread are saying things like, "The more people that adopt 5g the slower it will go." but as counter intuitive as it is, the more people who are on 5g the faster everyone's speeds will be.

All cell companies have to do is upgrade their existing 4G towers to 5G and over time everyone gets better internet, even if no more poles are laid out. Though, without more poles, the improvements could be mild.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> It's my impression that the vanguard of the anti-vaxxer movement have long since moved on to 5G as their battleground of choice. And to be fair, of all the places they could try to incite another mindless panic, this is probably the most harmless they could have chosen - at least this time around no children will die from it.

<comment><USER37> It's a shame that so much activism is spent on nonsense and even outright destructive nonsense. All that energy could be going toward improving things that matter.

Of course I think maybe what we are seeing is the activist arm of what I've heard called "conspiritainment." It's a way for people to LARP as activists at no real inconvenience to themselves. They get to feel self righteous at no real cost.

It also feels a bit like the domestic version of what I've heard Africans call "white savior tourism" where people from the West go to Africa to fill their Instagram with how they are saving the world.

Picking a real issue usually means confronting and speaking truth to power. That often has real life consequences. Attacking windmills (even literally! that is a thing too!) does not.

Edit: I once heard an investigative journalist and PI make this joke: "How can you tell if a conspiracy theorist is right?" "Check for their name in a missing persons database."

<comment><USER38> What you say is logically valid, why are you being downvoted?

<comment><USER39> > It's a shame that so much activism is spent on nonsense and even outright > destructive nonsense. All that energy could be going toward improving things > that matter.

I did not vote on it, but this is obvious pablem. An analysis of "why" is an interesting question, but aiming for platitudes repeated throughout every age in every society, is the epitome of discussion "noise".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Some of the fear of 5G is driven by Russia. RT has run several segments about it. Here are some:

5G Wireless: A Dangerous 'Experiment on Humanity' [1]

Could 5G put more kids at risk for cancer? [2]

How To Survive Dangers of 5G [3]

Cancer risk? 5G wireless speeds could be dangerous [4]

'Totally insane': Telecomm Industry ignores 5G dangers [5]

According to the New York Times, citing a declassified U.S. intelligence report from early 2017, RT videos on YouTube average 1 million viewers per day, and that is the highest among news outlets. They also say that lots of blogs and websites are picking up RTs claims and repeating them, without mentioning where they came from.

Here's a Times story on this: "Your 5G Phone Won't Hurt You. But Russia Wants You to Think Otherwise" [6]

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_f9gpg4t6c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_f9gpg4t6c)

[2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpXEyP0WMrk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpXEyP0WMrk)

[3] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO1gZhwqCvI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO1gZhwqCvI)

[4] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmLwuM0_MJg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmLwuM0_MJg)

[5] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML7wx_5n2z8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML7wx_5n2z8)

[6] [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/12/science/5g-phone- safety-h...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/12/science/5g-phone-safety- health-russia.html)

<comment><USER36> I can't see any way Russia benefits from the 5G hysteria directly. So I wonder if they use this as a way to screen for impressionable people in the West that they can then later use for spreading more 'useful' misinformation?

<comment><USER41> Really? You can't see how Russia benefits from sowing disinformation and confusion about a possible next-gen technology? One that has the possibility of adding hundreds of billions of dollars and high skilled jobs to the US workforce?

<comment><USER36> I just finished the NYT article and it claims the move is because Russia doesn't have a 5G play, so they try to undermine everyone else's. I guess that might hold some credence.

<comment><USER41> Even if they did have a play, they'd be smart to sow disinformation and slow down or stop adoption of next-gen technologies, as those represent huge economic boons and advantages to the countries that adopt them first.

Similar to 4G, the first to 5G will create companies and startups taking advantage of the new infrastructure. As countries onboard onto 5G, these well placed companies will out compete any native companies. This is what happened with 4G in the US, and why US tech has dominated the space in the past decade.

Russia's goal is to weaken the West in any way it can.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> This is what happens if a large number of people bear externalities and few get the benefits. Unsurprisingly, people block the changes. Countries that don't slant the benefits directly towards the big providers don't suffer from these problems. You can screw people over with regulatory capture, but it's hard to hide that you did it.

</comment><comment><USER43> My next door neighborhood is filled with the stupid 5G debates. The ignorance of some of my neighbors is breathtaking. And I live in a highly educated neighborhood. Go figure. At least the mayor and the council is on board for 5G rollout due to the current poor reception of 4G among some providers.

<comment><USER44> Won't 5G have even worse reception due to the higher frequency/smaller reception distance?

<comment><USER45> With the current equipment and spectrum assigned it does have that problem.

MKBHD goes over this is a video. It is awesome if you stand right underneath a 5g site, 1-2 gbps. If you head down the road a hundred feet/30 meters the signal drops to much closer to 4g speeds.

[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_CTUs_2hq6Y](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_CTUs_2hq6Y)

<comment><USER46> Reminds me of Sprint's rollout of Wimax technology. It was awesome if you had direct LOS with the tower and also kept your phone perfectly still.

Eventually they canned it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> I'm ambivalent. Cellphone internet is already faster than cable internet for many people. Even if the 5g health risk is complete bunk, do we really need 5g?

Usually when I want internet that fast I want it at home or work. As such, I am a bit more excited for Wifi 6.

<comment><USER48> It might unblock new products.

Being uneducated on 5g in particular, low latency fast internet can result in proliferation of mobile ar/ve devices, and bring internet to towns that otherwise dont have cable/fiber wiring, etc.

There are some efforts in robotics that would have much better ux if they had faster internet in remote places.

You can imagine stadia running on mobile on the extreme. Everything cloud streamed.

Faster internet means when it matters you wont have to wait downloading a large binary, even though you dont need to be utilizing it 100% of the billing cycle.

A mobile surgery center can be operated by a world renowned md, at the comfort of yheir home

<comment><USER47> >It might unblock new products.

>Being uneducated on 5g in particular, low latency fast internet can result in proliferation of mobile ar/ve devices.

If these new things rely on 5g, how well will they work as soon as they move out of range of 5g internet?

>Bring internet to towns that otherwise dont have cable/fiber wiring, etc.

>There are some efforts in robotics that would have much better ux if they had faster internet in remote places.

But wait. Doesn't 5g have more limited range than previous wireless generations? It seems existing LTE towers would be a better solution if you just wanted to cover the earth in high speed internet.

<comment><USER49> >If these new things rely on 5g, how well will they work as soon as they move out of range of 5g internet?

That's... true for all network-based technologies. Electricity is great, but if you don't have a grid connection, battery or means of generating it... you can't use it.

>But wait. Doesn't 5g have more limited range than previous wireless generations? It seems existing LTE towers would be a better solution if you just wanted to cover the earth in high speed internet.

5g includes a high-frequency version which is extremely high-throughput but short range and murdered by walls. There is a lower-throughput version at a much lower frequency which has solid range comparable with low-frequency 4g.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> 5G is both a buzzword and moral panic. This is hilarious.

</comment><comment><USER41> One of the most important points that is missed about 5g is what 4G did for us. It's pretty clear that the widespread adoption of faster mobile technologies has enabled technology companies like Facebook, Google, Youtube, Netflix etc to thrive. Investment in infrastructure has unforseen benefits that only seem obvious in hindsight.

What will 5G bring us? Who knows. But if the past is any indication, it will benefit American companies if we invest in it. If not, all of that growth will go to China instead.

</comment><comment><USER51> My city is looking at a total 5G ban. A city charter re-write is going to be needed to topple the current municipal administration. Moving to non-partisan elections would probably help since some of the current city council incumbents either didn't graduate high school or only graduated high school over 50 years ago. Party structures protected those incumbents with this literally disconnected population.

<comment><USER52> What city is this and what are their justifications for the ban?

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> This feels a lot like the battle of Blue-ray vs HD-dvd back in the early 2000s. While Blue-ray did win, it was less relevant to the industry than the original CD format. Things just moved online, flash storage and everyone got high-speed internet. If public WiFi becomes more ubiquitous, especially in densely populated areas, 4G vs 5G will be just as irrelevant as the battles for next CD format.

<comment><USER13> Handover on public WiFi is generally horrible, the tech is simply not designed for that kind of use. I spend half of the day with WiFi turned off on my iPhone because it catches weak nearby signals even when they're simply not strong enough to work. iOS has "WiFi assist" which is supposed to be smart about that and fall back to a cell connection, but that simply never works in my experience.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> The whole "aesthetics" thing against new technology always struck me as bizzare and selective given all of the far uglier things already in place that they actively like.

It seems to be the Oscar Wilde practically satirical "Anything which is of practical use is ugly and anything which isn't is beautiful".

<comment><USER55> I don't disagree with your sentiment but the 5G modem pictured on a pole in Atlanta looked like a mess with lots of exposed wires. I've never seen anything like that outside of a messy set up in a home office.

I'm fairly certain that the carriers could fit the antennas and wiring into a more clean looking packages to put on poles.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> Isn't this also a facet of our "war" with the rest of the world to be at the forefront of technology? There are those that think ceding being the first in things like AI would be so detrimental to the US economy that we'd never recover.

</comment><comment><USER57> I have this feeling that 5G is more about cheaply deploying faster Internet (ie. comment about these things going up next to people's bedrooms) versus a more expensive fiber deployment to the premises.

Having driven around Dallas and seen a few of these things in residential areas, I can say that yes they are ugly. Unlike a regular cell site, it doesn't appear that there is any kind of permitting process around these deployments as they just pop up suddenly.

I'm all for progress, but there are ways to make utility infrastructure less noticeable to the urban landscape. Unfortunately with the approach I'm seeing with 5G deployments, the telecom companies will take the cheap way out.

</comment><comment> dane-pgp Imagine you are the leader of a country with a large military budget, strong central control over domestic media and policy, but little influence over global technical standards or device manufacturing.

Game theoretically, it would seem that a tempting strategy would be to spend money on influencing the debate in other countries to make them mistrustful of new technology, to slow their economy and relative growth. If the influence campaign isn't completely successful, then you get the additional benefit of having the populace divided amongst itself, and not trusting its own institutions, which further weakens their ability to work together and project power internationally.

Surprisingly, this strategy also works against old technology too. Imagine if you wanted to cause health crises in other countries by convincing enough of the population to be afraid of vaccines that herd immunity is lost. I know this sounds like its own conspiracy theory, but it would explain a lot about some of the weird fringe views that seem to be popular on the internet right now.

<comment><USER58> I know you're getting downvoted for this controversial insinuation ... but I must admit my mind went there while I was reading these comments. The amount of FUD in this comment section, especially at the top, is almost suspicious.

I get it that 5G doesn't exactly match the hype, that the cost of rollout is high, alternatives like improving 4G coverage and back-haul from towers are available, there are hints of problems with saturating the air in such high- powered/high-spectrum radiation etc. But how a group of supposedly tech savvy, future thinking, entrepreneurial types seem single-mindedly focused on the negative aspects of a technology seems to not match the normal crowd on hacker news.

5G isn't revolutionary but it is the exact kind of incremental improvement I expect to see in tech. It has some benefits (higher speeds, lower latency) and some drawbacks (proximity to towers, interference from large objects, cost to rollout). The discussion here seems to be entirely limited to maximizing the drawbacks and to limiting the benefits.

In my experience with tech, increasing speed and decreasing latency has always netted noticeable benefits. From CPUs, GPUs, memory access and network access - even small improvements in speed/latency have enabled major improvements in features. In addition, rolling out 5G is going to force the rollout of infrastructure enabling 5G, e.g. the fibre lines needed to supply all of those new base stations. For those reasons I am excited about 5G.

<comment><USER30> That's not what the top comments are saying, though. They're all saying "5G is overhyped and not worth the investment".

<comment><USER58> The first sentence of my second paragraph is literally: "I get it that 5G doesn't exactly match the hype, that the cost of rollout is high, ..."

And the "5G overhyped, too expensive, not worth it" meme is what I am talking about as being suspicious. It's curious, the last time I commented on this very issue the responses were all that same meme. One can say "I hear the meme but have an alternative opinion" and the response is always "yes, but _meme_ ". When several voices are parroting a meme and somehow that saturates almost all of the top comments ... I get suspicious.

<comment><USER30> I mean, I haven't been paid off by anyone but that's exactly how I feel about it too. HN has a lot of memes -- you probably just agree with most of them and don't notice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> I have heard suggestions, that the drive for 5g is to increases the density of wifi signals, since the technology developed for airport scanners can passively image people in areas of high wifi-signal density.

</comment><comment><USER60> Regarding the health impact of cellular transmission, has anyone noticed that even the google search results for this are a total trash heap? I have a friend that turns off bluetooth transmission for all his devices every night, uses only a wired headphone for his phone, and even unplugs his wifi router every night. He's someone that doesn't know the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. I was tempted to make fun of him for all of this, but after searching on google and seeing what came up, I can't really blame him.

</comment><comment><USER61> What I want to know is whether -- as technology is supposed to -- 5G will bring me cheaper and faster cellular internet for all its hype.

No? I'm just going to burn through my data faster, and pay more to the carrier? Why am I interested then?

Isn't more access and more affordable prices the goal of the FCC as well? Why do many other countries have so much better and reasonably priced data?

</comment><comment><USER62> It's just faster internet. They may have something with "aesthetics" but that smells of NIMBYism which is driven by rich locals when 75% of the populace has no problem with it. There are no health risks either, that is just the imagination of people who follow Alex Jones or who believe in crystal energy. The FCC needs to bully them.

</comment><comment><USER63> I've been reading by through comments and I see only one mention of hazard to physical and/or mental health. That one mention is "EM bullshit". Could I kindly ask for anyone to point me to a site/s that make you believe there is no potential harm to humans from 5G? Thank you in advance :)

</comment><comment><USER64> I find the argument that 5G is at all unsafe on a pole to be a bit silly. I think there are a couple of much more serious issues:

1\. Is a millimeter-wave transmitter _in a phone_ safe? The power output is moderately high, and these wavelengths are absorbed near the surface of your skin _or your cornea_. Cellphones are held near faces all the time. So I'd be much more concerned about using a 5G phone than about living near a 5G tower.

2\. The 5G wavelengths May interfere with weather radar. I think that good weather forecasts are generally more important than cat videos.

<comment><USER65> No one is even putting millimeter-wave transmitters in phones right now.

But the more obvious point is that millimeter-wave 5G can only work with beamforming, and a beam that is going through your head where it is fully, entirely, fucking completely absorbed not a millimeter in, well, that's not going to yield a lot of throughput.

<comment><USER66> Um... Yes they are. The Galaxy S10 5G has a mmW radio in it that's transmits mmW waves for the uplink. The 5G spec also requires certain protection when the UE (phone) Tx wave might go through tissue. But you're correct that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to attempt to Tx/Rx on a beam pointed at your head since it will lead to drastically lower SNR

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> Drop my mind monthly bill and fuck 5g, I have all the speed I need and more than 64k RAM for my Phone.

</comment><comment><USER68> 5G represents the end of the oligopoly maintained by Comcast and Verizon. There is a lot on stake for these giant companies, and the fight will be ugly. Chinese companies have a clear advantage in developing this technology because they have a huge country with new networks developing, free from the constraints of an established oligopoly.

</comment><comment><USER69> I still have no idea what practical application makes use of 5G.

<comment><USER44> Playing the Chrome dino game as the connection will drop more frequently due to the smaller wavelength.

<comment><USER49> 5g has a low-frequency version which has comparable range and wall penetration to 4g.</comment></comment></comment>


A list of FOSS apps for Android - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/offa/android-foss <comment><USER2> From the description of G-Droid, an alternative client for F-Droid repo:

shows the web-site of the app even if it is 'only a README file on github'. F-Droid has removed many websites (not all though) of apps the team doesn't like. They also don't allow (as of now) to re-add these link to the websites. This has been done with dodgy explanations and only for apps that the F-Droid team particularly dislikes (to censor apps they don't like) and reduce the amount of download and users of these apps. Hint: if your app is affected and shows no website in F-Droid promote and encourage your users to use G-Droid.

What the hell?

<comment><USER3> Somehow the G-droid dev doesn't like some decisions the F-droid team makes, and paints them in a fairly bad light.

What's going on here is that F-droid always links to the source code, which will typically lands you on the readme of the github repo. Adding a link as 'website' to the same location was deemed redundant, so the links were removed.</comment></comment>


Crypto Currency Markets Data Visualization - <AUTHOR> http://42markets.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> We get our price and volume data directly from multiple exchanges and use a weighted average to calculate the prices. They are updated every 5 minutes.</comment>