Jack White bans phones at gigs for "100% human experience" - <AUTHOR> http://www.nme.com/news/music/jack-white-bans-phones-gigs-2227093 <comment><USER3> I experienced the Yondr phone prison last night for the first time (at a Chris Rock show). While I detest people being disruptive with their phones, I don't think this is the right solution.

From a practical standpoint, it took a lot longer to get into and out of the venue when phones had to be locked up. Checking your phone when you pop out to the toilet meant waiting in a queue to have your phone unlocked, and being kept in a small penned off area. There have been a number of times when I've been split up from friends at large venues - not being able to text each other to meet up is inconvenient.

It doesn't work. Unless stewards are doing a thorough search (which would be offputting in itself), people will manage to bring phones in. They did last night. Mine got locked up, my fiancées didn't.

In the event of an emergency, this is a really bad idea. At the extreme end, you've got things like the Manchester bombing, where access to a phone would be a useful thing. But more likely it's a fire alarm and subsequent evacuation, where you end up separated from your group. The venue last night (the SSE Hydro in Glasgow) said that in the event of an evacuation you should not attempt to have your phone unlocked but should leave immediately - sensible but if phones weren't locked up, it wouldn't even be a concern.

I think the solution is to simply enforce a strict "no phones during the performance" policy. Treat people like adults. If they break the rules, ask them to leave. Last night we were sitting in front of a very drunken, obnoxious heckler. After several people complained, she was asked to leave. This is how many venues handle it.

Interestingly, all of the venue stewards last night were wearing Yondr hi vis vests. They seem to be on a major marketing push. I really hope it doesn't become commonplace.

The venue seemed to want to distance themselves from the decision, making announcements along the lines of "At Chris Rock's request, phones will not be allowed at tonight's show and will be locked in Yondr cases and given back you you. Consequently, Apple Pay will not be available tonight."

<comment><USER4> I think the viscerality of this response is fascinating. Putting your phone in a case is a "prison", and you must check it every time you go to the toilet, and you're concerned about a terrorist attack -- enough to want your phone, but not enough to stay home, as if your apps could somehow save you.

> Treat people like adults. If they break the rules, ask them to leave.

Isn't that what we've been trying for the past 10 years? Clearly, it's not working. A significant percentage of people are not _acting_ like adults. And you can't deal with 1/4 of the audience intentionally misbehaving like you do with a single drunken heckler.

<comment><USER5> Don't be ridiculous. Fear of terrorism is not the only factor. Cellphones are one of the past century's greatest contributions to public safety.

If you want to be antagonistic about the threat of a bombing, how about a more commonplace example: you're a very drunk young girl who's been separated from her friends at the concert and a pushy, aggressive guy you don't know is trying to get you into his car to go home with him. You can't text your friends that you need help because your phone is locked.

Or how about this? You're a parent and you've lost track of your kid in the sea of people. You can't text or call them, because your phone is locked.

Or how about this? You're alone and you have a medical condition and something goes wrong, and you need immediate attention, but you can't call 911 because your phone is locked. Your only option now to _hope_ someone else in the crowd notices that you're passed out on the ground not from drunkenness, but from something much more urgent.

Don't act like cellphones have no practical use and are just social media machines. How absurd. They save lives every day and this policy is insanely dangerous for everyone. People here saying "How did people survive before cellphones," well, guess what, in many cases they probably didn't.

<comment><USER6> > Or how about this? > Or how about this? > Don't act like cellphones have no > practical use

 _sigh_ Humans have survived for hundreds of thousands of years without cellphones. For any new tech, you can continually imagine scenarios where survival "absolutely depends on" having this tech.

How about this? You're sitting in your ISS sleep capsule and suddenly the station starts to depressurize. You hop into your reentry-safe spacesuit and exit the station, set the suit to auto-reentry and then aero-brake from Mach 18 to 0 and touch down safely in your backyard with your parachute. See? A reentry safe single-person spacesuit is absolute essential to survival.

Your example is that you pass out at a concert with literally thousands of people around and no one helps you. Or you are drunk and a guy is hitting on you. Or your kid is missing.

And you call the person you are responding to ridiculous.

Cellphones have made people into helpless, scared sheep.

<comment><USER7> I find this argument supremely unconvincing. It's true that humanity survived, but people died in all sorts of awful and now preventable ways. This argument could be used to argue against vaccines, sanitation, or good nutrition. Is that where you want to be?

When it comes to safety, I want to set the bar somewhat above "this will not literally drive the species to extinction."

<comment><USER5> Thank you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think his statement "If they can't give me that energy back? Maybe I'm wasting my time." is thoughtful. Jack is old enough to have gone to and performed shows in his youth where cells phone were rare if there were any. He performs not only for the music but for the energy of the crowd. A crowd that's now placed a screen between themselves and the performer taking away that energy or removing that sense of connection. Even in a large venue!

He's the artist, it's his gig, if you can't respect the reasonable wishes of the person who you paid to go see what are you doing there?

<comment><USER9> Many of us old enough remember that cameras were often banned from venues, even non professional ones. It wasn't until camera enabled phones became popular that this rule was dropped.

I have no idea why someone would want to watch a performance from behind a screen.

<comment><USER10> Why do people drop buttloads of money getting to the Grand Canyon and then spend their time behind a viewfinder taking landscape pictures that are infinitely worse than you'll find online or purchased from pros, ensuring they spend less (and sometimes no), time enjoying the scenery and environment?

<comment><USER11> I actually tested this theory recently; when I went to Machu Picchu, I took several pictures with my wife in them, and absolutely zero pics of the scenery or the monument. When I got home, I inserted some random high-res professional pics from recognizable vantage points into an album and called it a day. I don't feel shortchanged.

Although I'm somewhat glad for the tourist "gotta take my own shitty photo" attitude, because I saw a really nifty research project once that took thousands of tourist photos (of the Trevi Fountain IIRC) and combined them to generate a high-res 3d image without any people in it. That was pretty cool.

If I could change anything about my Machu Picchu experience, though, it would have been to find some way to shut up that blathering loudmouth moron in front of me who barely paused for breath for the _entire_ duration of the morning hike to the nearby summit. Jesus christ lady, I couldn't hear a single nature sound, and I did NOT need to know about what a slut your cousin is.

<comment><USER12> My perspective grows stronger every time someone close to me dies: the true value in photos is the faces. As a tech person, that is where I try to maximize my pixel budget.

I actually prefer candid home video infinitely more -- most pictures on social networks are as authentic as pornography stills.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Man, I can stand behind this. You have no idea how distracting it is to the musicians on stage when they look at the crowd and see a bunch of cell phones facing them.

I'd rather see everyone bored and talking. At least that's a genuine response.

I feel it's quite disrespectful to be looking at your cellphone and recording while a performer is on stage. The performer is there for you, and you presumably went there to see them. Sometimes we make eye contact, and sometimes we look out to measure how we are doing. No feedback results breaks the uh... feedback loop.

No big deal to do it for a few seconds, but a few seconds just doesn't happen. Besides, my purpose is to give you a few minutes to escape life, leave all your concerns, and be in a moment. Snap a pic, but turn off the flash and don't film. The recording quality sucks so it isn't like anyone is going to look at it understand half the experience anyways.

<comment><USER14> We need a new etiquette and I'm not sure our culture can support one right now.

Video: A few seconds, once or twice, is ok.

Photos: No flash photography

Audio: Record the whole show if you want. Isn't that how most Phish music is distributed?

I am fine with artists putting hard limits on their audience. If they believe it will improve their art, let's give them the benefit of the doubt. It might help or hurt them financially, in terms of fanbase, whatever. It's the artist who is taking the risk here, I say let him.

Incidentally, I went to a local symphony concert recently and I got some serious evil-out-of-the-corner-of-the-eye from one of the patrons 3 rows in front of me, wearing a tweed coat. Apparently my hushed comment to my wife annoyed him. And then when the piece was over, right before the moment of applause, he let out a "mmm" like he had just consumed a great piece of chocolate cake or something. Now _that_ was bad manners.

<comment><USER13> I find it really depends on the venue and the audience. If you are playing to an audience of mostly musicians and music appreciation types, the cell phones are hardly seen.

It's the general crowd who isn't really there for the music that are the types to record an entire show. I veer towards snobbery saying it like that, obviously, but it's like seeing two people at an art gallery. The one snapping pics of everything and running to the next piece isn't really there for the art.

It's a tough balance since they are paying for whatever experience defines the experience for them.

<comment><USER15> >It's the general crowd who isn't really there for the music

I guess it wouldn't be surprising to find that it'd be the people who are most interested in doing something or going somewhere so they could tell people about it, rather than for the experience itself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> While I'm definitely on Jack's side spiritually, Yondr is not an efficient solution. We need to consciously and intentionally establish a norm of 'no phones' in certain group situations, just like how many areas have established a norm of 'no smoking'.

And, yes, it's true that 'no smoking' often has local law to help drive the idea home, but it's not like there's a cop monitoring the smoking situation in every public venue. Shame, ridicule, side-eye and public opinion are really what keep behavior in line.

It's not hard to do. I remember long ago that the famous Alamo Drafthouse movie theater, which serves beer and booze, had problems with people talking. They started playing a stock reel of people getting their asses kicked overlaid with "if you talk we'll kick your ass out" before the movie started. Now it's just accepted fact that you keep quiet no matter how many Lone Star tallboys you've had.

<comment><USER17> Yeah, I think a similar video played before the start of the show, about how you paid all this money to be here, why see it through a small screen as if you were on YouTube, combined with a few people actually getting kicked out, would work wonders.

They can have a moment in the show for everyone who "needs" a picture or a brief video can take one. And just let everyone know that the whole show will be on YouTube in good quality later-- no need to take your own.

<comment><USER18> >> And just let everyone know that the whole show will be on YouTube in good quality later-- no need to take your own.

Um, it increases costs a lot to film a show, you realize this, right?

And if the show was available on YouTube for free, don't you think it would potentially impact sales?

<comment><USER19> "Why bother going to the live show when I can sit at home watching a Youtube video instead?" is something I don't think many people think. The video doesn't replace the experience.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> A suggestion. If entertainers ban phones at events they should at least record the event themselves and publish the video for the participants or everyone.

I noticed at the Mark Twain wards for David Letterman when my hero Bill fucking Murray came out a woman was literally watching him through her phone. And I was watching the whole thing on youtube at a much better angle and quality.

Of course my video was probably uploaded much later than her visual phone proxy experience but it occurred to me that these events should make the recordings available.

The ticket stub could have a url that will become active after the event with the video. Or if they're feeling generous, put it on youtube for everyone.

<comment><USER21> I went to a show a couple years ago that politely asked you to put your phones away and said they would put a video up from one of the shows on the tour. Unfortunately the video never happened, as far as I can tell. It's a nice idea.

Funnily enough, the only reason I went to that show was having watched their previous acoustic tour on YouTube. The quality obviously blows a phone recording out of the water, I wish more concerts did this.

Above and Beyond Acoustic [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNUTlKqSO-I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNUTlKqSO-I)

If anyone finds an Acoustic II concert video around, let me know.

EDIT: well timed, just looked again and I guess it's more of a documentary with showings starting next week: [http://www.aboveandbeyond.nu/acousticfilm/](http://www.aboveandbeyond.nu/acousticfilm/)

Bit of a slow turnaround from a show in May 2016.

<comment><USER22> I'm also hoping the A&B Acoustic II video is similar to the Acoustic I video; the first Acoustic concert video also drew me to go in person.

Side note, Lane 8 experimented with phone-less concerts that went well enough that he does that for his tours now, even naming his new record label "This Never Happened". My friends and I joke that it started with a Mixmag set where a crowd member in the front kept recording video and flash photos, whereas Lane 8 is usually very much enveloped in the music he's playing ([https://youtu.be/sWa7GdYiYUQ?t=15m2s](https://youtu.be/sWa7GdYiYUQ?t=15m2s)).

I've enjoyed his phone-less concerts a lot - it's just tape over the camera, so you can send/receive a quick message if needed, and step off to the back or side if you need to use it longer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I recently saw a preview of a Pixar movie before the public release, and their solution was to make us put our phones in an extremely crinkly bag that would make noise if we tried to open it to surreptitiously video the screen. But we could still access them in an emergency. It wouldn't work at a loud concert, of course.

</comment><comment><USER24> Good. I do this at my personal parties, I have a phone bowl by the door. Few arguments are solved by Google, and creative things happen.

Social Media is definitely at the point where TV was in around 2012. There were the early 'adopters' who cast out their sets and proclaimed the virtues, but they weren't shunned and understanding was attempted... what's a DVR? what's streaming? Silly questions a few years later, right.

Cell phones are wonderful, apps are useful, don't get me wrong. So is self awareness and presence. It's a huge waste of effort to go to a party/concert just to use a device for non-urgent activity. I used to be on PagerDuty for 7on/7off and I forewent my normal life during those days to ensure I could respond. Sometimes I'd go to a bar with my backpack and sip with coworkers/acquaintances, but it obviously disturbed the vibe not keeping up so eventually I stopped.

I wouldn't go to a concert if I had urgent stuff that could happen. Family emergency? Shit, we'll we've managed until now, life happens. The external cost to social skills and ambiance are so great, as we can all observe, that that one act of nature edge case isn't worth the external costs (we can agree to disagree).

<comment><USER25> That may work for you as a single individual but in general it's just not realistic. Times have changed. The world has moved on.

<comment><USER26> A better solution would be to give out the password to the WiFi then throttle it to slow enough to be unpleasant to use, but fast enough that no one gives up and disconnects.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Interestingly, Boston Calling won't enforce this rule: [http://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/names/2018/01/24/going-...](http://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/names/2018/01/24/going- boston-calling-jack-white-says-cellphones- allowed/2Id9jijFqCN3DtjlhizawK/story.html?s_campaign=bostonglobe%3Asocialflow%3Atwitter)

and also - Pearl Jam has released information on their upcoming tour - <USER2> tickets themselves will be SmartPhone only (from their Fan Club site, Ten Club):

Ten Club Mobile Tickets: No will call. No physical tickets. In order to distribute tickets more efficiently, Ten Club will be delivering all Ten Club tickets directly to your smart phone. Mobile ticket delivery requires an iPhone or Android smart phone. Instead of scanning a physical ticket at the gate, members will access tickets through their smartphone and scan directly from the screen of your mobile device. Step-by-step instructions on how to access your ticket on your phone will be sent to all Ten Club ticket holders via email when they are ready for mobile distribution. We plan to have this delivered to you by early July.

<comment><USER28> Mobile tickets; There are a few ways that they handle this. They may have a seperate line for mobile tickets, and then hand you a printed out reciept and then they deface your phone.

When I used the mobile ticket with the The Killers at the UC, they gave me a paper copy of the ticket for the seat info.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I was about to buy Jack White tickets today and... I think I'll pass.

Don't get me wrong. I've seen several shows, including Jack White, that politely ask the audience to keep their phones away for part or all of the show. That's fine with me and it basically works.

But as much as I'd like to see Jack White again, I really don't enjoy being treated like a child.

<comment><USER30> I don't get your response; would you not go to a state park because there's a rule against operating motorized vehicles on the hiking trails?

<comment><USER29> Not at all. I also go to all sorts of concerts that don't allow cameras. It's the "how" that rubs me the wrong way.

Your state park would indicate "no vehicles beyond this point" and I assume if anyone starting driving on the hiking trail they'd be asked to follow the rules or leave.

That's different than insisting you hand over your keys in order to enter the park. That wouldn't feel quite right, would it?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> FAN! FUCKING! TASTIC!

Sorry, I'm aware that yelling is not appreciated, but this is a really cool idea.

There's hardly anything more annoying at gigs than those dunces in front of you recording some ultra-shitty video that nobody ever looks at.

Those small screens are a real distraction and phones also don't really serve as substitutes for lighters used, when Led Zeppelin started with Stairway to Heaven.

A rant about this specific song is reserved for another comment.

<comment><USER32> > There's hardly anything more annoying at gigs than those dunces in front of > you recording some ultra-shitty video that nobody ever looks at.

Au contraire. The people on either side having a conversation about their weekend dinner party whilst Lisa Gerrard does a quiet solo piece are _infinitely_ more annoying than any camera phone. Or a lady with big hair in the first 3 rows sitting on someone's shoulders and blocking out half the stage for half the crowd.

<comment><USER33> Why does it have to be either/or?

Why not ask people not to talk disruptively and disallow people from sitting on someone's shoulders in addition to the phone ban?

<comment><USER34> Because they will break any rule you set. People at concerts are inebriated and uninhibited. That's the point. So you do actually have to physically enforce any rules you want to exist at a rock show.

<comment><USER33> Well it's a chicken and egg thing. If rules are never enforced at concerts, people will continue to break the rules thinking nothing will happen to them. If rules tend to be consistently enforced and people know they run the risk of being ejected from a concert, people might be more likely to behave a little more.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> The Yondr demo is quite impressive: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2A38Nxz8sc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2A38Nxz8sc)

It's simple (thick cloth pouch with a powerful magnet lock), allows you to remain in physical custody of your device (which wasn't clear from the article) and creates a forcing function for people who need to use their phone to simply exit the venue and get it unlocked at a kiosk.

<comment><USER36> Some possible circumvention:

\- Don't disclose your phone

\- Put a cheap ringer in your pocket

\- Cut through the package in the parking lot and re-enter

<comment><USER28> At shows you usually go through a metal detector, which will find the phone. The venue will "ban you from going in" if you refuse to allow them to deface the phone.

Source: Me. (I'm not going to accept the whole phone defacement ordeal)

<comment><USER37> Metal detectors?? At shows?? Luckily I have never seen such a thing in Europe, but undoubtedly we will copy the US in a few years. I can't believe how much we've degenerated.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I despise the fact that people think they need to have their phones in front of them the entire time, taking shitty pics and videos that they'll never look at again.

However, I would never support an artist/performer who tries to prevent me from using my own things. It's not their right to tell me that I can't pull out my phone if I choose to do so. It belongs to me. So while I would never actually have my phone out during a show like it, I would never actually go to a show that would prevent me from doing so.

<comment><USER39> The venue is not yours. The owner (and thus the performer) sets the rules. If they want you to come in pink clothes, they have every right to not let you in if you're not entirely clothed in pink.

On the other hand, you have every right to not go to the event.

I also don't like these phone pouches for many reasons. As I said earlier under this post, Eddie Vedder also forbids phones. He'll just stop doing whatever is he doing and wait until everyone puts it away. And that's his right, your statement that he can't do it because the phone is yours is wrong.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I've heard of a few artists doing this over the past year or so. I think the banning is ultimately useless and enforcing it adds more invasiveness to the already overly invasive process of getting into a venue. A simple reminder before the concert starts that you're an asshole if hold your phone up is as far as this should go, works fine in movie theaters.

Maybe phones should have a feature to take pics with the screen off, more like a disposable camera. They should have that feature anyway.

<comment><USER41> > works fine in movie theaters.

Except when it doesn't. I can't remember the last time I went to see a movie where somebody didn't light up the place with their phone at least once during the film.

> phones should have a feature to take pics with the screen off

This quickly gets into a creepy territory. I realize there are already ways to do this and there are hidden cameras, but we should probably maintain _some_ barrier to entry.

<comment><USER37> > I can't remember the last time I went to see a movie where somebody didn't > light up the place with their phone at least once during the film.

This has never happened to me in Europe, ever. It's an American thing. Also, in the US I can never properly enjoy a movie at the cinema because people are always talking or laughing.

The behavior of people at venues is largely dictated by the local culture.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Comics are doing this as well (Dave Chapelle, Joe Rogan, etc).

Wholly supported.

Relevant: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRf36vRAWF8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRf36vRAWF8)

<comment><USER43> One of the reasons a comic might do that is to avoid being the target of a Twitter outrage mob over a recording of them doing an insensitive joke.

<comment><USER28> Or they do it because because they don't want to be called out on a bad set. (I've heard a venue guy from Detroit pointing out Chappel for that)

Found the article on the Detroit one: [http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/dave-chappelle- fans...](http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/dave-chappelle-fans-demand- refund-detroit-performance-article-1.2199045)

I could have sworn he had issues at a PA show as well, but that was recorded.

Hannibal Burress doesn't like it because he said some unverified bits about Cosby and got caught. (Unsubstiated at the time)

<comment><USER44> 'unverified bit'... is not a thing.

Comedians tell jokes, they aren't news organizations that need to do fact checking.

And even if they did hold to that standard, what a crazy bad example to pick. He was correct. So you think he got 'caught' telling a joke that had true facts that hadn't been verified yet?

<comment><USER28> Comedians can tell jokes and make exaggerations, but they can't fully go out and slander. (Even if it later comes out to be true)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Mister White follows up on his ideas, but this seems to be unnecessary, at least from what I saw at his concert in Prague, Czech Republic, last year.

Before the show one of his crewmen said to all the people to keep their phones in the pockets, that the show will be profesionally photographed and the photos will be on the official Jack White site for everyone to download.

This helped immensely, and I'd guess 95 % of the people kept heir phones hidden and enjoyed the show. Yes, there still were some who recorded alllllll the songs, but that's their apparently their thing afterall, isn't it? I think this approach was nice, human, and worked very well.

<comment><USER46> > Mister White follows up on his ideas, but this seems to be unnecessary, at > least from what I saw at his concert in Prague, Czech Republic, last year.

Mister White attended a few more Jack White concerts than you did, and appears to disagree.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> Perhaps an outright ban is a bit heavy-handed, but we do need to come to terms with what the appropriate etiquette for the usage of personal electronics is. I guess I could care less is someone wants to spend a show checking Facebook, but it's rude to other guests if their screen grabs your attention or it blocks your view. This ties into general camera usage -- wanting to take a picture (or 50) does not entitle you to squeeze in front, or otherwise monopolise the path/area in front of the painting/sculpture/view, nor does it excuse bumping into people while you scuttle around for the right angle.

A particular thing I find very unnerving, is the playing of media on a phone or tablet with the audio on in a crowded public space, typically, but far from exclusively, for the benefit of a child. A close runner up is people keeping audible notifications on their phones or laptops while using it - the sound grabs everybody else's attention, too.

<comment><USER33> >> but we do need to come to terms with what the appropriate etiquette for the usage of personal electronics is.

Isn't it actually simpler than this?

To me, it's just about being aware of your surroundings, and acting appropriately.

The people who are disruptive at live events, movies, airplanes and other public places seem very focused on "what I want to do" and are ignorant of the fact that there are other people are around whose experience could be negatively impacted by their behavior.

<comment><USER41> Exactly. There are always going to be a few people who don't care if they ruin it for the rest. To them, they are the only ones that matter.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> I don't know, how about we embrace mobile phones in gigs instead? Arcade Fire, for instance, asked the audience to turn their flash light on during their last song (don't remember which one it was) last time I saw them. It was beautiful from where I was standing at that moment. And there's also a video of Win Butler taking a mobile phone from someone in the audience and recording himself for a few seconds ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wpgyv6naF3M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wpgyv6naF3M)). I'm sure that someone with more creativity than I have could come up with an idea how to use mobile phones to enhance the experience to the audience and the performer, rather than just viewing them as an annoyance.

<comment><USER49> >I don't know, how about we embrace mobile phones in gigs instead?

Because its the exact opposite of what he's trying to do here? Music is an inherently human experience, why do we need to bring computers in to all aspects of our life?

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> This is almost universal at live theater. (Some exceptions but not many.) Which is mostly a good thing. Although on Broadway, I've seen ushers get IMO overly aggressive just because someone snaps a shot at the end of a performance or whatever.

</comment><comment><USER51> _Just throw your hands in the air..._

 _...and hold your phone up there so the person behind you can 't see me with their actual eyes!_

People who record phone video at concerts are the worst. If you want to re- live your experience later, a lot of promoters now do a professional recording from the floor and on stage with multiple cameras, and they sell download authorization keys at the merchandise booths. Buy one of those. If you can't enjoy the thing you're at right now, please don't ruin it for the people around you.

</comment><comment><USER52> This is a pretty good idea. Dave Chappelle does it before all of his comedy shows. But I'm not going to be part of some sort of rally against phones. The guy on his phone not talking to the person sitting next to him is just the new guy with his head in a newspaper.

</comment><comment><USER53> I went to a Prince concert where phones were banned, and it was the greatest experience ever.

I think it's fine for people to snap a photo or two and be able to check their messages during the show, but when half the crowd is holding up phones to film, it's super annoying.

</comment><comment><USER54> For me, as an introvert, having my phone to play a game on has changed everything for me. Instead of not going to a social event at all, or leaving early when I'm feeling drained, I can take out my phone for a few minutes here and there to zone out and recharge my batteries.

If I found out a venue was going to take my phone as I came in, that would be a HARD no for me ever going to that venue. And if I didn't know about it beforehand, I would be extremely irate.

</comment><comment><USER55> Tool has been doing this same thing for years. The show I attended this past summer couldn't have been more immersive.

<comment><USER56> I've seen tool and apc in the past couple of years and even though it was officially no phones, there were still a lot of people with phones recording a good majority of the show. It is quite annoying standing behind someone shining a screen into your face. I can understand recording a short video, like capturing the curtain drop. I really just don't even get why you would want to pay to stand there holding your phone the entire time. The video won't be worth watching and no one wants to see your crappy video!

Maybe I'm just weird, but a lot of the time at concerts I just close my eyes because I find the visual stimulation of the entire thing to be too distracting from the music.

"Time to put the silicon obsession down"

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u05S9cq2bLY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u05S9cq2bLY)

<comment><USER57> Someone at a ROCK SHOW blocking your view with a phone? just push them out of the way and stand in front of them.

<comment><USER56> They were in stadiums with assigned seating. Which is also a reason why I don't go to those kinds of shows very often. They feel so sanitized.

<comment><USER18> Soooooo sanitized. I saw Gorillaz at the Air Canada Centre this year and felt like a zoo animal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> While this solution is extreme, I do think we need a cultural shift that discourages filming/photos at shows. I think of the College Football Championship halftime show. 75% of the attendees were more focused on adding Kendrick Lamar to their snap story rather than actually watching him.

Personally, I'm also sick of trying to watch concerts through someone's screen in front of me.

</comment><comment><USER59> People use their phones to have human experiences and connect to others that aren't physically present.

While I can understand certain environments should curb cell use (Where lights and flashes are distracting to performers and the audience), or the desire to maintain mystery or quality by controlling bootlegs... a rock concert has distractions-a-plenty, between flying beer cups, weed smoke, people gabbing loudly about their recent gossip, crowd surfers... a phone is really not a big deal.

Curbing phone use might be nostalgic (why not also hand out cigarette lighters for the ballads?) but doesn't make the experience any more human.

<comment><USER60> About these people who "use their phones to have human experiences and connect to others that aren't physically present". How is the sender anything more than a human tripod for a webcam that happens to be in a concert? Nothing is being shared because nothing is being experienced in the first place. If anything, the camera is doing the experiencing.

By bypassing our minds and instead offloading experiences directly to the digital middleman we reduce our powers of memory and lose respect for ourselves as witnesses; we begin to feel that only what is digital is real.

Can you not see that we become less human by separating ourselves from the intimacy of experience? We demote ourselves to mediators evaporating reality to the cloud.

What musician wants to perform to a crowd of cloud-zombies? That's equivalent to a crowd of no one. And they really don't care about the experiences of those who "aren't physically present"; that's what recorded albums are for.

<comment><USER59> A person holding a camera is peresent at the concert and doing the experiencing. I don't understand how holding s camera at all detracts from that experience any more than people at a ballgame watching it partially through the jumbotron. It's a personal preference, it's not up to you to decide for others what is preferable.

A phone is also an intimate device for many, it carries our most intimate thoughts, our photos - often nude! - and possibly even sexual videos, along with our banking information and every password to every app or site we touch. Using our phones during art performances does not separate ourselves from intimacy but rather embraces it and allows us to share it with our friends and family and lovers.

Just wait until augmented reality really starts taking off!

I really don't think a musician performing has any business whether I share my experiences with others - that's my prerogative. We've moved past the tired arguments for copyright and bouncers yanking cameras - it doesn't fly anymore, and people won't accept it. They can request no phones as part of the experience, and check ahead, though I doubt it will become a trend . most tickets are moving to phones as it is, and most rock music fans will rightly look at bans as nostalgia, just like paying for recorded music once was a thing (and still is for people over 40, but will eventually fade away).

Other venues like live theatre warrant less light and sound distraction and I think still deserve etiquette of keeping phones down to between acts or sets, though that may evolve.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> Technology were created by humans. Language was created by humans. Both are abstractions that keep us from experiencing each other and reality in its true form. Let's not trick ourselves into thinking that we're somehow getting a true unambiguous connection with each other by removing technology.

To quote Simone Weil: "The world is the closed door. It is a barrier. And at the same time it is the way through. Two prisoners whose cells adjoin communicate with each other by knocking on the wall. The wall is the thing which separates them but it is also their means of communication."

<comment><USER62> the dude uses an electric guitar, an electronic communication device.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> Why don't people enjoy the thing the way I want them to enjoy the thing!? What is it with people having their own preferences that don't align with mine!?

<comment><USER64> Are asking why rules exist in general or

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> I honestly hope every single concert goes this way. I go to a lot of concerts (~15 concerts and a big festival in a normal year). I have noticed that there is so little real connection between the musician and the audience anymore. Everyone is just talking to their friends (over the music) and waiting for the one big hit to come on so they can fill their Snapchat story.

A concert is a really special thing. Music is the only popular art form where we can really be there and connect to the artist. When you're at a show where the band and the crowd connect you can tell it's something special. Read any interview with a popular musician and they'll tell you the same.

So let's put our phones down and listen.

A side note: this is made much better when artists offer video/audio recordings of their shows after the fact. I honestly don't get why every single artist doesn't offer to sell soundboard recordings. Jam bands (notably Phish) have been making tons of money this way. You can give everyone who came to the show a free download and let those who couldn't be there oay for it. That removes one major need people have for their phones.

<comment><USER66> People enjoy concerts for different reasons and in different ways. I don't see why we should deny them the freedom just because you appreciate events different.

<comment><USER67> The thing is, when you create a sea of people looking at the concert through their phones, you have already ruined the concert for the people who want to live in the moment and just experience the concert as is. The phone ban is created exactly for that reason: so that people can enjoy the concert without having other people decide for you that the concert is much better enjoyed when 20 phones are blocking your view.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> I recently went to see A Perfect Circle who have instituted a no phones policy. It seemed to work pretty well, even without these phone lockers. I saw a handful of people escorted out by security.

It was really great to have only the concert's lighting without the distraction of a sea of screens. Many people even pulled out their lighters for one song, when at other shows I've often seen them defaulting to waving their phones instead.

</comment><comment><USER69> Lane 8 has been doing this for just over a year now with his "This Never Happened" tour: [https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/could-you-handle-a- phon...](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/could-you-handle-a-phone-free- concert-this-never-happened_us_5834aaebe4b0a79f7433b1a9)

<comment><USER70> Came here to say the same thing, glad to see others know about him:)

<comment><USER69> Hopefully see you at a show soon! I'm looking forward to his new album tour

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Eddie Vedder does this as well (not full on with pouches, just asking people personally to put it away and waiting until they do).

</comment><comment><USER71> For those that are curious, he's going to be using Yondr pouches, which are thick cloth pouches with a lock on them that can only be removed by the venue employees.

I did a bit of Googling and apparently they cost about $10 each, so fairly cheap too.

</comment><comment><USER72> I don't see any harm in artists running this experiment, for many younger audience members, it could be the first time they experience a show without phones.

As long as such restrictions are transparent to the ticket-buyer, I'll allow them to vote with their cash. This initiative seems to be an attempt by Mr. White to sculpt the environment and experience at his shows, which is his prerogative. Other bands routinely impose restrictions (Metallica won't allow alcohol to be served while they're on-stage; Morrissey won't allow any meat to be served at his shows).

</comment><comment><USER73> I also don't like people playing with their phones during a concert, especially those blocking my sight because they need to share a shitty vertical video with friends just to climb the social ladder, but banning phones tout court doesn't seem the right way to go.

So, what about writing a song about it in which the artist ridicules them? Or in extreme cases stopping the performance until enough people put the phones away?

</comment><comment><USER12> Is there any phone app that purposely records video in the background without turning on the screen? I wouldn't care as much if people holding up their phones weren't shining back at me. I assume this is possible with audio, though concert audio is usually way too loud to record on a phone without additional equipment.

I believe this may not even be possible due to privacy issues, hidden cameras / recording without consent is enough of a problem already!

</comment><comment><USER74> How about we let flip phones with the speaker visibly ripped out still be carried?

It has terrible video and audio recording capabilities, people know how to use them already, and there's nothing on that tiny screen worth distracting yourself/alienating yourself. Other than an SMS, and that's cool.

That's all the pro's of no-phones, without any of the cons of having to drop off the grid for a few hours.

</comment><comment><USER75> Personally, I'd kinda like to see venues Faraday-cage the concert areas, so people can't get online from them. That way, people could still take photos and video, but wouldn't spend the entire concert on Facebook. (Thinking of this due to a favorite venue of mine, the Cedar Cultural Center in Minneapolis, that has basically zero cell phone reception from the floor.)

<comment><USER76> Correct me if I'm wrong, but would this not be a massive security concern? No calls in or out in the case of an emergency seems pretty frightening to me.

<comment><USER77> While I wholeheartedly agree, the devil's advocate within me likes to remind that we had been mobile phone-less for years with no major concern.

<comment><USER26> We were without antibiotics for hundreds of years but no one's suggesting we go back to that.

We were without mandatory seat belts for decades but no one's suggesting we go back to that.

I just don't find the argument that there was a time where we did without something as a compelling counter argument to the perceived utility something serves today.

<comment><USER75> Given the impact cell phones have had on auto accidents (someone using their phone in the car is about as dangerous as a drunk driver, statistically), I'd say overall, society is _less_ safe due to cell phones.

And, as I pointed out downthread... when's the last time someone actually had to reach you via cell phone for an actual emergency? Particularly when it's something you need to act on rather than just be informed? Virtually all the use of our cell phones falls into "urgent but not important"... the notifications alerting us that Someone Is Wrong On The Internet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER78> I was at the first day of Carolina Rebellion this past year. A band I had never heard of before, Highly Suspect, played and during it, the singer (politely) called out a female fan who was using her phone (in what manner, I'm not sure). Basically for similar reasons (experience the intimacy of the moment sort of thing). I thought it was pretty cool.

</comment><comment><USER79> What's with the incessant need to tell other people how to enjoy an experience?

I'm reminded of this xkcd comic: [https://xkcd.com/1314/](https://xkcd.com/1314/)

<comment><USER80> The main problem is that your way of "enjoying the experience" is detracting from the experience of those around you.

<comment><USER79> How so? Texting someone isn't distracting to anyone around you... unless I'm missing something?

Are you really that easily bothered by other people that them enjoying something in a different way than you detracts from your experience?

<comment><USER81> If you're texting someone in a dark room you're annoying everyone around you

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER82> Don't like giving up your phone? Don't go to the show. I am one of the people who are more likely to attend a show if devices are banned.

Also people acting like this is a safety issue are being ridiculous. Does anyone really think that no stage manager or security guard has a phone they can access in the event of an emergency?

</comment><comment><USER83> The last time I saw him play, I got so bored during his solos I was beyond grateful to have had my phone with me.

</comment><comment><USER84> In Asia (Japan) it is very normal that phones are forbidden at concerts. You are being warned first and if you take it out again to snap a picture for example, they'll boot you out.

But here it's AFAIK more for the reason of selling a exclusive concert DVD after the event is over.

</comment><comment><USER85> As alternative, somebody in the crew could record the concert for then with a crappy phone and let them download it for the next 24 hours using as password some number or barcode printed in the ticket. The "see what you missed last night" experience.

</comment><comment><USER86> OK maybe Thom Yorke and Jack White should do shows together and charge $1000000 and call it real art.

</comment><comment><USER87> "2014, Jack White criticised people at gigs who spend more time on their mobile phones than watching the artist perform.

White suggested that he is "wasting time" performing for people who "can't even clap" because they have a phone in one hand and a drink in the other."

</comment><comment><USER88> A lot of techno clubs have been doing it for years – makes the whole scene feel much more human.

</comment><comment><USER89> The most human experience involves free will. This is doublespeak designed to enhance the social media properties of the band and protect what they view as their intellectual property.

I'd opt to avoid a band that enforced or suggested this.

</comment><comment><USER90> Why not just kick people out that raise their phones? Seems like a waste of time and resources to me. I'd much rather have to deal with the occasional camera blocking my view than having to wait in yet ANOTHER line before and after the show.

</comment><comment><USER91> I want this for movie theaters too.

<comment><USER92> This is one of the reasons I love places like the Alamo Drafthouse, which will outright kick you out if you use your phone during the show.

</comment></comment><comment> cup-of-tea I think this is fine but maybe attendees should be given a complementary recording of the concert as a substitute. These concerts are not every weekend down the pub type events, they are once in a lifetime for many people.

</comment><comment><USER93> In Seattle Jack asked us to put our phones away; to connect with his media team later for free hi def. photos if we wanted them. Everyone was cool; made the show better.

</comment><comment><USER94> Simple economics. People will weigh the value of being able to use their phones and/or record the performance versus their want to attend.

</comment><comment><USER95> ok, people are going to carry 2 phones on them going to shows: the actual phone and a decoy one

</comment><comment><USER96> Well, OK, but the performance had better start on time. And no crappy warm-up bands.

</comment><comment><USER97> Looks like a "100% human experience" weeds out parents with young children.

<comment><USER98> Why? Is it really that impossible to spend a few hours without being able to communicate with whoever is taking care of ones kids? I don't think so.

</comment></comment><comment><USER99> Great opportunity for Snapchat Spectacles to become relevant again.

</comment><comment><USER100> Sounds good in theory, but is this really jut about stopping bootlegs?

<comment><USER101> Knowing Jack White, not necessarily. He's all about authenticity, and being in the moment. Mobiles (for me) tend to ruin this at a live show.

<comment><USER75> I know how he feels. I'm a musician too, and it's really demoralizing when you're up on stage rocking your heart out for people, and you look out and see people's noses in their phones rather than listening to you. (It's probably more demoralizing when you're a tiny indie band playing for fun rather than professionally, and there are only 20 people there and the only reward you get is the chance to play for them.)

<comment><USER102> > when you're a tiny indie band playing for fun rather than professionally

Playing for fun is playing professionally, as long as it has passion.

> there are only 20 people there and the only reward you get is the chance to > play for them.

I'm not going preachy here, but playing in front of people something you wrote is an invaluable reward.

<comment><USER75> I know. I mean, I _do_ this. I go to a lot of effort and expense to play music for small audiences, solely for the pleasure that they're there to listen to my songs. Which is why it's so sad when someone is busy reading social media rather than listening.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER103> Is it just me, or is the NME site completely broken?

<comment><USER104> Works fine for me with Firefox and Privacy Badger

</comment></comment><comment><USER105> Cyborgs please cry your eyes out, you will get them back, afterwards good as new- no spam i promise.

</comment><comment><USER106> hells yeah, jack white; }={ell$fucking yeah...

</comment><comment><USER107> Great to tell people to put away their phones and not record because that really is obnoxious, but to actually confiscate phones is fascistic and shouldn't be tolerated IMO. I mean who does he think he is?

<comment><USER108> I don't think it's fascistic at all. Think about it this way - I would like to trade my right to bring a cell phone into group event in exchange for the benefits I receive from participating in a group event without cell phones.

If you don't like that trade, don't make it! But don't deny those who wish to engage in that transaction the right to do so by forcing them to have a "cell phones are welcome" policy.

This is a rock concert. There is no coercion to attend whatsoever. You are absolutely, 100% free to decline this transaction.

<comment><USER107> I suppose. Venues won't go for this nonsense anyway, it's a potential legal liability, they don't care what you do with your phone and they have all the power, not the band.

<comment><USER41> Pretty sure they can just require the band/attendees to sign away their liability.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER109> He says signing into an electric microphone while playing an electric or acoustic-electric guitar and standing on a stage in front of the crowd with the sound projected from speakers.

Yes, I'm being facetious, but if he REALLY wants a 100% human experience, shrink the room, go full acoustic and play only to small crowds and encourage interaction rather than observation.

I actually love sets like that with artists, especially when you see spontaneous collaborations between artistic minds and talents. I'll go to one of those intimate, acoustic sets and pay 5x what I'd pay to go to any large concert.

<comment><USER110> To be fair, Jack does tons of that too.

Heck, he's got a refurbished 1940's Voice-O-Matic at his Third Man Records, an old time vinyl recording booth which lets you go in and records 2.5 minutes of audio onto one unique vinyl.

He's very much about eschewing as much technology as possible and getting people as close as possible to the sound itself.

<comment><USER109> Agreed. I don't have an issue with this, I think what he's doing is great. I'm just a sarcastic twat.

If he's at the point where he can focus his career on what matters to him as an artist and not what the fans want in order to find financial success, then all the power to him. I think its great and if it increases creativity, connection and makes him and others happy, its the right thing to do.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER111> So is clapping part of the agreement when I go to a gig?

Why is it wasting time playing to people who don't clap. Is he doing it for the claps? Why do I have to pay then?

Can I pay extra to get a ticket which allows me not to clap?

You can't clap with just a drink in your hand either, will he be banning drinking at his gigs?

Is he using amplifiers or are they banned as part of this "human experience" too?

I hate phone use at gigs but Jack White isn't really expressing how I feel about them.

<comment><USER112> You're trying too hard to find problems. I'm guessing White would be okay if you stayed home.

<comment><USER111> I'd just like a bit more precision and perhaps more honesty. He says it's about being a more human experience but I don't know what that means and he makes no effort to explain it clearly, instead muddying the waters.

I have a similar problem with people who dress up their criticism of other's behaviour as something "moral".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> That's great for them. But I won't be buying a ticket for any of his shows. After seeing what happened at the bataclan that makes this a stupid and dangerous idea.

<comment><USER113> Same here. Kick people out if they're violating your event's policy. This pouch thing is just weird and big brother-ish.

Sorry people are downvoting you just because they disagree with your opinion!

<comment><USER50> The pouch thing also just seems as if it would have a lot of overhead getting in and out.

I don't really go to this type of concert so I don't know, but if people are asked to silence their phones and put them in their pocket for something like this, do many of them just ignore that? It's not really a problem at live theater, classical music concerts, etc. but obviously the audience and atmosphere differs a lot.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you manage your contractors? - <AUTHOR>

For those of you hiring contractors to perform work for your startup, what are some tips you have for managing them?
In trying to not micro-manage their progress, I've recently ended up with one contract extending from 2 weeks to 4 weeks, and another that needed to be canceled after 2 weeks of no progress.
From their resumes, these contractors were qualified, but what recommendations do you have to help me make sure that the job is completed and delivered on schedule? <comment><USER2> Be VERY specific, I primarily used contracted and outsourced work and found that communications was the main problem. I wrote and communicated one thing and they thought I meant another. So what I learned to do was be very specific and breakdown each deliverable into small chunks so if there is a miss communication, the time lost is minimized.

Also I always contacted 1 or 2 previous customers (depending on the project size) to see how the operated. Specifically finding out whether they were able to deliver what they said. During the interview phase I would often quiz them about how they would design/accomplish a task to understand their thought process, treat it just like a job interview.

Another tip was to use IM, while I found they didn't want to bug you with a phone call. A quick IM from them when they have a question can avoid a lot of hassles.

Never make assumptions, especially when dealing with another culture. After making this mistake twice while outsourcing development to India, I never did again. Even simple terminology such as drag-and-drop can mean completely different things between cultures.

</comment><comment><USER3> Don't be ashamed or afraid to nag. Fire fast and early. Understand that the project you're working on is only one of likely many they are working on. Give early deadlines but plan them to be weeks/months before you need it. Contractors saying 2-4weeks likely mean 2-4months. You want to see dedication and accomplishments. If you see none of that then fire them. Have someone local to check the code. Get code updates often (should be uploading to a trac). Know your contractors. Are they managers farming out the work or are they doing the work themselves? Does the team keep changing or are they stable? Do they badger you for payouts when their performance has been poor or are they delivering quality work?

Beware of contractors: Many (not all) of them are scam artists who can easily take advantage of those new to the system. They will not be solely focused on your project and by bouncing between projects it means it takes time for them to laser in and be sharp when they do sit down to do your task. Don't hire anyone who doesn't have stellar reviews. Their resumes mean little (ie, they stretch the truth a lot). If your reasonable concerns are not addressed promptly and to your satisfaction: fire them.

</comment><comment><USER4> I tend to set frequent checkpoints. For these really short contracts, I'd setup a chat every 2-4 days, always with one two days before the contract ends.

During these chats I'm just looking for progress and questions. Some people will only have questions as they try to explain what they've accomplished. Also, I know a contractor's hours spent on my project aren't going to be uniformly distributed during the period, so I don't make the judgement that they should have X done by a certain day in the contract.

<comment><AUTHOR> This makes sense. When I used elance, I set up milestones and even added payouts to early milestones in the hopes of enticing early and often deliverables. Alas, everything slipped.

One thing I've noticed about my own management philosophy is that I am hesitant to step in and dictate terms forcefully when things start to slide. There surely isn't a one size-fits-all solution, but it's clear I need to work on identifying and resolving issues earlier on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Stop hiring contractors till you are a big enough company needing sudden growth or can't afford the hiring process.

Hire your intellectual property co-creators. The quality they will create is 10x on a contractor.</comment>


Portable Wikipedia on the Go - <AUTHOR> https://gumroad.com/l/KyRyV <comment><USER2> This is $749?

Wikipedia provide free downloads:

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

And Kiwix is open source software that supports Wikipedia on most platforms for free:

From: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_download#Ki...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_download#Kiwix)

"Kiwix is by far the largest offline distribution of Wikipedia to date. As an offline reader, Kiwix works with a library of contents that are zim files: you can pick & choose whichever Wikimedia project (Wikipedia in any language, Wiktionary, Wikisource, etc.), as well as TED Talks, PhET Interactive Maths & Physics simulations, Gutenberg Project, etc."

[https://www.kiwix.org/en/](https://www.kiwix.org/en/)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Useful product on the go when you are backpacking or traveling across the world or you live in a place where there's no internet.</comment>


Green Space Is Good for Mental Health - <AUTHOR> https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145305/green-space-is-good-for-mental-health <comment><USER2> I hope we see more and more green space anywhere. Suburbs never seem to create "true" green space for me, there are more trees sure but it feels so artificial. Urban parks are much more compelling, and higher density means we can preserve more green space untouched by human development for parks and hiking and all</comment>


Why I Resigned from the Gates Foundation - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/opinion/modi-gates-award.html <comment><USER2> I read this being open and very curious to criticisms of the Gates Foundation. But to be honest, I thought the criticism seemed a little weak. Then halfway through, it became clearer.

The author doesn't care about toilets in India or give a shit (pardon the pun) about Untouchables. Their real beef with Modi is his treatment of Indian Muslims.

This is a perfectly valid criticism and something open to discussion, but for some reason it really rubs me the wrong way that this person is pretending its about something else. At least have the courage to say what you really think instead of hiding behind weak-ass "he says he built 100mm toilets but it was only 50mm!" claims.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm this close to writing a user script to just hide all nytimes articles on HN

<comment><USER4> They're already in my hosts, but I'd use it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This article popped up again on HN: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21118689](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21118689)

</comment><comment><USER6> Even though unfortunate to loose support of good people like him, it would be in the interest of the foundation to honer the PM to make biggest impact for their efforts.</comment>


We're Underestimating the Risk of Human Extinction - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/were-underestimating-the-risk-of-human-extinction/253821/ <comment><USER3> _There are so many people that could come into existence in the future if humanity survives this critical period of time---we might live for billions of years, our descendants might colonize billions of solar systems, and there could be billions and billions times more people than exist currently. Therefore, even a very small reduction in the probability of realizing this enormous good will tend to outweigh even immense benefits like eliminating poverty or curing malaria, which would be tremendous under ordinary standards._

It's really an interesting moral discussion - it's like an extension of the "sacrifice one person to save five" classical dilemma, but I really can't agree with his flippant assertion that our moral obligation to the unborn future billions eclipses that to our obligation to help our contemporaries. And he's not even talking about preserving the planet for the future generations, he's merely concerned with them being born in the first place.

Also, his argument has the same short-coming as the "sacrifice" dilemma: We cannot know for sure that a certain action will have a certain outcome - <USER2> that any action taken was actually the cause of the outcome.

<comment><USER4> Just like there's a time value of money, there should be a time value of people. The unborn future billions should be discounted to the present value so that we can accurately compare them. What's the discount rate?

<comment><USER5> It _has_ to be very high, because our uncertainty about the future is absolutely enormous. I'd put the discount rate even higher than the monetary discount rate, which with fairly standard numbers is already effectively 0 in 20 years.

<comment><USER6> It takes a ridiculous discount rate to effectively become 0 in 20 years. 5%/year * 20 years = (1-.05)^20 = 35.8%. 10%/year * 20 years = (1-.1)^20 = 12.6%.

Still, 100 years is often considered a reasonable limit on such things as 5% * 100 years = 0.6%.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's worth bringing up _The Most Important Video You'll Ever Watch_ [1], which the lecturer characterizes as humanity's biggest problem is our inability to understand the exponential function. Watch all 8 parts.

I have come to the conclusion that there simply are too many of us. We can probably sustain our current levels for a century, maybe two, but at some point scarce resources (and their subsequent cost) will have a devastating effect.

Basically, we need to correct our population before nature does.

As much as people point to space being our future, I simply (sadly) do not agree. While there might be plentiful resources in the asteroid belt (and on other bodies) nothing compares to how cheaply we can pull things out of the ground here on Earth. Our society is predicated on cheap, plentiful resources such that it can't survive them being several (or even one?) order of magnitude more expensive.

As far as interstellar space goes, even if we solve the reaction mass problem and have perfect (100% efficient) conversion of matter to energy, it will still be prohibitive to go to even the nearest stars.

Perhaps the simplest explanation of the Fermi Paradox is that potential growth for a starfaring civilization is geometric (being a sphere ultimately limited by the speed of light) while growth rates are exponential. And exponential will ultimately "win".

[1]: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY>

<comment><USER8> That video is a joke for anyone who has more than a superficial understanding of math. Just because a process has fit an exponential curve does not mean exponential growth is going to continue forever. Past growth patterns are fairly weak evidence of future growth patterns. ("Housing prices always go up!")

That's not to say we shouldn't fear a process that is inherently exponential in nature, like the reproduction of bacteria or a nuclear reaction going supercritical. But if the process only appears from the outside to have been growing exponentially, that's only a weak indicator that it will start behaving in an insane fashion.

In any case, it seems that as nations become more developed people stop having kids:

[http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/11/fertility-the-big- prob...](http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/11/fertility-the-big-problem.html)

<comment><USER9> > _Just because a process has fit an exponential curve does not mean > exponential growth is going to continue forever._

Did you watch the video? This is precisely what it's talking about. Though the economy and energy usage have grown up exponentially for the past two centuries, we cannot hope that it will go on forever. Population growth isn't a concern _per se_ , resource overconsumption and the impossibility of future economic growth are.

<comment><USER10> Resource consumption is directly related to population. So if the latter is not a concern then neither the first.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "... we humans will destroy ourselves. ... Most worrying ... human technology"

no shit! breaking news everybody!

I hate to break it to him but there are 10 million science-fiction books out there dealing with every possible way humans could wipe themselves off the earth. (and maybe just as much real science)

<comment><USER12> I don't know why you are getting downvoted...

Maybe people don't read as much speculative fiction as they used to (or books in general, for that matter, but I digress...) but it seems like lately I've run into more than a few people acting surprised about concepts that, frankly, have been explored to death in books as recently as half a century ago.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> _1) Almost all civilizations like ours go extinct before reaching technological maturity.

2) Almost all technologically mature civilizations lose interest in creating ancestor simulations: computer simulations detailed enough that the simulated minds within them would be conscious.

3) We're almost certainly living in a computer simulation._

It seems like there's a fourth possibility here, which is that a full simulation of the universe is not possible. Anyone care to comment on the computability of something like that?

<comment><USER14> Also, it could be that the 'real' civilization is not simulating the entire universe, but rather just the solar system and simulating the light entering the solar system from outside the solar system, substantially reducing the computational complexity of the simulation.

Still, modeling every living being as a sort of cellular automaton and running the simulation would take a lot of quantum computers. What would be the computational complexity of modelling the consciousness of a human being?

<comment><USER15> > _What would be the computational complexity of modelling the consciousness > of a human being?_ //

You only need to model one though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If you buy Bostrom's arguments, you could make a donation to his research group:

<http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/donate>

I still can't believe that "trying to save the human race from destruction" is being allocated such a tiny fraction of the world GDP.

<comment><USER16> The scare quotes are well placed. The problem with Bostrom et al. is not that they are spending money. It's not even the fact that they are wasting their time on imaginary risks. It's that, by trying to bend policy around those imaginary risks, they are increasing our vulnerability to real-life risks.

<comment><USER17> Interesting assertion -- explain?

<comment><USER16> For example, there has been a lot of talk for the last few decades about bioterrorism. In 2001, it finally happened; a bioterrorist attack occurred. It killed five people.

In the meantime, natural infectious diseases kill several million people every year, and far worse is possible. In 1918-1919, a flu epidemic killed two or three times as many people in a single year as the First World War had killed in four years. In 2002-2003, a SARS outbreak killed a thousand people before it was stopped by quarantine measures. We got off _very_ lightly; SARS is at least as infectious as the 1918 flu, is no more curable, and has nominally roughly twice the lethality rate. The real lethality difference is higher, for the 2002-2003 outbreak was small enough that most of the victims could receive oxygen treatment, which significantly improves survival; in a pandemic, of course, there would not be enough such treatment to go around. And there have been historical plagues deadlier by far than SARS. Terrorists have political goals relative to which the weapon that killed their own communities and families would be counterproductive. The forces of mutation and natural selection working on disease organisms have no such reason for restraint.

Now what exactly do the bioterrorism criers think is going to happen if they start being taken seriously enough to influence policy? It's only too obvious what's going to happen, because it's the same thing that always does: more regulation on biotech research, more red tape, more of the sort of field day for the paranoid and bureaucracy gone mad that we already see in the security theater at airports. It's hard enough to fly to Disneyland in those conditions, let alone do cutting-edge research.

And so when - not if - something deadlier and more insidious than SARS does come along, whatever chance we might have had of being prepared for it may end up being thrown away.

It's not difficult to understand why our instinctive assessment of threats is so wildly irrational. In the ancestral environment there was plenty of disease, to be sure, but almost no medicine, so little selection pressure to be sensitive to that threat. Violence was the main cause of death _that you could do something about_. The human brain is wired to assume our fellow man is the primary threat, regardless of the facts.

But we can sometimes override even hardwired assumptions, once we understand that we live in a world in which they are no longer true. We had better learn to override this one, and quickly.

<comment><USER8> You might as well say there was a lot of talk about flight in the centuries before it was actually invented. Historical data can only take you so far.

>Now what exactly do the bioterrorism criers think is going to happen if they start being taken seriously enough to influence policy? It's only too obvious what's going to happen, because it's the same thing that always does: more regulation on biotech research, more red tape, more of the sort of field day for the paranoid and bureaucracy gone mad that we already see in the security theater at airports. It's hard enough to fly to Disneyland in those conditions, let alone do cutting-edge research.

Are you in favor of government regulation for people researching new designs for nuclear bombs?

It's all about cost benefit analysis. The TSA is a waste of time not only because hijacking is rare, but because the average hijacking kills fewer than 1000 people. If there was a strong theoretical argument for how a hijacked plane could permanently end the human race, it would not be a waste of time.

I'm in favor of unregulated biotech research if the expected benefit from additional disease cures exceeds the expected risk from potential engineered viruses. Frankly, I'm more concerned about the engineered viruses because it seems like an engineered virus has a better chance of killing off everyone (as opposed to not everyone, which is an extremely important distinction in my view; I'm playing for team humanity) just because engineered things tend to work better than things that assemble by chance.

<comment><USER16> > Are you in favor of government regulation for people researching new designs > for nuclear bombs?

The cases are not particularly similar. It doesn't matter that we have crippled nuclear weapons R&D with regulation. It will matter a great deal if we similarly cripple biotech R&D.

> it seems like an engineered virus has a better chance of killing off > everyone (as opposed to not everyone, which is an extremely important > distinction in my view; I'm playing for team humanity)

I am not at all as optimistic as you are about that. It is the way of extinction that what kills the last individual may have nothing to do with the underlying factors that doomed the species. The last passenger pigeon died of old age. In my view, far more likely than a single super-disaster that kills everyone at the same time is a sequence of events where one factor delays progress enough to make us vulnerable to another that kills enough people or causes enough disruption to crash civilization, at which point we can't reboot because all the easily accessible fossil fuel deposits are long gone and there's no way to jump directly from wood-burning stoves to solar panels, leaving the survivors to struggle along until ordinary geological processes finish us off. That's the kind of scenario I'm concerned about.

<comment><USER8> It's definitely plausible that you are right and that deregulating biotech research is the way to minimize existential risk.

I'm not sure I've seen any statement from the Future of Humanity Institute on this issue, except for this blog post by research associate Robin Hanson which would appear to support your point of view:

[http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/12/tiptoe-or-dash-to- futu...](http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/12/tiptoe-or-dash-to-future.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> uh, the risk of human extinction is 100%

the main question is do we have 8 months left or 8 years, 80,000 or 800,000.

<comment><USER19> I'm hoping we'll make it to 80,000,000,000 but your general point is correct. There's only so many computational cycles that can be extracted from the universe before you run out of places to sink entropy.

<comment><USER20> That's a bit pessimistic. If you can do 10^10 years, you can go out to a red dwarf and stick around 10^13-10^14 more. And with a few small mods you can go further. For example, should you want a "small, slow" world, consider what what would if you "turned off" a star (e.g. tore it apart until it could no longer sustain fusion) and burned its fuel more slowly, in engineered fusion reactors. The sun has a natural lifespan of a few billion years; but consumed at a relative trickle of 10^17 W (the part that strikes the earth), there's enough fuel for about 10^21 years. (Conversely, you could grow your world until it matches the power output of a star, like a Dyson sphere. Urban planning decision.) The part that humans actually metabolize is barely 10^12 W (10^26 years in bubble chambers), and non-organic human simulations could do better. And there's a lot more hydrogen where that came from... and human knowledge of this universe's physics is clearly incomplete (what the hell is dark energy?)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'm bringing up an equation that needs consideration. PotentialDamage=NxP1xP2xP3xMaximumDamage

Where N=Population of World P1=Percentage of people with knowledge and access to Dangerous Technologies P2= Percentage of Personalities who are destructive P3=Percentage of People who actually act MaximumDamage=The Number of Casualties that can be caused by a single person

While P1,P2,P3 is relatively stable, and N is almost linear, MaximumDamage is exponential. You can imagine weapons accessible to normal evolved from sticks, to axes, to guns and explosives. At the present moment the main reason that nuclear weapons are not in exploded by terrorists is not because of technology but because of scarce resources. But for bio-warfare, technology cost will exponentially shrink and impact will exponentially grow.

This means if this goes on, PotentialDamage will one day be larger than our population, and extinction will occur. By estimating these parameters we can even predict a data.

</comment><comment><USER22> The one thing that's always skipped over in this kind of article is... Why? The universe doesn't care whether we're around or not. It sure as hell doesn't affect _us_ whether people are around even as nearby as a thousand years from now. If you're worried about future generations suffering, then don't make them. That's a lot cheaper than spending fortunes on a technological solution. The money saved can be used to help those suffering now.

</comment><comment><USER23> You don't have to be a Velikovsky to appreciate that the solar system is a giant game of billiards, humanity is in a fragile aquarium perched on the eight-ball.

To put it another way: I have fire insurance, but I've never had a fire. I have a gun (or four) but I've never had to shoot anyone.

Prudent folk recognize that life is risk and prepare accordingly.

</comment><comment><USER24> We're underestimating the risk because we're using Net Present Value to determine the value of future events. While it can be useful in business to determine profitability of future endeavors, it isn't useful when we are unable to correctly calculate all the other things that get wrapped up into the word "externality".

</comment><comment><USER20> _"Even with nuclear weapons, if you rewind the tape you notice that it turned out that in order to make a nuclear weapon you had to have these very rare raw materials like highly enriched uranium or plutonium, which are very difficult to get [a]. But suppose it had turned out that there was some technological technique that allowed you to make a nuclear weapon by baking sand in a microwave oven or something like that. If it had turned out that way then where would we be now? Presumably once that discovery had been made civilization would have been doomed."_

It works both ways; technology could find simpler ways to build superweapons, but it could also lower the entry barrier to complex, resource-intensive projects. Look at the consequences of even mild singularity predictions for robotics and AI -- things that lower industrial "costs" by orders of magnitude, things like 3D-printers, self-replicating machines, cheap and ubiquitous fab robots. Anyone could build incredibly sophisticated machines in their own homes -- including sports cars, jet engines, and giant TV screens, but equally, compact laser enrichment cascades [b] and nuclear weapons.

Perhaps it's lack of knowledge on my part, but I don't see what will stop atomic bombs from being as common as handguns in 30-100 years. Fissile material is ubiquitous [c]; there's no barrier beyond economics and engineering, of exactly the sort near-term AI could unpredictably disrupt.

[a] _(Tangential silliness: terrestrial uranium WAS weapons-grade material a few billion years ago -- U-235 decays with a 0.7 billion year half life, compared to 4.5 billion years for U-238, so in geologic history the fissile fraction used to be extremely high. Another one for the "anthropic principle" bin: earth's intelligence must have evolved now, and not earlier, because if it had it would have trivially nuked itself...)_

[b] _Check out [NYT][APS] -- it's actually a mainstream position among arms control experts to consider shutting down US research in laser enrichment, to prevent the knowledge from being developed at all. To me this plan sounds about as airtight as have suggested to close the NSA, to keep mathematical secrets like RSA from being discovered._

[c] _Here's a blogger who goes hiking and brings back uranium ore by the bucket [Willis], for his own hackery experimenting. Uranium ore occurs everywhere [Cameco]; even common granite is a low-grade ore containing 5-50 ppm (parts per million) U [AZGS]; and research suggests it's even feasible to extract it by bulk from seawater [NBF]._

[NYT] [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/science/earth/21laser.html...](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/science/earth/21laser.html?pagewanted=all)

[APS] <http://aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/201007/slakey.cfm>

[Willis] [http://carlwillis.wordpress.com/2008/02/20/uranium- chemistry...](http://carlwillis.wordpress.com/2008/02/20/uranium-chemistry/)

[Cameco] <http://www.cameco.com/uranium_101/uranium_science/uranium/>

[AZGS] <http://repository.azgs.az.gov/uri_gin/azgs/dlio/414>

[NBF] [http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/09/uranium-from-seawater-on- la...](http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/09/uranium-from-seawater-on-large- scale.html)

<comment><USER12> _"Perhaps it's lack of knowledge on my part, but I don't see what will stop atomic bombs from being as common as handguns in 30-100 years. Fissile material is ubiquitous; there's no barrier but economics and engineering, of exactly the sort near-term AI could unpredictably disrupt."_

You guess right--it's your lack of knowledge.

 _Fissile material_ is not useful for making nuclear weapons (of any more than the dirty bomb variety). So far, we seem to have converged on uranium and plutonium, and while at least uranium is relatively common in the Earth the processing and dredging required to get a useful amount of it, and then the refining to get the useful isotopes from _that_ , is nontrivial.

Engineering and fast computers are great and all, and will get you arbitrarily close to the physical limits--but we're there right now, and physics says you aren't getting a centrifuge with meaningful output in your garage.

More troubling is the idea that frankly we've had the technology to build sports cars in our homes for decades and decades now. It's called buying a lathe, an arc welder, a mill, a forge. Despite the availability--cheap!--of these things to the general populace, not only is it not widespread among those who can--and there are damned few of those even with this magical Internet thing telling you how to do all of it--it will get less likely as people focus on cat pictures and tweeting.

We aren't worthy of a singularity as a culture.

EDIT:

Thank you for attaching some interesting facts. Allow me to do the same:

The useful fissile uranium isotope (235) accounts for bout .72% of naturally occurring uranium (<http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/guide/facts/>).

Your hiking source claims uranium metal, but points out that it is completely locked up in slag and that only at large-scales does the approach seem tractable.

Even allowing for _that_ , the amount produced is negligible.

That's just for metal--we aren't even talking about a usable isotope yet.

Take 7/1000 of that result from the blogger, and wave a wand to make it pure enough to use.

Now collect the (at least) several pounds needed of that to make a functioning device. Now do the machining on the rest of the device to make it function correctly (have fun with the berylium dust, if you go that route). Now do the timing electronics, and the charge shaping (if you go _that_ route).

This.

Is.

Not.

Garage.

Technology.

<comment><USER25> > _More troubling is the idea that frankly we've had the technology to build > sports cars in our homes for decades and decades now. It's called buying a > lathe, an arc welder, a mill, a forge. Despite the availability--cheap!_

Now I'm curious. How much would it cost to set up a reasonable home garage with all this machinery?

<comment><USER26> Depends on your budget of course. Machine tools don't 'depreciate' past their accuracy. Which is to say that a mill that can hold one thousandth of an inch repeatably costs $X used and on that can do one ten-thousandth (tenth) repeatably is $10X.

The challenge of building a sports car is generally building your own engine (which people don't do often unless they are steam based). You need to get the engine block cast and that requires a steel foundry. Building a blast furnace in your garage is quite difficult if it needs to have the volume capacity to make even a fairly small engine block. Once you have the castings however the various other bits can fit in your garage easily and do cost between $8K and $150K depending on newness, accuracy, control methodology etc.

I'm also assuming that you would use fiberglass layup for the body panels since a sheet metal press that can make a 'hood' sized piece, or fender sized piece, is also quite large (and tall).

<comment><USER27> _The challenge of building a sports car is generally building your own engine (which people don't do often unless they are steam based). You need to get the engine block cast and that requires a steel foundry._

Unless you just insist on starting with a home-made block, you can acquire "naked" engine blocks fairly easily. Or at least you could a few years ago, I've been away from that scene for a while, so my knowledge isn't completely up to date. And even if you can't get a naked block you can certainly get partially built engines (usually the block, crankshaft, pistons and connecting rods) or "crate engines" (usually everything except intake manifold and carburetor / fuel injector) straight from the manufacturers. For example, see:

[http://store.gmperformanceparts.com/store/SelectProd.do?prod...](http://store.gmperformanceparts.com/store/SelectProd.do?prodId=7704&redir=true&manufacturer=GM&category=Engines&name=LS327/327%20&model=%3C! --19165628--%3E)

'course, starting with a pre-forged block and partially built engine isn't quite like doing it from scratch, but then again, I'm assuming anybody building their own car is buying pre-rolled tubing and sheet stock, etc., not literally building everything up from iron ore, aluminum ore, etc.

<comment><USER26> Yes, any sane person would start there :-) I was just responding to 'build from scratch' which can be interpreted quite literally. A friend of mine builds race cars which are basically some 'regular' car, except all the structural bits get replaced. I joked with him that it would be simpler if he just took the engine out and built a frame around the engine, but he claims the previous frame are his version of a story stick[1].

[1] [http://www.woodcraft.com/Articles/Articles.aspx?ArticleId=28...](http://www.woodcraft.com/Articles/Articles.aspx?ArticleId=289&page=1)

<comment><USER27> _A friend of mine builds race cars which are basically some 'regular' car, except all the structural bits get replaced. I joked with him that it would be simpler if he just took the engine out and built a frame around the engine._

Cool. My dad builds and races late model stock cars and has been involved in racing as long as I can remember... so yeah, I can relate to exactly what you mean there. The race cars have almost nothing left of the original car except the exterior sheet metal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Oh... I do love everyone's opinion about this topic. It's interesting, but I think everyone can agree that "human evolution is a train with no tracks". Thinking there is a formula to solve it's equation by humans is pretty amusing.

</comment><comment><USER29> Maybe. On the other hand, which risks we estimate properly? What if humans are incapable of properly estimating risks, especially related to themselves?

It all comes down to the ability to predict future, and we are really bad at it.

</comment><comment><USER30> I was reminded of Bill Joy's article from 2000: <http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html>

</comment><comment><USER31> Human extinction sounds a lot less plausible since it's never happened before.

</comment><comment><USER32> Many people see technology as one of the biggest threats but don't forget about our growing stupidity:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMkrJOOTjj4>

It may be what will kill our civilization after all, if not mankind itself.

</comment><comment><USER33> I'm always fascinated by the extremely long term horizon concerns that people bring up in discussions about the future of humanity.

200 to 300 years out there is no humanity as we know it today. Whatever we are at that juncture, it won't be "human" as we now define it. Our self directed evolution has long since taken over, and it's accelerating at an extraordinary clip. You can debate the merits of that, the details of it, but it's happening either way.

In the next two or three decades we'll have begun to completely take over genetic alteration / evolution / improvement / etc, of our species. Within a few decades after that, we'll be severely altering what we are. Within 150 or 200 years, it'll be very hard for modern humans to relate to the ancestor humans from 2012.

Concerns about asteroids or global warming and so on are moot. We won't be here as a species pumping CO2 into the atmosphere or waiting around helplessly for a rock to crash into the surface. It's not an issue of if, it's just an issue of how long it takes and how many competing models of our self directed evolution become options.

The sole threat to that future is super virus / disease, most likely man-made. It's the only thing that could stop our evolution and wipe out our species in that couple hundred year time frame. Even nuclear war isn't a threat to species survival, you could detonate thousands of nukes simultaneously and it wouldn't come close to killing us off.

<comment><USER34> I think you vastly overestimate our ability to understand genetics. The genome (any species' genome) evolved so haphazardly and with such deep and interconnected causal spiderwebs I think it's going to take centuries to understand it to the extent that we'll be able to intentionally influence it more than genetic drift and selection currently do.

NINJA EDIT: Regardless, the certainty with which you seem to regard your claims is hardly justified (unless you've got some concrete evidence you can share). If you're wrong, we'll have wished we were thinking about these things all along.

<comment><USER35> Given that we're doing it right now to plants and animals right now I think you're very wrong.

<comment><USER36> What we're doing now is a pretty haphazard introduction of non-nature genes into plants and animals often with unexpected effects.

Look up histone acetylation and DNA methylation. We're barely scratching the surface of how gene expression works.

To say we're going to rebuild the human genome in the next 100 years is a little fanciful. Reminds me of the "trains to the moon" that Popular Mechanics said we would all be riding in the 1980s.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Wow an entire article about human extinction without a single mention of global warming or climate change. The Atlantic are such reliable whores.

<comment><USER31> We could totally survive any climate change that we've ever seen in the geological record. Even if famine claims billions of lives, it wouldn't be a species-ending event. Bostrom is worried about things that have considerably more destructive potential.</comment></comment>


Wordpress.com parent company launches work collaboration platform Happy Tools - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/01/wordpress-com-parent-company-launches-work-collaboration-platform-happy-tools/ <comment><USER2> a quick direct link [https://happy.tools/](https://happy.tools/)

$5 per month per user with $60 minimum

<comment><USER3> And need to "Request" for a Demo to actually see the product.</comment></comment>


US healthcare bills: House v Senate - <AUTHOR> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8424660.stm <comment><AUTHOR> What concerns me, and something I didn't know before seeing this, is that the older generations can only be charged 2-3x as much for premiums as the younger generations, plus, everyone is _required_ to get insurance under both plans.

This amounts to yet _another_ tax on the younger generation, because as it is now, a young person can get by on $100/mo for health insurance, whereas someone 60 or 70 may be paying $500-600 or more for the same plan. The insurance companies aren't going to reduce the premiums for the old people, they'll simply increase the premiums for the young people. With the new law, the young people can't opt out of insurance.

<comment><USER2> We dont know the details yet. It could be that older people are subsidized by the government. The real issue is that many people cant get insurance at all, like my SO. I would be willing to buy her insurance at the going rate, but it cannot be had. If it costs you an extra $100 per month so she can get insurance so be it. I have no sympathy because I am probably paying way more in taxes than you to support things that do not benefit me directly. That's the way it goes in a democratic society.</comment></comment>


The State of Technology at the End of 2018 - <AUTHOR> https://stratechery.com/2018/the-state-of-technology-at-the-end-of-2018/ <comment><USER2> What bullshit. The whatsisname congressman is 100% correct, and the article author is spewing a load of autistic idiocy.

Of course "tech" isn't the issue, nobody cares about the SERP coefficients. The values and processes behind the scenes at Google is the issue, and they are absolutely evil and partisan.</comment>


THE ICOFund - <AUTHOR> https://rfventer.github.io/icofund.html <comment><AUTHOR> There has been recent wave of crowdfunding on blockchain and this fund takes advantage of all of them.</comment>


Introducing SitBy.us: mobile app for checking in at SXSW panels - <AUTHOR> http://weightshift.com/memo/introducing-sitbyus

<comment><USER2> I really like this idea - I can think of a few times where it would have been really useful. Usually I end up jumping up and down or waving a piece of paper in the air until the person I'm looking for sees me. I appreciate having a more... dignified option.</comment>


Show HN: A privacy-first, ad-free, text-only social network - <AUTHOR> https://postbelt.com <comment><AUTHOR> Hi everyone,

I built this after wanting it to exist for a while. It's a social network that focuses completely on the only feature I care about, discussing things with people I know in a forum-style environment.

I feel like on the current selection of big social networks, this core feature is being lost in the noise of everything else that's been added on top over the years.

I'm also not happy with being encouraged to publicly share as much as possible, and being exposed constantly to ads and other forms of communication from media companies.

I basically put up with all this because I have to, just to have a place where I can have discussions amongst my contacts. So I thought, why not try to build a place that focuses only on that, and throws away all the other stuff.

It was a fun project to build and I thought I would put it out there. If you have any feedback, I'd be really grateful to hear it. Cheers.

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh by the way, please add me on there - my username is davnicwil :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> gigatexal if anyone wants to add me. Interesting service.</comment>