Do drivers who keep gaps in stop-and-go traffic worsen it? (2012) - <AUTHOR> https://www.quora.com/Do-drivers-who-keep-extremely-huge-gaps-between-their-car-and-the-car-in-front-of-them-in-heavy-very-slow-stop-and-go-traffic-cause-the-congested-traffic-to-be-worse?share=1 <comment><USER2> I used to leave wide gaps, but then I found that market economics started to apply and my gaps were just filled by other drivers looking to arbitrage my attempts at stabilizing the economy. Making matters worse, they would just cut me off when their lane slowed, causing the market to suddenly crash in my lane. So now I leave no gaps.

<comment><USER3> Don't forget a reasonable gap can significantly increase your fuel economy and how long your breaks last. Remember every time you break that's costing you money.

<comment><USER4> I have a manual transmission, so it's also clutch wear. Plus I get tired of shifting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> While most of us academics may be familiar with the problem here, it's moot in the end. No amount of education or public awareness will fix this. Our only hope are self-driving cars or other forms of transportation -- train, hyperloop...

<comment><USER2> My hypothesis is that the problem becomes worse by at least a few other's impatience and greed. There might be some educated individuals on the road who try their best to do what's said to lead to better traffic conditions, but its the few that ruin it in the end. A tragedy of the commons.

<comment><USER6> No way, the checked-out drivers cause a ton more problems than aggressive drivers. If all drivers properly sorted themselves by desired speed from left to right we'd have much more efficient highways.

I'd also make the argument that the people who stubbornly don't get out of the way of tailgaters are at fault for creating slow road conditions, and share the blame for a dangerous driving situation. If someone behind you wants to go faster, get the fuck out of the way. And it's not even my preference-- in WA and OR it's literally the law that slower traffic should move right, but I've never heard of anyone being ticketed for it.

<comment><USER7> Hey, if you're being tailgated you're by definition not slower traffic.

Dumb people tailing and trying to go that extra 5mph are as much to blame for the danger as the people that don't get out of the way. And since they will be constantly forcing people to switch lanes, the outcome is the same except some idiot got their way.

So no.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The question is too vague to give a good brief answer. Narrowing it down, I believe that it is possible for a good driver to reduce the stop-go element of heavy traffic by following the car in front at a judicious (more than average) distance and then braking more slowly than the car in front as the traffic in front is reducing speed. When the traffic in front starts to accelerate again the driver then accelerates more slowly until a sufficient distance is achieved between him and the car in front such that the slower braking technique can be used again as necessary. I know from personal experience that it is possible to reduce the stop-start nature of the traffic in this way.

<comment><USER9> As someone who tries to do this whenever possible, it can be largely for naught if cars in the bordering lanes see the gap you've allowed in front and move into it. :/

<comment><USER10> If you expand the "leave a gap of 2 seconds" rule to instead follow the car in front of you by 3 seconds, then someone cutting in should only require you to add 1.5 seconds of distance to the new, smaller gap. And since the car cutting in will often tailgate the car in front of you, it's often really around 750ms you'd have to bleed off, which shouldn't require much speed change.

<comment><USER9> We're not really talking about that, we're talking about stop-and-go traffic, and smoothing out the stop-and-go portion through the use of an expanding and shrinking buffer in front. It will by necessity be larger and smaller at different times.

Additionally, when the gap is lessening because the car in front it stopped or at the slowest speed of the variable speed traffic, another vehicle inserting itself into this buffer can make you slow rapidly, thus negating the point of leaving a buffer to smooth out the variable traffic speed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> When I'm in LA and it's stop-and-go traffic, I find it's best to follow the trucks in the right lane. I average a much higher speed because they don't have the ability to tailgate and slam on their brakes like the most aggressive drivers in the fast lane who are actually causing the traffic jam, and consequently go an even 15 mph as opposed to 0-30-0-30-0, etc.

<comment><USER4> I strive to maintain a constant speed, so the gap in front naturally gets larger as traffic ahead speeds up. Back in the day, when I was typically in a hurry and driving insanely, I liked large gaps because I could slalom through them at high relative speed. I don't do that anymore. I hate it when bikers blow through at 100 kmph relative speed. But at least they're small.

Edit: I also hate it when bicyclists blow through city traffic at 10-20 kmph relative speed. For some reason, I'm more afraid of accidentally hurting them.

<comment><USER12> Though eventually, flat.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> An interesting site: [http://trafficwaves.org/trafexp.html](http://trafficwaves.org/trafexp.html)

</comment><comment><USER14> There's always a wide range of gaps in stop-n-go traffic. Anything from a car length to 1,000 feet. It's the 1Kft gappers that seem to bring out the crazy in other drivers.

Tangent: how about the drivers that think we should all be merging one entire mile before the merge point and therefore start straddling two lanes in an attempt to prevent passing in the empty lane?

We're supposed to use all the pavement and then zipper merge at the merge point. This would be even easier if traffic would be consistent about gaps.

<comment><USER10> Zipper Merge to the rescue!

[http://www.dot.state.mn.us/zippermerge/](http://www.dot.state.mn.us/zippermerge/)

<comment><USER13> I wish people would understand the zipper merge and that people shouldn't form a long line since that pushes the congestion further back possibly through intersection and traffic lights causing gridlock which pushes the congestion to streets going perpendicular to the road with the merge. The problem is people think you're "cutting" if you stay in the non-blocked lane up until the merge point and then won't let you in.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> No. Please leave lots of gaps ... ones just long enough for my motorcycle to sneak into. In all seriousness, in many parts of the world it is natural for two-wheelers to filter past stopped cars to fill every available space in stop and go traffic. Given that bikes fit more people into a given space (pushbikes and motorcycles etc) having the cars leave gaps while stopped can be more efficient. But only where there are enough bikes willing to filter, which is rare in north america.

What is really interesting to me is the math behind leaving extra space in moving traffic. I have to cross a major bridge every day (Vancouver, Lions Gate Bridge) which is often only one lane for my direction. A driver leaving 5 or 10 seconds worth of space impacts everyone behind them. 10 seconds x 350 cars means that one person leaving too much of a gap is actually creating an hour's worth of delay.

<comment><USER7> One person leaving too much of a gap doesn't create 10 seconds x 350 cars delay. They add 10 seconds delay. You'd only get that hour if everyone had a 10 second gap.

And nobody leaves a 5-10 second gap. That's huge. The DMV recommends something like 2-3 seconds.

<comment><USER15> You missed the point. I didn't mean they delayed any one person by an hour. They are delaying 350 people each by ten seconds ... a cumulative delay of an hour.

10 seconds on a bridge is not unusual. They are normally people looking at the view.

The kids around here are taught to "Increase your following distance ... to four seconds in bad weather conditions." In Vancouver, that is a not-small amount of the year.

[http://www.icbc.com/driver- licensing/Documents/drivers5.pdf](http://www.icbc.com/driver- licensing/Documents/drivers5.pdf)

At 75kph (normal speed on a rushhour bridge) 4 seconds means an 80 meter (90yard) gap. If everyone left such a gap any city would grind to a halt.

<comment><USER7> I didn't miss the point, I just don't think that's a meaningful number. What's meaningful is total throughput and each individual's time on the road. The 10 second gap doesn't much affect either.

Also, presumably they'll close the gap or leave the road at some point, at which time cars could (shouldn't) speed up and save their 8 seconds. But it's that kind of stupidity that causes the traffic waves anyway, to save 8 seconds.

<comment><USER15> I hope I am not seated in a row behind your's on my next flight. Those at the front of long lines have a moral obligation to all those behind them. Delaying hundreds of people for seconds is just as bad as delaying one person for an hour.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I've often thought about traffic flow when stuck in traffic. I'm in favor of a bit of a gap. I'll try to describe it. I'll start with what lead me to my conclusion.

At a stop light that has turned green all the cars do not go at once. They all proceed sequentially from first to last. If the line is long enough, and the light short enough, the last car cannot make it through. If all cars were to accelerate at the same time simultaneously like a train then many more cars would make it through the light. Of course this will never happen with human drivers.

I believe keeping a reasonable buffer in traffic helps prevent the above situation that I see occur at lights. The delay of this affect is repeated for each and every stop.

I think an excessive gap would make the flow worse in the way described in the article. I'm thinking there's a happy medium somewhere. Somewhere between the excessive gap of the one that wants to teach everyone the 'wisdom' of the gap and the hot-heads that want to drive over the person in front.

</comment><comment><USER17> I've had numerous debates about this, I've asked someone who works for my local municipalities traffic office about simulations regarding this (though she didn't have the correct simulators to do it, just for intersections).

I know the theory, but people frequently and incorrectly state that emergent traffic jams are proof that leaving large gaps to smooth traffic behind you improves traffic flow. That to me this is an unacceptable leap of logic. Why are their no contrasting simulations showing traffic flow with and without these "smoothing" agents? Creating a simulation that has rolling traffic jams, introduce agents that disperse the traffic jam (can you actually disperse these traffic jams anyway? Again, not demonstrated in the story.) Has throughput increased? It's not a given that it has.

My concern is that the people who tried to do what I am saying only achieved negative results, so they did not publish. Regardless of my concerns, I believe this theory might be true. Which is why this is so frustrating!

</comment><comment><USER18> Here's some evidence that creating those wide gaps does help.

[http://www.slate.com/articles/life/transport/2011/10/rolling...](http://www.slate.com/articles/life/transport/2011/10/rolling_speed_harmonization_how_colorado_fights_congestion_on_i_.single.html)

</comment><comment><USER19> You stay with in 3 seconds so like 25 feet in most traffic NOT 1000 feet!!!

It is all about how many cars flow through a certain spot a minute. If you have space you have more time therefore creating MORE traffic behind you!

If I had a billion dollars this would be a Super Bowl Commercial and I would blast YouTube and FaceBook with ads.

<comment><USER20> I'm upvoting you so that others can see an example of incorrect thinking for traffic problems.

Throughput is only one goal for traffic. One can see immediately that a minute of flow at 15mph is equivalent to a minute of stop/go traffic at 30mph equally divided. Similarly, a minute of flow at 15mph is less than a minute of stop/go traffic at 45mph. The latter is NOT the goal of a congruent traffic system because it will result in decreased safety. Eliminating gridlock is a priority for all traffic engineers.

The more important goal for traffic is safety. It is also immediately evident that constant, predictable traffic patterns result in lower accident rates than unpredictable changes like those found in stop and go traffic. Stop and go traffic encourages tailgating, aggressive lane changing, and aggravated driving.

The phrase "you have more space you have more time" does not imply "MORE traffic". It is actually the people driving with this type of mindset that create the traffic, not the person in front.</comment></comment>


Beautiful flying car - <AUTHOR> http://www.aeromobil.com/video http://www.siliconrepublic.com/innovation/item/41976-flying-car-has-unexpected <comment><USER2> I can't see flying cars taking off (pun unintended) until the flight side is automated and at an equivalent quality as an experienced pilot. The consequences of an accident are much more severe. This risk needs to be mitigated and human error is an obvious weak point. I did notice that this car has an emergency parachute feature.

All said, as drone technology advances I can completely see car like this becoming the norm. Personally I'l love to be about to live in a rural environment and work in a city so something like this would be brilliant in enabling this option.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Got up to 900ft: [http://www.siliconrepublic.com/innovation/item/41976-flying-...](http://www.siliconrepublic.com/innovation/item/41976-flying- car-has-unexpected)</comment>


Investors and entrepreneurs need to address the mental health crisis in startups - <AUTHOR> https://www.google.com/amp/s/techcrunch.com/2018/12/30/investors-and-entrepreneurs-need-to-address-the-mental-health-crisis-in-startup-culture/amp/ <comment><USER2> Link redirects to techcrunch.com</comment>


Deadliest Animals to Humans - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_animals_to_humans <comment><USER2> Pretty uninteresting list. At least danger should be estimated by encounter: huge numbers of humans are killed by other humans, does that mean I should be more afraid when I encounter a human or, say, a polar bear?

Also confusing direct killings with transmission of diseases makes little sense.

<comment><AUTHOR> You don't think it's interesting that snails make the list? [0] Or that deaths by mosquito top those of the current pandemic?

How do you 'estimate' danger? Sure, the recording is an aggregate. What's a more suitable format? Shouldn't this already exist in Science rather than Wikipedia?

Besides, > This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.

[0] Perhaps they knew something already? [https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/why-were- medieval-...](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/why-were-medieval- knights-always-fighting-snails-1728888/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Dogs kill 25,000 people every year. They is an insane number which makes me think it cannot be right.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good catch! The article attributes it to rabies, but the linked source (broken, by the way) lists _prairie_ dogs!!</comment></comment>


20 Things 20-Year-Olds Don't Get - <AUTHOR> http://nickfro.st/19kPWYW

<comment><USER2> I find this pretty interesting. I'm not sure I agree with the point about the phone, though. For me, a phone call is in the chain of escalation, and not an effective communication tool at the lowest level. Consider: it is the most demanding form of communication, allows for little or no transfer of data, hampers our ability to communicate abstractions, and doesn't scale at all. If audio communication is important, then prefer video calling. Still, I find written communication to be the most cost-effective form of communication. It allows for a wide range of expression, can be performed asynchronously, and can be archived and searched for later reference. Phone calls cannot. I even once had a boss for whom I responded in writing when he called with questions or instructions because he wasn't an honest broker, and it was vital to pin him down in writing in every detail.

My preference goes something like this: chat (IM, something custom, whatever), video call (hangout, skype, etc.), email, text, phone call, in-person. Of course the order may vary depending on circumstances - obviously you don't have casual conversation via SMS when out to lunch with someone, or if you work in the same room - but this is generally how I view the value of communications. Phone calls are productivity killers.</comment>


Skipping College makes one a better entrepreneur - <AUTHOR> http://www.jamesaltucher.com/2011/02/living-life-is-better-than-dying-in-college/

<comment><USER2> Ultimately you can probably be successful either way, and it has a lot more to do with your level of focus/engagement in what you do choose to do. But there are so many cheerleaders in the mainstream telling teenagers the only way to succeed is college that it's refreshing to see alternatives being spoken for.

You definitely don't need to go to college to be successful. Just ask any of these drop outs or no-shows:

Paul Allen, Richard Branson, James Cameron, John Carmack, Andrew Carnegie, Michael Dell, Barry Diller, Walt Disney, George, Eastman, Thomas Edison, Larry Ellison, Henry Ford, Bill Gates, David Geffen, J. Paul Getty, William Randolph Hearst, Steve Jobs, Ingvar Kamprad, Kirk Kerkorian, Ray Kroc, Ralph Lauren, Craig McCaw, Gabe Newell, John D. Rockefeller, Charles Simoni, Steven Spielberg, Dave Thomas, Ted Turner, Ted Waitt, Steve Wozniak, Frank Lloyd Wright, Orville and Wilbur Wright, and Mark Zuckerberg.

</comment><comment><USER3> Nowhere in this article does it claim skipping college makes one a better entrepreneur. I did a search and it doesn't even contain the word "entrepreneur".

Short version: He's writing a book. He thinks that for the amount of debt involved, you can go do much more gratifying things in life than college from age 18 to 22. Oh, and he's writing a book.

My best understanding is that there is some correlation between successful entrepreneurs (like Bill Gates) and dropping out of college. I do not know if that correlation runs both ways. I would be very reluctant to suggest that dropping out makes you a better entrepreneur. I think it probably goes in the other direction: People who have what it takes to be good entrepreneurs sometimes skip past the silly credentialing stage and get on with making things and let the chips fall where they may. Folks who have an idea for a business but feel the credential is important and are thus unwilling to forgo college to focus on their business may never make the necessary commitment -- staying in school may turn out to be one of many excuses as to why they ultimately just won't put it all on the line. But dropping out of college in no way guarantees one will do anything worthwhile with their time/money in place of it.

<comment><AUTHOR> I am an entrepreneur and have started and sold several successful businesses. Based on this experience i wrote the article and concluded that having life experience was much more valuable to my success than going to college. Hence the title.

<comment><USER4> I agree that life experience has much higher dollar value. But I think the bit that in some cases you might be missing is that college can further boost the value of the life experience.

Push to the extreme a little bit to see what I mean. What is more valuable: grade school, or life experience? You (hopefully) wouldn't say, "What a waste of time grade school is _! Life experience is much more valuable!" You should be able to see how the two interrelate and feed one another. The suggestion that life experience has more "value" than school is almost nonsensical.

_ Assuming ideal grade school.

I went to college from 1990 to 1997. Somehow I managed to get a BS/MS in computer science and came out of school only $2000 in debt and full time job waiting. (Thank you, HP, for the opportunity to work as an intern, and telecommute during the school year, no less!! What a gift!) It was totally worth it...for me!

All this being said, it is different today than it was then, and tuition is huge. I've always been a big fan of paying for school for people who can't afford it--they generally make us more in tax revenue later than those who don't attend college. If you just look at the federal grants I got for college, you're looking at about a 10,000% ROI for the feds in tax right now. Sure, they'd have made money off me anyway, but the point is they got their measly investment back with ease.

If I had my way, the college system (and grade school system for that matter) would be hugely reworked, and in a way I'm guessing you'd approve of based on your complaints. I still haven't figured out how to mesh it with the existing accreditation infrastructure (which is a helluva thing in itself). The status quo is pretty well entrenched.

<comment><AUTHOR> You did it the right way, to have HP help you and it sounds like you knew what your passions are.

Right now student loan debt is the highest ever so most don't have that opportunity. But I sincerely congratulate you on making the most of the resources available to you. I wish I had done that.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Obama administration advising local police to stay quiet on Stingray tech - <AUTHOR> https://news.yahoo.com/us-pushing-local-cops-stay-174613067.html;_ylt=AwrBJR4e65lTwmEAb7zQtDMD

<comment><USER2> A dupe of [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7885177](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7885177).

Please don't editorialize titles, as the HN guidelines ask.

</comment><comment><USER3> The entire government has gone rogue against it's own citizens. Quite disgusting to watch.</comment>


The case of 737 MAX: An old design with modern complications - <AUTHOR> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/case-737-max-old-design-modern-complications-asteris-apostolidis-phd <comment><USER2> That problem of modern complications and a kludge of "modules" or "units" as remedies is the central problem of the 737 MAX. Why? Because Southwest and a few other customers wanted the 737 pushed, beaten, hacked, and morphed into a 757 but retain the 737 model /type certification.

Alright, you have it. How's that working out? Any regrets for not listening to advocates for continuing the 757 or starting a mini 787 type?</comment>


Cost of Health Care By Country, as Compared to Life Expectancy - <AUTHOR> http://www.good.is/post/cost-of-health-care-by-country-as-compared-to-life-expectancy?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+good%2Flbvp+%28GOOD+Main+RSS+Feed%29&utm_content=FaceBook <comment><USER3> A response to the graphic suggests that while "this was evidence of an insane and inefficient healthcare system", "if [they] really wanted a chart that captures what's wrong with America's healthcare system, [they] should have gone to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' national health expenditures data website and downloaded the figures showing how rampant third-party payment has resulted in consumers directly paying for less than 12 percent of healthcare costs. And when people are purchasing something with (what is perceived to be) other people's money, it's understandable that they don't pay much attention to cost." ([http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/29/the- real-healthcare-char...](http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/29/the-real- healthcare-chart-of-the-day/))

I'm sympathetic to this argument given that the American healthcare system is considerably different than many healthcare systems globally in that private insurers acting on behalf of employers (not the users of healthcare) pick up a significant portion of the pie (even if, on a per capita basis, Medicare spending is more than most countries like Canada - though this fact alone begs the question of why the US government wouldn't first seek to fix Medicare).

As a Canadian, the one thing I don't quite understand is how many of my countrymen are so quick to condemn the American system despite all the obvious signs that the Canadian system is unsustainable and failing ([http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive...](http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/08/18/national- post-editorial-board-canadian-healthcare-is-no-model.aspx)). Further, you read about Animal farm like anecdotes (to be fair, I've seen first hand some of this in Canada as well), and you wonder whether or not healthcare systems abroad can really be distinctly categorized between those that are "universal" and "non-universal" given how radically different implementation is - <USER2> example from Japan here: [http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2010/01/my_family_the_v....](http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2010/01/my_family_the_v.html)

There are at least 2 other big problems with this graph if presumably it's being used to argue for changes in policy:

(1) The measurement of life expectancy "at birth". The US spends a considerable amount of money aggressively attempting to treat what would otherwise be considered stillborns. (2) The lifestyles of Americans that may have nothing at all to do with healthcare implementation ([http://www.usnews.com/health/family- health/articles/2008/04/...](http://www.usnews.com/health/family- health/articles/2008/04/22/obesitys-link-to-life-expectancy.html)) - ie this could very well mean that if the US miraculously grew an entirely public and universal healthcare system as modeled against XYZ country, US life expectancy might not necessarily get any cheaper or better - it is entirely possible that it would become more expensive and worse.

<comment><USER4> Also after a visit to a psychiatrist I found out they charge your insurance more, if you have it, than they would if you didn't. I'm not exactly sure what that was about, but if it was for sympathy, then it just shows that having a bureaucratic insurance company, private or government owned, would still have this problem of distancing the money from the patient.

However I'm still a large proponent of not only life as a right, but healthcare too.

<comment><USER5> It's nothing to do with sympathy. Many businesses try to charge different prices to different consumers based on ability to pay. If you charge a single fixed price, you'll miss out on some sales (to people who'd buy your product at a lower price) and on some profits (from people who'd pay more than you're charging). It's the same phenomenon behind coupons, sales, 'premium' and 'budget' versions, etc. etc. From a provider's point of view, the fact that someone does or doesn't have insurance is an important signal about what s/he'll pay for medical services, and they're rational to take advantage of it.

<comment><USER4> Well in any case, it my point still stands. They overcharge for insurance. In the end someone still has to pay that extra amount.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I wonder if this controls for various other lifestyle choices.

I find it ironic that the government spends so much money subsidizing high fructose corn syrup, and then spends even more treating the health problems that result from it. If we didn't have an agricultural system that makes unhealthy food cheap and healthy food expensive, perhaps we wouldn't have quite so many obesity-related illnesses.

Same thing with parking lots and interstates being subsidized while dense urban development (walkable/bikeable neighborhoods) is not. Cars kill a lot of people outright through accidents, and then indirectly through people becoming couch potatoes.

Usually by the time people come under care of the health care, the battle's already been lost. Acute, lifesaving interventions on otherwise healthy people aren't all that expensive. Chronic conditions caused by 40 years of neglect are. I'm curious if we'd get both the cheaper health care _and_ the longer life expectancy of European countries if our cities were laid out like theirs and our agricultural system didn't dump massive amounts of subsidies on the corn industry.

<comment><USER7> Good point...poor lifestyle drives healthcare costs up. It would be interesting to see fast food spending or avg calories/day on top of this chart.

<comment><USER8> Couldn't agree more and it's a point a lot of people are hush-huse about because it's easier to point the finger at the system than poor personal habits.

just a small sample... <http://grab.by/1v6n>

<comment><USER9> Here's the thing, I'm a Canadian who's living in the USA. Canada has much lower health care costs - but our dietary patterns are much the same. In fact, I really have not changed my feeding habits _at all_ since coming to the USA.

Yes, unhealthy dietary choices weighs the system down - but it weighs _all_ systems down, and to say it accounts for the majority of the discrepancy is IMHO missing the gorilla in the room, which is that the US health care system is unbelievably broken.

Addendum: There is _one_ thing where the US is very different from Canada. You guys eat the same stuff we do... but you eat _much more_ of it. I'm pretty convinced that the average American can eat _half_ , if not _one quarter_ what they currently do and be just fine. Serving sizes in the US are so big that nowadays I often pack up lunch leftovers and have more than enough for dinner.

<comment><USER10> Canadian diet patterns are significantly different from those in the US. As of 2004, Canada had an obesity rate of 23.1%. The corresponding rate in the US (circa 2005) was 34%.

The big difference here is probably racial. Table 3 of my first link suggests white Canadians are only a little thinner than white Americans. But blacks, particularly black women, are considerably fatter than average. They make up about 12% of the US and 2% of Canada.

[http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-620-m/2005001/article/adults...](http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-620-m/2005001/article/adults- adultes/8060-eng.htm)

[http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-620-m/2005001/article/adults...](http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-620-m/2005001/article/adults- adultes/8060-eng.htm)

<comment><USER6> That wouldn't account for it. Even if every single black person was obese and every single white person was not, a 2%->12% discrepancy in black population could only account for a 10% swing in obesity rates. The rates you cite differ by more than that.

I think that potatolicious's addendum hit the nail on the head though: Americans _eat too much food_. When I cook for myself or eat at Google, my portion size is about 2/3 the typical restaurant portion. Doggy-bags have always been normal when my family ate out - it's not unusual for a restaurant meal to generate at least another couple lunches and sometimes another dinner. We're not fat. I suspect that a lot of Americans don't realize that restaurant portions are sized to accommodate the biggest conceivable person eating there (serving too little food is far worse than serving too much), and that the typical person shouldn't be eating anywhere near that much.

<comment><USER10> True, blacks alone would not account for the disparity. As I mentioned, white Canadians are less obese as well.

But the disparity is much larger for blacks. I mentioned blacks mainly because I could quickly find statistics for them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is a terrible graph. It took me five minutes to figure out how everything is related. Data such as this is much more naturally plotted as an x-y scatter-plot. Thickness of the datapoints could indicate number of doctor visits. Instead, the graph eliminates the x-axis, but retains the space. Very strange choice.

<comment><USER12> Agreed. Here's the same data in a scatter plot (second chart down). Far, far easier to grasp.

[http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2009...](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2009/12/healthcare_spen.html)

<comment><USER11> Thank you. As I suspected, I can immediately read the scatter plot. And the correlation that I wondered about is indeed there.

<comment><USER13> The problem with the scatter plot is that you lose the average cost/average life expectancy info. On the original plot, the UK corresponds roughly to average health care costs and average LE. The slope shows if the country is getting value for money. The upward slope of New Zealand shows that they are spending less money per person than the average yet getting better than average results. The downward slope of Denmark shows that they spend more than the average for inferior results. That information is lost in the scatter plot.

<comment><USER11> But it could easily be added in by having horizontal and vertical lines added that read "average healthcare cost" and "average life expectancy."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'd imagine that computing the cost of health care is an incredibly complex undertaking. Without being able to review the methodology used, this graph is next to useless. For example, here are just a few questions that come to mind (and I'm sure more would arise if the methodology was properly peer reviewed):

1\. Are there no data points between the United States and Switzerland? Are there no data points above the United States and below Mexico? If there are, that would make the graph misleading and they have to specify this limitation if they're intellectually honest. If there aren't, they have to demonstrate that they've gone through the exhaustive list of countries and there are no other "interesting" data points.

2\. Is the cost adjusted for cost of living at a given country? If not, that would make the graph extremely misleading. If yes, what adjustment strategy was used? Can we see the ratio between cost of health care and median yearly salary, for example?

3\. What does "average life expectancy at birth mean"? Does it account for countries that have a significantly lower birth rate than the United States? I would guess not, which could significantly affect the perception of the numbers. How does one normalize for something like that?

4\. How was the currency conversion rate computed? Currency prices fluctuate throughout the year, did they account for that? How much does that affect the numbers? Could be a lot, could be a little, but I need to know whether this was taken into account.

5\. What does "universal health coverage" mean? Soviet Union had universal health coverage and no medication, surgery performed by under-qualified residents, and no post-surgery care, unless you know someone or bribe the doctor, of course.

6\. Surely there are countries without universal health care other than the U.S. and Mexico - how do they stack up?

7\. I'm willing to bet a country like Poland has _a lot_ more homeless people that don't factor into the life expectancy numbers than the U.S. That begs a more general question of whether the same methodology was used for computing the cost or life expectancy for each country. If they simply took official numbers from each country, it's almost certain that they were computed differently. Was this accounted for? If not, I need to know. If yes, how were the numbers normalized?

One could probably come up with dozens of questions like these. Of course any analysis of a problem that complex can be called into question, that doesn't mean every analysis is useless. But before we can seriously discuss this graph, or base any policy decisions on it, they at least have to provide the methodology. It doesn't look like this graph is intellectually honest to me, and the burden of proof is on the author.

</comment><comment><USER15> Graphs are abused.

Graphs are meant to present data clearly and concisely. The most clear and concise presentation method should be used. If it is not, there are reasons to be skeptical.

This graph is not the best presentation imaginable; it's not even mediocre. It is meant to appeal visually to those who already have reached the conclusions it is meant to illicit; it is graph porn.

Health care spending and quality is _very_ complex. What about adjusting for relative wealth (not merely the health care spending share of GDP), lifestyles, racial composition (if I am correct, there are biological differences in addition to the obvious socio-economic ones), preferences (how much would you spend for an extra month), etc. Asking questions like why other countries spend less on drugs (does the U.S. subsidize medical research by spending more or is it merely the one that allows rent seeking or both?)

After doing so, I believe you will still find evidence suggesting that the U.S. system spends more than it should and there can be clearly identified inefficiencies. That is the distilled information that is interesting -- not the merely manipulative.

<comment><USER16> The research question is one that occurred to me. Do these cost data include spending on medical and pharmaceutical research? I would imagine that the bulk of that spending occurs in those same countries that are "above" the average line in this graph, and could contribute to that skewing.

<comment><USER15> U.S. patients certainly subsidize drug research. There are frequent calls for re-importation of drugs from other countries because, often, they are identical to the U.S. drugs, but have been bought by foreign governments exercising monopoly purchasing power. It makes sense for the drug company to sell at the discount because the manufacturing cost is so low that it is still profitable. Consequently, U.S. patients, who do not get the monopoly proxy, pay the higher cost.

This often leads to accusations of price gouging. However, looking at the returns on investment from publicly listed companies suggests that they are not charging extortionary fees. There financial figures are in line with that of the tech industry.

Granted, drug costs only one element among many in the debate, but I am pretty confident in saying that if drug costs were uniform, other countries would be paying more and the U.S. would be paying less (relative to current spending.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Data for missing countries (from a comment written by the author of the original graph):

        HEALTH CARE SPENDING (per person in U.S. dollars)
        Norway: $4,763
        Netherlands: 3,837
        Belgium: 3,595
        Germany: 3,588
        Ireland: 3,424
        Iceland: 3,319
        </comment><comment></comment><comment>-(OECD average: $2,986)
        Greece: 2,727
        Italy: 2,686
        Turkey: 618

        LIFE EXPECTANCY
        Italy: 81.2
        Iceland: 81.2
        Norway: 80.6
        Netherlands: 80.2
        Germany: 79.8
        Ireland: 79.7
        Belgium: 79.5
        Greece: 79.5
        </comment><comment></comment><comment>-(OECD average: 79.2)
        Turkey: 72.1

        DOCTOR VISITS A YEAR
        Belgium: 7.6
        Germany: 7.5
        Iceland: 6.5
        Netherlands: 5.7
        Turkey: 5.6
        Italy: no data
        Norway: no data
        Ireland: no data
        Greece: no data

It's a shame the graph misses data form countries like Italy or German, both countries provides free universal health care.

</comment><comment><USER18> of the three countries that have highest (and surprisingly parallel) slope: japan, south kore, mexico ... it suggests that #visit correlates with LE ... and health coverage is unimportant

but there are countries that have less #visit but more expensive (it suggests patients go to doctor not only for consultation) ... so #visit is an unreliable predictor so is cost

to me it seems the most predictive is location (yes, the country names are data points too) ... if i want to live long, i'll settle in japan and do what the average japanese for their healthy lifestyle

<comment><USER11> The slope of the line is an artifact of the visualization choice.

<comment><USER19> I think the slope is the whole point of the graph and it is supposed represent efficiency although in a very unfortunate way. The angle of the slope is defined by arcsin((life_expectancy - healthcare_costs) / constant). It's a bit like subtracting apples from oranges.

If there's one thing I've learned at engineering school it's that mixing up units of measurement is not a good idea. If you subtract years from dollars the value you get will carry no meaning. And that's why this visualisation is completely meaningless. They should come up with a more clearly defined and sane approach.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Why is hacker news linking to blogspam instead of the original National Geographic website?

The blog is copying Clusterflock which copied kottke which credited biancolo who presumably saw it directly from National Geographic.

[http://blogs.ngm.com/blog_central/2009/12/the-cost-of- care.h...](http://blogs.ngm.com/blog_central/2009/12/the-cost-of-care.html)

</comment><comment><USER21> Some reasons American medicine is very expensive:

1\. Health insurance, but not treatment, is fully tax deductible. So if you buy your own penicillin, it's with after tax money, but if your insurance company buys it, it's pre-tax money. That's one of the reasons that health insurance is so widespred in America even for routine medicine like antibiotics and checkups. That's a major contributing factor in why the administrative costs are so high.

2\. There's a shortage of doctors in America, and qualified doctors from other countries are not allowed to practice medicine in the United States. So there's good doctors from Canada, England, Japan, wherever that'd love to practice in the USA, but can't. This artificially inflates doctor's wages by restricting supply.

3\. American doctors are typically required to get an undergraduate degree, medical degree, and do a below market, crazy hours residency in order to be able to practice medicine. That's 8-10 years of study and below market working to practice medicine. Now, medicine is very important and needs to be done right, but I don't believe for a second that a focused apprenceship couldn't teach a very specific kind of medicine - say arithscopic surgery - in just 2-4 years under a highly trained doctor, but this isn't an option.

4\. The Food and Drug Administration requires new drugs to be proven not only for safety, but also efficacy. That's an incredibly high and expensive burden to meet - that means that drugs need to be proven to work to a certain standard, instead of just not harm. This adds years of development time and millions of dollars in cost to the new drug development cycle.

Those are all legislated reasons that increase the cost of medical insurance, doctors, and drugs. They'd be fairly easy to remove -

1\. All medical and health expenses can be written off taxes regardless of insurance. Employees can choose to convert som of their wages to a medical or health plan tax free to both the employer and employee. (Currently, under most circumstances, only employer-provided health insurance can is tax free)

2\. Allow any doctor in a country with reasonably competent medical standards to practice in the United States.

3\. Require that doctors be able to demonstrate that they can practice their area of medicine capably. Be flexible in how they demonstrate that. Note: This will incur high opposition from medical schools and current doctors who are currently enjoying the wage premium and had to go through the very long, difficult, and expensive system.

4\. Change the drug standard from "safety and efficacy" to only safety. Drugs will come to market much faster and cheaper. There's plenty of people and organizations that will test proven safe drugs for efficacy for free or nominal cost once drugs hit market, and efficacy will get understood with time. Put this way - a proven safe but questionably effective treatment against heart disease being held off the market for five years and costing much more to get to market is not a good thing. If it's certainly safe, then let people make the decisions with their physicians, instead of having the FDA take such a strong gatekeeping stance.

Technology has progressed such that we don't need government protection from ourselves as much any more. The current set of legislation has greatly increased the costs of doctors and medicine. Regardless of political position, and regardless of stance on other health issues, addressing these four points will make the medical system fairer, more effective, and and less expensive with relative ease.

Admittedly, there's some powerful entrenched interests that are winning in the current arrangement, and will oppose these simple improvements.

<comment><USER5> I agree with your overall point that the U.S. medical system suffers from overregulation. We could (and should) allow more primary care to be performed by, for instance, qualified nurses, RNs, and nurse-practitioners. As you point out, the existing guilds hate this idea.

But your first point needs some correction. Health insurance is only tax- deductible when it's paid for by your employer. [EDIT: Just noticed you mention this lower down, but your first paragraph gives a misleading impression.]

This is perverse in multiple ways. There's the way you mention: that it subsidizes health care over other forms of compensation, so we wind up spending more on health care than we would otherwise.

But also, with particular relevance to HN, it subsidizes employment over other kinds of work. If you leave your job to start a startup, you lose a substantial tax advantage.

<comment><USER16> If you are employed but your employer does not offer insurance, ask if they would pay for an individual plan out of payroll withholding. I've done this and it lets you buy insurance pre-tax even if your employer does not have a plan. This is a significant savings.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> In addition to health insurance being broken, it seems like most doctors are really terrible in the U.S. I read the other day that it takes on average seven years to correctly diagnose a medical condition. Some diseases, like celiacs, have an average time until diagnosis of 10 years. If you haven't already read How Doctors Think, it's truly horrifying. Unless you have something like strept throat, you're generally pretty screwed even if you have great medical insurance. And I'm speaking from personal experience here; about three years ago I started having some medical issues, and I went into the doctor the day the symptoms started happening. A dozen doctors and specialists later and I still don't have a correct diagnosis. The fact that I'm probably going to have to wait another 5+ years until I can get the problem even diagnosed is complete bullshit. Now it could just be that I have something that is really hard to diagnose, but more likely the reason no one can figure it out is that medical schools have done their best to select doctors with zero intellectual curiosity who never voluntarily read anything about medicine other than pharma pamphlets. Just look at what happened to Shooter because the 'best' doctors couldn't even diagnose something as trivial as lyme disease: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=868325>

edit: Someone really needs to make a crowdsourced website where you can post all your symptoms and test results, and then offer up a bounty to anyone who can figure out the correct diagnosis.

<comment><USER23> Someone with even a remote familiarity with the practice of medicine would not refer to Lyme disease, one of the great imitators, as 'trivial'. The rest of your post, though forceful, similarly suffers from having no idea what you are talking about.

Regarding the length of time from the onset of low-risk chronic diseases (unpleasant though they may be), you are right that this is a problem but dead wrong about the cause. The problem is overspecialization and undercoordination. An inherent idiocy in the practitioners would be an easy problem to remedy; the truth is much more pernicious.

<comment><USER22> "Someone with even a remote familiarity with the practice of medicine would not refer to Lyme disease, one of the great imitators, as 'trivial'."

The fact that it is an imitator makes it easier to diagnose, because a competent doctor will test you for it whenever you have unexplained symptoms. While it's true that the blood tests aren't very accurate, most of the problem is that doctors just don't get people tested in the first place. And even for chronic lyme that is undetectable because it supposedly forms cysts within the cells, there is a new test up to 50x more accurate than the standard test being developed that you can have access to if you're willing to be part of the trial group.

<comment><USER24> _The fact that it is an imitator makes it easier to diagnose, because a competent doctor will test you for it whenever you have unexplained symptoms._

That is a very unfair thing to say, IMO. You cannot just do unlimited blood tests for everyone who might possibly be at risk of $something. Lyme disease is notoriously hard to diagnose and also very rare. It is unfortunate that the case you referred to turned out the way it did. Our medical knowledge is far from perfect, and no doubt it was a learning experience for everyone involved. But it's going way too far to call the doctors "incompetent". If anything it is our entire medical system that remains "incompetent" and calling out individual practitioners is very unfair.

<comment><USER22> "Lyme disease is notoriously hard to diagnose and also very rare."

It's probably one of the most common, if not the most common, systemic diseases. Any time you have multiple symptoms that can't be explained, lyme is pretty much the first thing a competent doctor would test for. Sorry, but any doctor who heard the list of shooter's symtoms and doesn't instantly think lyme is incompetent. And it's really not that rare, even in absolute terms. Off the top of my head I can think of five friends who have gotten it, and those are only the ones I know of.

<comment><USER24> _I can think of five friends who have gotten it, and those are only the ones I know of._

According to Wikipedia, "the ratio of Lyme disease infection is 7.9 cases for every 100,000 persons". So either you have a staggering number of friends, live in some kind of hot zone ground zero for the disease, or there's some other factor at work.

 _any doctor who heard the list of shooter's symtoms and doesn't instantly think lyme is incompetent_

You talk like Lyme is a solved problem. I do not believe this to be the case. There is a lot of controversy over the condition and it is one of those diseases that people seize upon to explain symptoms they believe themselves to suffer, regardless of medical fact.

Have a read of this: [http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/17/magazine/17LYMEDISEASE.htm...](http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/17/magazine/17LYMEDISEASE.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I think we should show a chart of each country's health care costs relative to how much their lawyers make on health care related malpractice cases. Because in America, it's out of control, and probably the largest reason health care costs so much.

Honestly, a good first step in taming the health care and health insurance costs should be to cap how much lawyers make on malpractice cases.

Why do people rarely talk about tort reform? I apologize if you did, but I just did a quick browser search for "tort" and "lawyer" and got no results.

<comment><USER25> Really, why was I down voted? I'm not sure what was wrong with the comment. I think anyone would agree with the idea of tort reform, just like anyone would agree with the idea of health care reform. But even if you don't, I thought that with Hacker news, you only down vote people when they aren't insightful or off-topic. So, a differing opinion also accounts for down voting now? Like on Digg?

<comment><USER25> Sigh..

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Apart from the utter brokenness of the US system, which needs no further proof I guess, this chart says that health care spending isn't very effective at increasing life expectancy. There are other factors, maybe food, that influence life expectancy much more than health care.

</comment><comment><USER4> Oh I must be stupid. I spent a good three minutes trying to find where the United States was because I scrolled down.

</comment><comment><USER27> That's an awesome and persuasive infographic. In fact, it's main fault is that it's trying too hard to be persuasive. Putting the US above the legend detracts from the power of the raw data and strikes me as being unnecessarily editorial.

<comment><USER28> It's not _that_ awesome when you remember that correlation does not necessarily equal causation.

<comment><USER29> It's not about showing correlation. It's about showing that we're not getting what we're paying for.

<comment><USER28> It fails to definitively show that _we're not getting what we're paying for_ because a graph such as this only shows correlation.

<comment><USER30> You are correct. But, If Americans are paying (av. 7k) per year on health and have a lower life expectancy that other industrialized nations, the data alone suggest Something is going very wrong. Strange that it has some of the highest paid doctors and most profitable health care companies also. Surely there must be an explanation study somewhere? [http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/how-much-do- doc...](http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/how-much-do-doctors-in- other-countries-make/) [http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=103622972.h...](http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=103622972.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> The way the UK hits just at average (for cost and life expectancy) appears to almost make that look intentional.

</comment><comment><USER32> Mexico is in red, which I suppose is "technically" accurate, but the Mexican Constitution guarantees health care to all citizens:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Mexico#Public_he...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Mexico#Public_health_care_delivery)

</comment><comment><USER33> This is just one of many reasons to not startup/move to the US. Don't buy the hype.

</comment><comment><USER34> This is a great infographic with a high data-to-ink density.

<comment><USER35> False. The data in this "infographic" is really best represented as a scatter plot, using much less ink, as shown in [1] and similar other blog posts. The lines are unnecessary and misleading.

It's good that Tufte has made concepts like data-to-ink density popular. But I urge you to actually evaluate that value when you look at a graph and refrain from using it to merely signal your knowledge of the right buzzwords.

[1][http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2009...](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2009/12/healthcare_spen.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> it's a great graph to illustrate how f-up healthcare in US is.

however, may I point out that life expectancy at birth is pretty poor measure of healthcare efficiency.

japanese are living very long lives, but it is no secret that depression and suicide is the major problem there, especially in younger generations.

</comment><comment><USER37> Go Obama Go!</comment>


Defining your Core Values - <AUTHOR>

The best wake up call:
1. Write your obituary as you would want it to read.
2.  List the milestones it contained in order of achievement.
3.  Only work towards those things.  Nothing else matters.
Discuss in the comments, would love to hear your thoughts.
@GrantSchultz <comment><USER2> The thing is that most people don't know what they want. A lot of people _think_ they know what they want, but very few do. Just the other day I had a snowball fight, and it was great fun and a wonderful experience. When I woke up that morning it certainly wasn't in my calendar - I had totally forgotten how much fun fighting with snow is.

Also, it's much more about the process than the goal. Notice that people who reach their goals simply set new ones, painters paint whether they're paid or not, hackers hack in their freetime, etc.

<comment><AUTHOR> The process wouldn't exist without the goal in mind. Whether or not the 'original' goal is achieved, we gain life experiences through our pursuit of happiness, achievement, satisfaction etc

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Hmm, not to get overly philosophical here, but it really depends on what you believe the purpose of life is. If you go very far down this route some people see that there really is no "point". Not to say life isn't worth living (don't worry this isnt my final post), but spontaneity definitely should be included. Like anything its a balance, but one that is hard to calibrate.

</comment><comment><USER4> Loved people in time, money and spirit. And created beautiful software that brought people together.

Not sure if order matters, though doing the latter makes the former easier. =)

<comment><AUTHOR> @rantfoil Great point. The argument can be made that ALL software is social. In building great software, we build community. Open source forums around the globe, or social networking around the corner.</comment></comment>


Netflix Lowers Outlook, Citing Disgruntled Customers  - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/business/media/netflix-lowers-outlook-citing-disgruntled-customers.html <comment><USER2> Netflix needs to figure out how to announce fee hikes without provoking outrage. If they intend to become a serious replacement for cable or satellite subscriptions, they will need to bring in a comparable amount of revenue. That means Netflix's fees will have to go up dramatically over the next few years.

<comment><USER3> How does one announce price hikes without provoking outrage?

<comment><USER2> Couple the hikes with announcements of new streaming content? No one will be _happy_ with a fee hike, but they should perceive that it's going to improve the service rather than a cash grab to bump Netflix's stock.</comment></comment></comment>


How the Coronavirus Short-Circuits the Immune System - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/26/health/coronavirus-immune-system.html <comment><USER2> For the record, the Thymus does _not_ produce new T cells. New T cells are formed from stem cells in bone marrow.

What the Thymus does do, is it plays a key role in prune auto-reactive T cell lines. As the only organ in the body which expresses pretty much the entire antigenic profile of the body, it is critical in ensuring that the cells which keep us safe from viral/parasitic/microbial threats do not end up waging a war against our own body.

By cruel twist of fate, however, this critical gland is progressively atrophied by long term exposure to sex hormones.

Last I was actively researching it, this was positedto be a factor in increased prevalence of auto-immune problems in the elderly.

Interestingly enough, this does explain a couple Thai (or was it Taiwanese?) studies I remember seeing early on in the Coronavirus outbreakthat apparently showed some promise in using HIV drugs to help with treating the Coronavirus.</comment>


Show HN: Ava – an app to make conversations accessible for the deaf/hoh - <AUTHOR> http://www.ava.me <comment><USER2> Yes! As a profoundly deaf person, I have the hardest time with conversations, especially group conversations. If this works anywhere close to as advertised, it should help me out immensely. I'm very excited that someone is working in this space!

I envision a day when even normal hearing people wear hearing aids and have assisting devices to give them essentially super-hearing, or more selective hearing. It's kind of strange being profoundly deaf, but having situations where I can actually hear better than my friends, because my hearing aid filters out things!

Edit: I played around with it a bit by myself. It seems to work as well as any other text-to-speech, but I do like the interface. I'll test it out more this week and see how it goes!

<comment><AUTHOR> Awesome, let us know via the app how you find it. The key is for group conversations: multiple people talking, which is really dope for accuracy vs. your understanding, is my guess :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I think you need to mention the word deaf in the headline as I was confused as to what this did until I clicked back and noticed dead in the hn description.

Otherwise looks great!</comment>


Wisconsin Supreme Court justice internment of Japanese over stay-at-home order - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/05/politics/wisconsin-supreme-court-coronavirus-hearing-japanese-american-internment/index.html <comment><AUTHOR> Note this was back in May.

Interesting quote:

"Could the secretary under this broad delegation of legislative power or legislative-like power order people out of their homes into centers where are they are properly social distanced in order to combat the pandemic?" she asked, adding: "The point of my question is what are the limits, constitutional or statutory? There have to be some, don't there, counsel?"</comment>


Wine build that runs 32-bit Windows applications on 64-bit-only macOS Catalina - <AUTHOR> https://www.codeweavers.com/about/blogs/jwhite/2019/12/10/celebrating-the-difficult-the-release-of-crossover-19 <comment><AUTHOR> Currently the most technical explanation of how this works is here: [https://www.codeweavers.com/about/blogs/jschmid/2019/9/10/so...](https://www.codeweavers.com/about/blogs/jschmid/2019/9/10/so- we-dont-have-a-solution-for-catalinayet)</comment>


Hacker Leaks Episodes from Netflix Show and Threatens Other Networks - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/29/business/media/netflix-hack-orange-is-the-new-black.html <comment><USER2> I actually don't think this will hurt Netflix at all. Part of the value Netflix provides is ease of use. It's just there ready to go. Maybe if you are a hardcore fan you'll download the new season but most people will just wait. Why? Because people are _lazy_ and are willing to pay for convenience. If the hacker somehow put up all the episodes on a site and it was just one click to stream then maybe I'd go for it. But overall I'd say it might actually be a net positive for Netflix (more press!)

<comment><USER3> As long as you don't unsubscribe from Netflix they actually save money (not taking into account the minimal new subs lost due to people watching the pirated version and hence not signing up).

<comment><USER4> I doubt anyone was waiting to sign up to get non-first season of a single show, and now wouldn't sign up. Especially with the type of show where you'd be lost or at least miss half the context by not watching the earlier seasons.

At best, this person would be signing up for a month then cancelling after finishing the season, and Netflix had a one month free trial, so I'm having a hard time seeing how Netflix is materially impacted here at all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is mildly surprising, because if your company wants to work in post production you need to pass a quarterly marvel/MPAA audit.

Amongst the things specified are: o air gapped network

o All internet through a RDP/VDI service (no copy and paste..)

o all devices to be physically locked away

o all mass storage drivers to be removed

o Physical segmentation of all workspaces

o many other things

[http://www.mpaa.org/content-security-program/](http://www.mpaa.org/content- security-program/)

The other thing to note is that this is an audio facility, which is usually the last, or second to last point before release. It also by default has the whole film/show in one place, which outside of finishing and distribution is quite rare.

<comment><USER6> Not necessarily post production but the security at Discovery Channel was pretty poor when I worked there. Massive open directory where everyone tossed files. Didn't want to snoop around and get in trouble but I heard from some people there it's pretty laughable. It didn't even require a login...

<comment><USER7> IANAL, but I would never leave such a comment under a nickname that is tied to my real name - you are kind of disclosing their internal security procedures or lack thereof in a public forum.

<comment><USER8> Bah it's the Internet. Someone somewhere on the internet said something that could or could not be true. Because no one ever lied on the internet for fake credibility. I think that should be suitable defense enough.

<comment><USER9> It's not a suitable defence if it's attached to your real name and you did work in the company you named.

<comment><USER6> My employment contract was fairly bare bones. If they'd rather come after me for saying their security from years ago was weak so be it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > "It didn't have to be this way, Netflix," the message said. "You're going to > lose a lot more money in all of this than what our modest offer was."

The only money netflix could potentially lose here is the small cross section of people who only subscribe for a single month to watch this show along with people who know how to use bittorrent.

<comment><USER11> If anything, they'd stand to lose a lot more over the long term by creating a precedent of caving to ransom demands.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> That guy is living an another planet. All this blackmailing and threat messages are crazy. No one is gonna pay money to a shady character for a video.

They always end up on torrent around the release, sometimes before. It's fact of life. Videos are simply not valuable.

P.S. Apparently, that guy used to deface hospitals and ask for a ransom to restore their files.

<comment><USER12> Your P.S. is at the bottom of the article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is a criminal act, and of course I don't condone it, but at the same time I do hope that some good comes out of it - particularly with regards to the attention which all organisations given to IT security.

Most organisations wouldn't feel comfortable with:

a) Not having locks on their buildings

b) Having known-defective locks on their building

c) Not doing regular audits of the locks their using vs. what criminals can crack

d) Not having reasonable organisation-wide policies to make sure the locks are used properly and kept secure

Yet I don't think that there is quite enough attention given to IT security. It still seems like primarily a "box ticking" exercise, or a case of throwing rules and regulations at the problem which make sense at face value, but are inherently flawed.

<comment><USER14> In the US at least a lot of organizations and most homes have piss-poor locks that are a lot easier to pick than their IT security is to crack. I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's not the best analogy.

<comment><USER15> We lost the key for the bedroom window the GF seemed positively shocked when I took a small flat-headed screwdriver and 'picked' (I use quotes because it wasn't really picking since I only had to push in two places and the lock popped) it in under 90s.

A lot of security is visual deterrent and to make legal clarity in the instance of "Did you enter the room or break the lock _then_ enter the room?" since former doesn't imply criminal intent, the latter does.

<comment><USER16> A person can still be guilty of "breaking and entering" if a house is unlocked. But breaking/picking a lock definitely is a stronger case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The whole Dr. Evil routine is a hoot. So over the top! He thinks the whole world is totally crapping their drawers at the sound of his fearsome words!

</comment><comment><USER18> I don't think this will hurt Netflix too much, if anything it might lessen the load on their servers...

<comment><USER19> I would tend to agree with you, especially because the season is supposed to have more than 10 episodes (13 or so). Also, probably a very tiny fraction of people already paying for Netflix would choose to go the pirating route.

<comment><USER20> Not that I am necessarily disagreeing with your conclusion, but wouldn't Netflix be more concerned about failing to sign up non-customers who would have otherwise signed up, had it not been not for the leak?

<comment><USER21> Who would sign up just to watch the fifth season? If someone was swayed by the marketing he'd probably want to watch from season one.

We are left with a minority that has watched the first four seasons but left Netflix sometime in the last year and were planning to come before season 5 but with the leak would decide to pirate it instead.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Isn't odd that: "The Federal Bureau of Investigation learned of the episode at Larson Studios in January but did not start notifying the content companies until a month ago."?? As one other poster here noted about companies like netflix staggering their releases for more evenly distributing their content throughout the year, I can not see why the fbi would want to stagger the release of their notifications and other such "releases". Doesn't make sense.

</comment><comment><USER23> Netflix will be fine I guess.

I think the reason for Netflix to release Orange is the New Black in June is to have fresh new contents space out for the year.

Seeing how Netflix pivoting into a content creator and content provider is second (gonna be distant second because of Hulu). I think the spacing/pacing between contents is a good think for them.

Hulu is own by several production companies btw so they're eating into Netflix as a content provider.

Also Amazon and HBO is adding pressure to Netflix.

It's interesting because Netflix is always on that tight path and one misstep will cost them very big.

</comment><comment><USER24> If they pay, it gives them more reasons to come back next year to another studio and go for another round, thus it becomes part of a yearly recurring expense every studio must account for in their balance sheets lol

</comment><comment><USER25> Good thing we stopped paying digital terrorists

</comment><comment><USER26> The NTY calls it "theft" when it in fact is just copying ;)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4)

</comment><comment><USER27> > This specific breach highlights a risk posed by the weak security practices > in the postproduction studios that manage the release of proprietary > entertainment content. While companies like Netflix and Fox might invest in > state-of-the-art cybersecurity defense technology, they must also rely on an > ecosystem of postproduction vendors, ranging from mom-and-pop shops to more > sophisticated outfits like Dolby and Technicolor, which may not deploy the > same level of cybersecurity and threat intelligence.

I'm guessing that "they must also rely on" means that they outsource to non- union shops to cut expenses.

<comment><USER5> Even non-union shops have to be audited.....

<comment><USER27> Well, Larson Studios apparently wasn't. Or at least, not very carefully.

<comment><USER28> Audits are hardly perfect, nor are they intended to be.

One could argue that the fact that a leak of this scope and scale hasn't happened before (OITNB is just one of possibly dozens of shows leaked) is evidence supporting that the policies and audits are working.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Charity offers UK drug addicts £200 to be sterilised - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11545519

<comment><USER2> Am I missing something or is it impossible for a male addict to "pass on the dependency to the unborn child, leading to organ and brain damage."?

<comment><USER3> It's highly likely that there is a genetic component to addiction.

This sounds like eugenics -- and the Wikipedia entry on the charity [0] is also somewhat disturbing. However, is this really any different from handing out free condoms?

I'm not sure.

[0] [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Project_Preve...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Project_Prevention)

<comment><USER4> The genetic component doesn't make you stick a needle in your arm in the first place - so it is irrelevant.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> mightnt be such a bad idea with the world over populated and such...

<comment><AUTHOR> The aim appears to be more about stopping children being born with defects caused by the parents' drug use, and stopping children being born to unsuitable parents.

Tackling world overpopulation will be achieved by far more controversial methods than birth control of a minority group...</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Tell me something that's spread around on a couple of (cocky) websites - <AUTHOR>

Something that needs a centralized solution. <comment><USER2> I'm not even sure what that means! What _does_ that mean? an example?</comment>


HSBC to cut another 25,000 jobs - <AUTHOR> http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/01/news/international/hsbc_jobs/

<comment><USER2> Why is this specific to HN? It's just news.</comment>