How to assess the quality of garments (2014) - <AUTHOR> https://anuschkarees.com/blog/2014/05/01/how-to-assess-the-quality-of-garments-a-beginners-guide-part-i/ <comment><USER3> In a previous life when I wore suits to work on a frequent basis, I got interested in this topic and spent way too much time learning about it. I now have a closet full of quality clothes that I wear much less frequently, but, for whatever it's worth, they'll last me the rest of my life.

There's a lot of good info in this article, but there's also a lot more beyond it. For example, it mentions (accurately) that the fineness of cotton and wool fibers is an indicator of its quality, but the fiber length is a greater indicator of quality. Unfortunately, cotton and wool products are frequently marketed according to their fiber diameters (e.g., "800 thread count bed sheets" and "Super 100s" wools for suits), but you will never see the fiber length listed. You need to either be able to feel the fabric to assess its fiber length (something that I was never really able to do well) or rely on the recommendation of someone else who can. It's like saying that a network link has 10Gb bandwidth but failing to mention its 100ms minimum latency.

Another item that they mention that is frequently misunderstood is that there are different types of fabrics, especially wools. Just because a specific type of wool such as merino is mentioned doesn't mean that it's good quality. There is both junk merino and excellent merino. Just because it came from a merino sheep doesn't mean it's great. The same goes for cashmere, alapaca, angora, mohair, camel, etc. It's like saying that it's an SSD rather than a 7200rpm HDD. The former is almost certainly better, but there are still a wide range of SSD characteristics to be evaluated.

Yet another item is that while it is true that expensive clothes are not necessarily high quality clothes, it is almost always the case that high quality clothes are expensive. Or rather, they're expensive upfront but often turn out to be more economical over the life of the garment. In either case, they will be more pleasant to wear than a lower quality alternative.

And the Last item, since I could go on indefinitely about this, is that garment quality should be assessed on three axes -- quality of materials, quality of construction, and fit. If the first is lacking, the garment's material will pill, rip, fray, or just plain wear out too fast. If the second if lacking, it will fall apart too soon. If the last is lacking, it will be uncomfortable and look bad on you. The trick is, of course, to find garments which have all three.

<comment><USER4> Do you have any high-quality clothing stores that you recommend?

<comment><USER3> What kind of clothes are you looking for? In general, it's hard to find stores where you can walk in and be assured that anything they carry is high quality. Even the high-end department stores such as Saks Fifth Ave. and Neiman Marcus are going to carry a lot of "fashion" brands that are expensive but not necessarily good quality. Some local boutiques (e.g., Louis Boston though it too has declined in recent years) may still provide that, but you typically have to either discover those on your own or have friends who are already in the know. These days, I wear a lot more chinos than suits and I buy most of mine from Bill's Khakis ([https://www.billskhakis.com](https://www.billskhakis.com) \-- no affiliation, of course). They are not cheap, but their fabrics and construction are significantly better than anything you'll find at a mass retailer and they have several different fits, one of which works quite well for me. Another nice thing about them is that their fits are consistent. I have, from time to time, found decent pairs at lower-end retailers such as Uniqlo, but the model that fits me well lasts only for one season and I can never find it again.

<comment><USER5> Your comments have been really informative. I have no knowledge of fabrics or clothes, but I can second Bill's Khakis. I had a pair that lasted many years - looked and felt better than maybe any other pair of pants I've owned.

<comment><USER6> Based on Bill's prices I feel compelled to mention signing up for their email list yields a 30% discount code. That's a $48 discount on one pair of pants.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> In high school during the summers I worked as a seamstress making vastly overpriced custom curtains for an interior designer. I learned a quick & dirty method of judging the quality of just about anything made of fabric: look at the fabric grain relative to the primary vertical seams (pant legs, jacket sleeve, shirt torso).

The angle at which a piece of fabric is cut can drastically change the shape/fit of the item but "cheap" items are often made quickly and not much care is given to lining up the pattern correctly before cutting. If you've ever had a t-shirt that always seems to twist on you, it's because of the way the fabric was cut. On the other hand, if someone has taken the time to line up the pattern with the selvage, you can just about guarantee they haven't cut any major corners with the rest of the piece.

The fabric "grain" should be parallel to the seam. Take a look at Primark seams and then take a look at Brooks Brothers seams and you'll immediately see the difference/know what to look for. Expensive jeans seem to be the biggest offender in my experience.

<comment><USER8> >Take a look at Primark seams and then take a look at Brooks Brothers seams

I'm not familiar with either. Which store is supposed to have the better seams?

<comment><USER9> Primark is a very cheap store - t-shirts for £2, trousers for £8 etc. It is fast fashion so stuff changes rapidly and frequently. If there is something on the catwalk at a fashion show that causes a lot of interest or someone famous wears something particularly noteworthy in a magazine photo, Primark will have something very similar to it in their stores within a week or two. Primark is hugely popular in the UK and elsewhere in Europe. Tourists at the central London stores (which are HUGE by the way - the size of a typical department store of years past) literally flock there.

The shopping experience is often chaotic (clothes strewn all over the place) and quality is generally not thought to be great - stuff might last only a few washes ... but it varies - I have a generic blue hoodie from Primark that cost less than £10 but it has lasted literally years and has some high quality features like the ends of the draw strings are finished in metal (not plastic and not just tied) so have not frayed or come apart. I don't think their quality is any worse than other high street retailers though - often they charge 3x 4x or more prices for equivalent quality.

I will certainly be using this guide in the future to pick the finest Primark has to offer!

<comment><USER10> Same experience here, Primark clothes are always dirt cheap but the quality varies wildly. As I can't tell the difference, I have T-shirts from there that have practically self-destructed after one wash, and others that have kept good and comfy for years!

<comment><USER11> When you source from the cheapest vendors, sometimes you get lucky with a quality manufacturer that just happened to have excess capacity to make some stuff from Primark or whoever else.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It's interesting how synthetics were mostly lumped together and largely undifferentiated. To be fair, that post is over 5 years old and some seemingly significant advances in fabrics for consumer garments have become widely available in the meantime.

I've personally come to feel cotton is vastly over-rated as a clothing material for anything but cost-saving goals (which certainly is an important factor.) Of course there's the old adage "Cotton Kills", referring to cold weather, but it's also miserably subpar for hot conditions for some of the same reasons: as it absorbs sweat the fibers swell and reduce the fabric's breathability, leading to increased body heat retention. You may be inclined to think a wet fabric aids in cooling but that effect is short lived once evaporation can't keep up with the addition of more perspiration and air movement slows to almost none. And that's before we even get into the resulting bacterial overgrowth, AKA body odor, for which cotton is notoriously awful at mitigating.

So, anyhow, if you have the time, means, and inclination, I highly recommend looking at newer fabric alternatives like lyocell (typically found as the branded names of Tencel, Modal, or Viscose).

And you should always consider merino wool and hemp, which are most often found combined with a synthetic or two, typically for improved elasticity and shape retention, but also for increased comfort since they are both not historically known for their softness. Wool is in many ways the holy grail of fabrics (for reasons which you can find in fantastic detail online) and the relatively new variant of merino only improves on a well-earned reputation. Whereas hemp, despite reigning as the indisputable champion of strength and durability for literally thousands of years in _non-clothing applications_ , has recently seen a resurgence thanks to various factors, notably improvements in comfort. (That said, my personal experience with hemp clothing has shown that it still leaves something to be desired in the area of real world durability, from the perspective of the several various pieces of clothing I've owned--mostly shirts, plus a couple pants--starting in the late 1990s and purchased as recently as 2019.)

<comment><USER13> "I've personally come to feel cotton is vastly over-rated as a clothing material for anything but cost-saving goals (which certainly is an important factor.) Of course there's the old adage "Cotton Kills", referring to cold weather ..."

FWIW, cotton is very useful as an underlayer for firefighting.

It's very important to not have any synthetic fabrics as underlayers - especially in a wildland/forest fire situation where a flash of heat that might only result in a first degree burn of your skin melts the synthetic fabric _to your skin_.

<comment><USER14> Wouldn't you want to use Nomex for this kind of thing? It's synthetic and extremely flame-resistant, which is why it's used for clothing for firefighters, race car drivers, and military pilots.

<comment><USER15> It is an option but it is neither particularly breathable, nor flexible, nor inexpensive.

For some PPE all you are looking for is no-melt (which would leave molten goo on your skin that would increase the damage)or provides a minimal level of protection, e.g. NFPA 70E PPE level 1 for arc flash, suitable to your expected risk exposure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> How refreshing to see something like this on HN; I want to iterate that there is an inextricable link between textiles and computer technology going back to the invention of the loom

<comment><USER17> techwear has been a trendy industry for solid 5+ years now

<comment><USER18> Can you give some trending examples that are not just phones strapped to the body?

<comment><USER19> That isn't what techwear means [https://www.grailed.com/drycleanonly/an- introduction-to-tech...](https://www.grailed.com/drycleanonly/an-introduction- to-techwear)

<comment><USER18> Oh, I see. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I get what the article is getting at, its lovely for what it is trying to do.

my take: Cloths are what people you meet look at. They create a mood in the spectator and leave an impression of who you are. First you have to figure out who you are, who you use to be and who you want to become. Who are the people you meet? they use to be what? who do you want them to be? After doing that you pick cloths that compliment the becoming part without flying to far from who you/they are.

Try wearing a kilt or a lederhose and watch the world around you change.

If you look at today's fashion its like everyone is heading to a funeral. Like they got tired of carrying their soul around then forget where they left it.

<comment><USER21> Is everyone not heading to a funeral? ;)

<comment><USER22> Not me! I'll never go to one and have it in my will that there won't be one when I pass.

<comment><USER23> Your Earthly remains will be disposed of, that's your funeral, the form of yours may differ to others.

May I ask why you'll "never go to one", and perhaps how old you are?

<comment><USER22> I'm 35. Just not interested.

Don't have a big family and the ones that are alive live far away. I'm not going to waste my time to travel for a funeral. Not many friends either to be honest.

And as for myself, I don't think having the crematorium dispose of my cremains counts as a funeral but whatever.

<comment><USER23> I've not suffered much in terms of death of loved ones, I'm not much older than you, but you'd probably be surprised by who will miss you: a funeral is for those left behind and in my experience (which is like I said limited) is a help to coping with grief. A funeral just needs to be a chance for people to remember, talk, share.

<comment><USER22> I don't think I'll be surprised at all. I'll be dead.

The ones of people who I care about are aware of what I want. I have a chronic and incurable disease where sudden death isn't that unlikely. I've come close once and I don't remember being scared and it didn't hurt. Just a thing that happened.

Nobody should be surprised by it at this point. Accept that it might happen and if it doesn't something else will get me in the end.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> This is really cool! I've complained recently to several people near me that it's difficult for me to know whether the clothes I'm buying will last. It doesn't seem like there's much correlation between price and quality, so frustrating to spend more money and have something fall apart. Now I have a nice detailed guide.

> [...] almost every garment needs a little tailoring to make it fit the > contours of our shape.

Honestly never thought about tailoring the clothes I buy in the mall, I always just thought of that as something you do with expensive suits and dresses. Now I have to start tinkering with my clothes...

<comment><USER25> It seems even basic clothes tinkering takes some skill. I had a pair of jeans with a hole, so I patched on a piece of an old pair whose legs were too long. Kept eventually coming off. Maybe a sewing machine was needed.

<comment><USER26> If you don't have a sewing machine, and you're interested in repairing/tailoring your own clothes (and most importantly you have the time) it's well worth looking into historic sewing methods. Hand sewing can be just as strong if not stronger than machine sewing, it just takes the right techniques and the time and patience to sit there and do it.

I've found the two most useful stitches I've picked up are the felling stitch, which is great for hemming and finishing seams that unravel; and darning for filling in holes, because instead of adding a patch you are essentially re- weaving a small area of fabric.

Proper denim jeans are quite hard to mend though even if you know what you're doing, especially if you've worn through/blown out the inner thigh region. Wherever you've sewn will become a new point of stress on the denim and it is likely to just pull away the weave of the fabric from that point.

<comment><USER27> > _Proper denim jeans are quite hard to mend though even if you know what you > 're doing, especially if you've worn through/blown out the inner thigh > region. Wherever you've sewn will become a new point of stress on the denim > and it is likely to just pull away the weave of the fabric from that point._

This happens to every pair of mine, and is always the reason I am forced to retire them. Do you think it'll help if I reinforced the inside with old denim from another pair?

<comment><USER28> Should do, if it's stitched down properly. Have a look at Levi 511 "commuter" to see how it's done, basically two extra triangles of fabric.

<comment><USER29> this is known as a "gusset"

outlier pants also have this feature, makes biking or just walking around a breeze

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Disclosure: I'm coming from a blue collar background as a master diesel mechanic

Quality is build + aesthetic for me. Some brands i wear include Texas jeans, Chippewa boots, and all american clothing company. The quality from domestic apparel is in my experience massively superior to foreign brands.

Carhartt jackets for winter are incredibly warm and gave great value, but their aesthetic isn't always popular. They last nearly forever.

Another point in quality is how easy the garment is to service. My boots are resoled once a year by a local cobbler, and my leather jacket from legendary leather is also quite serviceable at a local dry cleaner. I try to avoid throwing away jackets or shoes/boots.

<comment><USER6> >but their aesthetic isn't always popular.

My Carhartt clothing is some of the best made and longest wearing I own. You're going to laugh but Carhartt is trying to go upmarket and establish themselves as a fashion brand in Europe! Imagine my surprise to trip across a Carhartt store with a wall of gimme caps / trucker hats on display in Frankfurt, Germany!

Hopefully they expand their profitability by getting their name out there rather than cutting costs on material and quality but I've already seen some Amazon reviews alleging the new stuff is sourced out of China with a drop in quality. If that's actually true and it's not just counterfeits flooding Amazon I'll be looking at Schaefer or Cinch next.

<comment><USER31> Carhartt WIP has been an European streetwear brand for years now. I wrote an introduction four years ago to this brand in /r/streetwear. [https://www.reddit.com/r/streetwear/comments/2d0gi4/brand_in...](https://www.reddit.com/r/streetwear/comments/2d0gi4/brand_in..).

<comment><USER32> I think it's been a general trend for a while (at the very least since the dawn of hip hop, probably punk) that working-class work wear has been leaning towards fashion (Same for military wear).

Even Swedish Blåklädar ([https://www.blaklader.se/](https://www.blaklader.se/)) , which is AFAIK a fairly new brand, seem to have to lines ; a low quality, highly priced "fashion" line, and an affordable, high quality "work wear" line (that actually market to construction etc businesses, and often include safety wear features with appropriate certifications).

It drives me nuts that it's getting harder and harder to find decent "real" surplus military clothing and cheap work wear (maybe especially in Europe?) - while many of the "same" brands are readily available as overpriced fashion wear.

This really became apparent when I figured out that Blåklädar actually have a handful of stores deticated for b2b (vat not included in prices, generally require a business billing address to purchase) - which quite apart from the not included vat, we're cheaper and generally more "functional" than the stuff with the same brand carried by retailers...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Its only mentioned once or twice in the article but I don't think it can be emphasized enough

 _A high quality garment not only looks good, but it feels good to wear._

I have people ask me almost daily if I'd like to take my suit jacket off, and I explain to them that because my jacket fits properly and it's made of decent materials, it's quite comfortable to wear.

One of the great fashion tragedies was Jos A Banks and Men's Wearhouse making American men believe suiting is an uncomfortable sack which you should strip off at the first possible moment.

Or to borrow from Dion Sanders (American football player who was known for dressing and undressing his kit multiple times before a game until he got it just right):

 _" If you look good, you feel good, and if you feel good, you play good."_

</comment><comment><USER34> >. And: If there aren't any pills on the garment when you try it on (not even on the collar, cuffs or inner thighs), the item gets a major thumbs up.

From my understanding, this is something that manufacturers have been gaming a lot by treating cheap quality wool so it is very soft and does not pill while in the store but after 2 or 3 washes you will realize that it pills like crazy. While that rougher wool (because it has longer fibers) might be itchy in the store but it will soften up and won't pill.

Same thing with selvedge denim. 10 years ago it was synonym with quality.

Nowadays it means absolutely nothing (when it isn't just a fake selvedge).

</comment><comment><USER35> I mostly dress pretty casually: jeans and a T shirt is pretty typical. My shirts "fail" not because of stitching or things like that. Most of the time they get armpit stains from deodorant after probably 20 time I wear them or so. At that point I toss them. I don't see how higher laity fabric would result in anything different, so I stick to cheaper basic shirts for everyday wear. I like clothes, but I like variety. I'd rather have 4 different belts I can mix and match, and replace them for $10-20 when they wear our rather than the one indestructible $100 belt. Quality clothing is good, cheap clothing has its uses too.

<comment><USER36> Try the "prescription strength" antiperspirant. You will sweat much less.

It's more expensive, but you use less of it, so each container lasts longer. So it's not much more expensive in the long run by my experience. Especially if it saves you money on shirts.

<comment><USER37> For me what finally worked was counterintuitive. I stopped wearing antiperspirant altogether. The heavy duty stuff did cause me to sweat less in my armpits but I found I sweat everywhere else more. And I still had pit stains. Switched to deodorant and found that I was sweating less, and pit stains are a complete thing of the past.

<comment><USER38> I second this. I had debilitating underarm sweat and continually ruined shirts with pit stains. I switched from antiperspirant to a simple deodorant. I sweat SO much less in the arm pit area and I never sweat through my shirts anymore (unless I'm working out, of course).

Undershirts have been a good win as well - keeps the chemicals off my real shirt, and if you get high-end ones, they're light and breathable and don't make me any warmer.

I can't believe antiperspirant continues to exist as a product. Must be working for somebody.

<comment><USER39> This is like a secret that unbelievably hasn't hit the mainstream. If you sweat heavily pretty much no antiperspirant will work as advertised. Some of the prescription brands have you applying the night before and I had some success but they tended to tear up my armpits and ultimately fail. Personally I see a direct correlation between alcohol consumption and sweating. I discovered that as an unintended consequence during a 30 day detox. If I limit my alcohol intake and use just a deodorant I find myself much better off. Worth experimenting with if you've tried everything else.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> For decades style has generally trended toward informal so I'd be interested in an article focusing on informal and sportswear.

I own formal clothes, smart casual, business casual, but as trends continue I'll probably never wear any of that stuff again, other than maybe some smart casual on dates with my wife.

Lots of people spend all their time at work and home looking like they're dressed for a picnic at the park or are on the way to the gym, so it would be interesting to see an article focusing on that kind of clothing.

I don't mind looking like I'm permanently on the way to the gym; I would like to look good doing so.

<comment> GuB-42 That article addresses most styles of clothing. It is about quality, not fashion. And assessing the quality of cotton fibers and stitches can be done on both T-Shirts and fancy dresses.

What may be lacking is a section on printed garments.

Sportswear is another matter. These are technical clothes, designed for performance, with characteristics that depends on the particular sport. You won't use the same clothes for mountaineering and for weightlifting at the gym.

For day to day wearing, my preferences goes to light hiking clothes. They tend to be:

\- Comfortable

\- Reasonably durable

\- Quick drying

\- Breathable and/or waterproof

\- Not too flashy, acceptable in most settings

\- With pockets, often with zippers

\- Low maintenance, somewhat stain and dirt resistant

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Personally I've always considered clothes (or "garments" if you prefer) to be a necessity and as long as they were comfortable, fit ok, and lasted a good while to be sufficient.

Style is pretty far down on my list of wants. Levi's and a good T-shirt are enough for me, but no so much for my wife. She complains on occasion about my lack of interest in style and status symbols.

The best dressed man I've ever met was the owner of Hennessy Cognac. I helped build custom cars for him and his son back in the `70s. One day I commented on how nice his suits were, and that I'd not seen him wear the same one twice.

He told "I wear a new suit everyday. I have three tailors in Italy making them for me. They send me swatches of material each week and I select those I like."

I commented "You must have a closet bigger than our house." and he told me "No, I give them all away after I wear them. I'd give you one if you were my size." He went on to say he donated them to places where they could help those who couldn't afford a nice suit and needed one to get a good job.

</comment><comment><USER42> My girlfriend works in this industry, and I'm grateful for this article teaching me how complicated her work is!

When she first told me she works with Gerber files on a daily basis, I couldn't believe it. I thought those were just for designing PCBs! In fact, I still think that if she could transfer her skills, she could probably get a visa more easily. It's fun to walk around the sewing shops too, which have lots of little blue drawers, quite similar to the electronics stores that I enjoy.

I had a fashion idea once: a tailored shirt with a red hem, so that the white buttons would be reminiscent of the windows in the cheatline on old aeroplanes. It seems the whole industry is built on branding and marketing though, so the technical side is practically a commodity.

Nevertheless, I'm still pleased to see sewing machines in the hackerspace. I often need to fix my trousers - it's great that they have lots of pockets and the thin fabric dries quickly, but they keep ripping in an embarrassing place between my legs when cycling.

<comment><USER43> > I had a fashion idea once: a tailored shirt with a red hem, so that the > white buttons would be reminiscent of the windows in the cheatline on old > aeroplanes.

When you say hem, do you mean placket?

If so, i like this idea. There are online custom tailors, like Bivolino and iTailor, that will let you customise the placket fabric and buttons (and more) of a shirt, so you could do this. I have a few shirts where i've done just that, although not in your colour scheme - i like a white or pale blue pattern for the base fabric, and then a bold floral pattern on the collar and placket.

<comment><USER42> Yes, I meant placket! Thanks for the ideas of custom tailors; I'll check out their prices.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I choose clothing mostly to be low maintenance, functional, and inexpensive over the long-term. I had (apparently incorrectly given the discussions here) assumed that to be the norm around here. The amount of people expressing difficulty finding clothing that lasts also surprises me. Maybe it's because I'm a guy or maybe it's because I've never purchased from a fast fashion brand. (?) In my experience a typical adult men's clothing item from Walmart will last hundreds of wearings and washings, no special picking through the options needed. (I'm talking just regular clothes--coats, footwear, gloves, etc are probably exceptions to this).

The only area I've had trouble with is finding casual, easy slip on/off everyday shoes that last a long time. I wear the same shoes literally everyday and always seem to wear the soles out in less than a year. (Perhaps I'm asking too much here there because I'm on my feet a lot?) Any tips on this would be appreciated.

<comment><USER18> There are tips out there to have 2-3 pairs of shoes and rotate between them since the downtime for airing out lets them last longer, apparently.

(Not sure if that also includes the soles. Soles can be replaced if the quality is there though.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> I hate the complete lack of transparency in garments. We need to know all the details, including the weave?

For someone that sweats a lot in hot & humid climates, why does one white cotton shirt show the sweat, and another doesn't? Why do I feel cooler with a thicker cotton shirt than a thinner one?

<comment><USER46> What's even more frustrating is that its impossible to find even a brand that uses good quality fabrics all the time. Even expensive outdoor gear can be hit and miss.

<comment><USER47> Hope is not completely lost. Some crazy Japanese companies produce stuff with unbelievably good fabrics all the time. E.g. The Real McCoy's, Buzz Rickson, Studio D'Artisan and a few others.

For cotton, many of their models are loopwheeled which is a fantastic low tension fabric that ages really well. All they are doing is to copy American techniques from the golden age of workwear and sportswear. In fact, they try to produce perfect reproductions.

Modern streetwear brands like Outlier and Acronym are also really good.

I love Ventile cotton as it's natural and fairly rain resistant. You can find several brands that use Ventile made by Stotz in Switzerland in coats. For pants, if you don't like denim German Ripsmoleskin is fantastic.

Finally, knitwear from Inis Meain and SNS Herning is machine produced but absolutely fantastic. Expensive but not insane prices like some superb Italian brands.

All these brands I mentioned are really high quality. Plus the production process and materials employed are really transparent. There are many others with different styles I would also trust like Merz B Schwanen, Maison Margiela or SEH Kelly.

<comment><USER48> I checked out some of the brands you mentioned, and holy crap they're expensive. Outlier has 3 t-shirts on offer for $300, shirts from most of those brands average $150, Acronym are selling jackets for $1k+....

I'm expecting a reply on the line of "quality comes at a cost" but I've got shirts over a decade old that have no visible signs of wear and cost a tenth of what these cost.

<comment><USER49> Disclaimer: Outlier fan.

The shorts and pants are where Outlier really shines (okay, and button-down shirts), they're the best value. the ~$100 Ultrafine t-shirt is luxurious as hell but then you'll want to wear it every day and it's pretty delicate, being wool. Their pants definitely uphold the "quality comes at a cost" argument.

Also there are luxury brands with questionable quality that will also sell you a t-shirt for $100 that doesn't have the same thought into materials or build as Outlier, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> This was a surprisingly good read. However it's pretty long, so a table of contents would be useful for navigation and future reference.

<comment><AUTHOR> [https://anuschkarees.com/blog/2014/05/04/how-to-assess- the-q...](https://anuschkarees.com/blog/2014/05/04/how-to-assess-the-quality- of-garments-a-beginners-guide-cheat-sheet/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is awesome. I absolutely hate the 'fast fashion' trend of retailers like H&M and Forever21.

I try to find well-fitting, high quality clothes, but it's getting harder and harder. American Eagle is probably one of the better outfitters out there. I've been finding a lot of luck with online retailers from South Korea - <USER2> country has a great sense of style, even for men, and their population is generally slender build which leads to well-fitting shirts.

<comment><USER51> Could you name some?

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Textile quality, tailoring and fit, or a good price: in general with very few exceptions you pick two. I am a fanatic about my clothing quality and have searched high and low to find the right quality. Fit is, in general based on taste, and price is really limited by your time to search sales.

I've arrived at the conclusion that Loro piana, Brunello Cuccinelli and to a lesser degree Zenga provide the very best quality generally available, but at an ultra steep price point. Their designs are conservative, but not boring, and they will last many seasons without going out of fashion.

On the bargain end these days he pickings have become very thin due to the Chinese textile death spiral middle market brands are in. Uniqlo provides good quality on certain items for a great price. But most others are single season junk if that. Middle market brands like Theory and Vince are barely better and not worth the cost. Gap Subsidiaries have also fallen to Zara quality for twice the price. Same for Hugo Boss and similar.

It's left the average person looking for reasonable fashionable designs and good quality with very very few options. Outlet high end retail is the best ROI today when compared to cheaper new clothing.

<comment><USER53> > I've arrived at the conclusion that Loro piana, Brunello Cuccinelli and to a > lesser degree Zenga provide the very best quality generally available

Why not go bespoke at this point? I keep asking myself this, laziness seems to be the only reason.

<comment><USER52> Because I wear their streetwear lines not suits. But on that note I visited Saville Row on my last trip to London and even they talked of Brunello admiringly.

<comment><USER32> Surely bespoke streetwear isn't more expensive than (high end) bespoke suits?

<comment><USER53> (high end) bespoke streetwear is almost certainly going to be more expensive than (high end) bespoke suits.

<comment><USER52> I'm curious who might even provide that. I know at trunk shows I have customized fabrics on street wear but never any concept of bespoke. I'd imagine you'd have to be a six figure spend or more client to get that privilege.

<comment><USER53> Really depends on the kind of "streetwear". Bespoke jeans, leather jackets, tees and boots will be easy to come by.

Anything more "exotic" will depend on the specific garment. Lots of adventurous tailors around there, but some items are just fundamentally better suited for mass production.

I don't think you'll need six figure spends unless you want something particularly difficult to make. Everything weird is going to be expensive though, developing a whole new pattern takes a while.

vnapersona bespoke by Maurizio Altieri looks fascinating, I'm not sure how attainable it is though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> One of the common mistakes I and many others have committed when attempting to dress better is confusing dressing fancier for dressing better. The dress shirt made from cheap polyester that fits badly is not better than a well made t-shirt that fits perfectly.

Instead, I've found that one should strive for clothing that _fits_ well, has quality _fabric_ , good _form_ and _flows_.

\- Fit is self explanatory. The clothing needs to fit well. Bear in mind fitting well does not mean ultra tight. One's buttons should not be straining to keep the shirt closed. Also, fit depends on the style of the outfit and the wearer. Some people want looser pants, other people want skin tight pants.

\- Fabric's effects can be subtle, but extremely powerful. Not only does fabric affect comfort, but it can also affect one's mood or attitude. If I'm wearing a soft sweater, I feel free and warm, the fabric hugs me and moves with me. If I'm wearing a more robust cotton oxford, I'm more locked down, the fabric is a little rougher, a little less giving, but perhaps that combo makes me feel like I'm wearing a uniform, like I'm ready to do my work. Fabric also provides a visible sense of quality. A dress shirt that is thin and weak is visibly different from a shirt made from a thick, stunningly white cloth. Even if a person watching you doesn't consciously notice, they will subconsciously.

\- Form is how the item is constructed and laid out. For instance, how are the pockets arranged in a coat? A quality coat will have subtle, well designed pockets that integrate nicely with the aesthetic. A less thoughtful coat will have pockets haphazardly placed, often with needless accoutrements like epaulettes and flaps and buttons. Not that these accoutrements are bad. They simply need to be arranged with care.

\- Flow is an element wholly invented by me, but it's basically whether the item _works_. Does it go with your aesthetic? Does it work on your body? Does it go with the rest of your outfit? Sometimes it just doesn't work [1] (sorry Michael Cera). If you're not comfortable—both mentally and physically—in your clothes, then they aren't the right clothes.

^[1] [https://www.gettyimages.ae/detail/news-photo/michael-cera- se...](https://www.gettyimages.ae/detail/news-photo/michael-cera-seen-at- magic-radio-whilst-promoting-arrested-news-photo/962029508)

<comment><USER55> Some really good insights here, thanks. In the comments I've read so far, there isn't much mention of how to choose clothing. I'm fairly certain that most people have a lot of clothing that they rarely wear and wish they hadn't purchased. It would be useful to have a guide (an app?) that helped with the selection at the time of purchase. I'd like to know the probable utility of an article of clothing before I buy it. The goal would be to optimize my closet, my clothing budget and my "confidence" in my wardrobe

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> I find this article and it's premise interesting, mainly because quality actually isn't my primary metric when buying clothes.

I'm a raving fan of Uniqlo. I love that they offer simple, unbranded merchandise and that they're conveniently situated in most of the major cities that I frequent.

I split my time between the US and Australia - and a few other places in between - and the most important thing for me is replaceability. I try not to check bags, so like to have a tight carry on setup. If I find a shirt, pants, jacket, that I like - I want to know that I can easily replace it if needed while on the road. This means almost my entire wardrobe, top to bottom, is Uniqlo.

I sometimes wonder if I'm part of the problem when it comes to being a disposable culture - I almost certainly am - but the convenience for me is too great to give up.

<comment><USER57> Uniqlo has strange quality difference between countries. Uniqlo in any Japan city can boast decent quality items for reasonable prices, but if we take Singapore for example, most items are much lower quality for exorbitant price.

<comment><USER27> I wonder if they practise binning, the same way the chip and hard disk makers do.

I'm a Singapore resident and have bought Uniqlo from many countries, and I personally think it might be more of the material and the product line. Their jeans (even the selvage ones) and socks tend to blow out pretty quickly, but their linen clothes and Airism products are good.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Thanks, hacker news! Maybe now I can stop buying all of my clothes from Uniqlo!

Edit: who am i kidding

</comment><comment><USER59> On the topic of what quality is, I recommend reading the book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

(Also on the topic of debugging, if you replace "motorcycle maintenance" with "computer software debugging")

</comment><comment><USER60> I am very surprised to see nothing about LL Bean in the comments! They're my favorite place for high quality clothing. Very dependable stuff, I've worn some things multiple times a week for 8+ years.

</comment><comment><USER61> A few negative examples (images) would make this explanation better

</comment><comment><USER62> it's so hard to get a basic t-shirt right as well, so many people walking around with shriveled up neck piece.

</comment><comment><USER63> Mobile phone cameras can do some pretty detailed close photography now.

Wonder if one could train a ML model to recognize "quality fibres" using close up photography?

A simpler variant would be to focus on stitching. Photographs of how fabrics are joined and the stitches in key places.

</comment><comment><USER64> With leather I've found that price doesn't always match quality. I dance tango and am from Argentina and the cheapest leather shoes I could find, which were exquisitely crafted in my local neighbourhood were only about 200 pesos (at the time, roughly 20 USD), made of leather, still perfectly usable 5 years later. If you went to the "speciality" stores downtown you would see shoes at 10 times the price and noticeably worse quality.

(I say this because I used to side eye any cheap leather items, but I've found that depending where you're buying and who you're buying it from it can be an absolute bargain)

</comment><comment><USER65> Check any zippers it may have.

Does it say YKK on it, does it move freely and is it sturdy and made of quality, tough materials?

Or is it flimsy and prone to binding, can the pull tab be manipulated into some strange position?

<comment><USER66> YKK doesn't mean quite as it did. More an indicator of probably adequate than quality these days.

<comment><USER67> YKK signals from the designer to everyone who sees the garment: "I can't afford for this garment to fail because of the zipper".

That is, they are selling into a crowd that attends to reputation signals. That is, in and of itself, a good signal. Take it as one of many.

Submariney sort of story, but still useful: [https://slate.com/business/2012/04/ykk-zippers-why-so- many-d...](https://slate.com/business/2012/04/ykk-zippers-why-so-many- designers-use-them.html)

<comment><USER68> I've got 2 jackets right now with broken zippers. I just checked, they're both YKK zippers, and one of those failing zippers is the replacement zipper for a previous YKK zipper that failed. All 3 are different types of YKK brand zipper.

<comment><USER67> It is almost inevitable that the largest manufacturer has the largest number of failures. But your anecdote gives me no sense of their failure rate, and certainly tells me nothing about their failure rate in the context of other manufacturer failure rates.

<comment><USER69> 3 zippers for a single person is really high, even if they are the largest manufacturer.

<comment><USER70> Almost like it might say more about the person than the manufacturer?

<comment><USER53> Probably mostly speaks to the grade of the YKK zippers used in the clothes worn by the person, there are many different grades available.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> If it has a zipper, and that zipper is not made by YKK, it is disposable garbage. This indicates the main priority in production was reducing cost.

Sadly the other way around doesn't always work, you can still get crap stitching and fabric on an article with YKK.

<comment><USER53> What about Lampo, Raccagni or RiRi? You even see high end brands using ancient talon zippers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> Apropos, I recommend reading [https://www.amazon.com/Travels-T-Shirt-Global- Economy-Charac...](https://www.amazon.com/Travels-T-Shirt-Global-Economy- Characters/dp/1118950143)

</comment><comment><USER73> I've found one simple marker for quality t-shirts. The top-stitch.

This is a stitch on the front of the neck that keeps the little bit of fabric in the back laying flat.

Tried to find some pictures of it online, but was harder to google than I thought.

</comment><comment><USER74> My flannel shirts have never lasted me long and it's getting irritating! A standard flannel is now slmehow at around $60 to $100 cad or usd and I have no idea whether it'll shrink, pill, rip easily

</comment><comment><USER75> My #1 quality metric for clothes is: can it be washed at 60℃ according to the label? (140℉).

It's not so easy to find suitable garments, but they're always much better than average.

</comment><comment><USER76> Can anyone here recommend some high-quality men's clothing stores in Australia?

</comment><comment><USER77> What a bunch of BS. The author is ignoring elephant in the room - cost of honestly paid labor and cost of good quality materials. You cant make quality things using "slave" labor (made in "3rd world countries" for a few cents/buck an hour). Good stuff is a product of love. There is no love in made in china goods.

The bottom line with clothing these days is that most of it is made using "slave" underpaid labor and more often than not - cheap materials.

If you want quality - you will have to pay up. (and no, if something is super expensive it does not mean its high quality! you have to know what and from who you are buying!)

Case in point mens shoes. A good pair of shoes these days (made with quality materials and using honestly paid labor) - will cost you $200-300-400 and up. (American, British, Italian or Spanish shoe makers) This is basically the floor of the good shoe market today. Thats just the reality. If you want to pay your people honest wages and if you want to make things with quality materials (and im not talking any ultra luxury here, just good every day stuff) - you will have to price your product accordingly. there is no way around it.

You can not talk about quality of anything without discussing people who made the product.

<comment><USER78> Even very expensive designer clothing may still be made in exploitative conditions. See [https://qz.com/1397139/italian-workers-are-earning-near- swea...](https://qz.com/1397139/italian-workers-are-earning-near-sweatshop- wages-to-make-luxury-clothes-in-their-homes/)

<comment><USER77> as i said "and no, if something is super expensive it does not mean its high quality!"

you have to know who you are buying from. yes, majority of big labels these days use cheap outsourced labor.

Italy - is importing cheap asian workers, so yes you have to watch out. Basically know who you are buying from. There are plenty of businesses who still value their workers and their products.

<comment><USER78> Valuing workers is separate from valuing quality. I don't think the article I linked to implies in any way that the exploited workers are doing inferior work.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Scmutils in Clojure - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/littleredcomputer/sicmutils <comment><USER2> Congrats to author! Just a small addendum: I'm not a lawyer, but I'd advise author to check licenses. GPL3 project license and EPL license of libs used as dependencies aren't compatible.

There was a bit discussion about this and, if I got it correct, Clojure project could be licensed under GPL only when there aren't EPL licensed dependencies.

<comment><USER3> I don't see how there could be a problem unless the author is distributing a binary. If you give someone GPL code, they can do anything they want with it, as long as it's for their own use. It could potentially cause problems for _other people_ that want to mix the two in improper ways for purposes of distribution, but that's not the author's problem.

<comment><USER4> [https://www.eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.php#GPLCOMPATIBLE](https://www.eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.php#GPLCOMPATIBLE)

 _Based upon the position of the Free Software Foundation, you may not combine EPL 1.0 and GPL code in any scenario where linking exists between code made available under those licenses. The above applies to both GPL version 2 and GPL version 3._

Since Clojure itself and its core library are EPL, this means you basically cannot write GPL code with Clojure.

<comment><USER3> There are no restrictions on what you do with GPL software if you're not distributing it. Here's what the FSF has to say[1]:

"If I only make copies of a GPL-covered program and run them, without distributing or conveying them to others, what does the license require of me? (#NoDistributionRequirements)

Nothing. The GPL does not place any conditions on this activity."

The whole point of the GPL is to guarantee that the user can do _anything_ they want with the software. The only limitations on GPL software are with respect to distribution.

<comment><USER5> So is the Eclipse FAQ wrong, or does the EPL forbid this private use of EPL'd code in a non-distribution scenario?

It sounds to me like the FAQ is wrong, since it quotes the FSF's position as the foundation of its argument.

edit: apparently a twist is that GPL is considered a pure copyright license, and so covers only distribution, but the EPL is broader. It starts with "ANY USE, REPRODUCTION OR DISTRIBUTION OF THE PROGRAM CONSTITUTES RECIPIENT'S ACCEPTANCE OF THIS AGREEMENT". So apparently this makes it a kind of contract and not just a copyright licese.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The lack of "apply hooks" put me off the the guile version, and running MIT scheme isn't much fun. I'd love to see the book updated with the new code, or even better, a full racket version.

</comment><comment><USER7> I'll have to check this out. SICM is great.

I was playing with the Racket port[1] a while back. I am not sure how complete it is compared to this Clojure implementation.

[1] [https://github.com/bennn/mechanics](https://github.com/bennn/mechanics)

<comment><USER8> Note that Alex Gian is porting SICM to Racket. Check the Racket mailing list for SICM posts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> That looks like a fantastic effort. Scmutils is an astounding language, and porting it is a Herculean task.

</comment><comment><USER4> I wonder how performance sensitive this code has to be? Clojure is a pretty bad choice for numerical work in general since function parameters are usually just Object and this leads to a lot of boxing. You can type hint them as primitives but it's pretty funky internally once you start doing that. If code can offload the numerically intensive bit to either Java or something native (as Neanderthal does) then it's more tractable, or of course if it doesn't actually require very high performance.

Still, awesome effort - it looks like a ton of work.

<comment><USER9> Presumably the Java library it uses for the numerical integrators works on unboxed data.

<comment><USER10> You are correct.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> zoinks! I did the port but somehow missed my HN moment. Someday I was thinking this might be worth a show HN, if I get some more web pages up exploring what can be done with the system.</comment>


Skin cells might be used instead of eggs to make embryos - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/sep/13/skin-cells-instead-of-eggs-make-embryos-scientists-say <comment><USER2> This is going to be huge for comoditizing IVF and drastically dropping the cost.

No more having to stim ovaries for them to overproduce eggs for retrieval (with a long, large bore needle guided by ultrasound), which is the most expensive part of the IVF protocol.

</comment><comment><USER3> So you're saying Adam and Steve have a chance?</comment>


Show HN: WikiRoulette – Randomly browse Wikipedia - <AUTHOR> http://wikiroulette.co <comment><USER2> Is this somehow different from the random article link in Wikipedia?

<comment><USER3> Roughly the same: [https://github.com/minouye/wikiroulette/blob/master/src/over...](https://github.com/minouye/wikiroulette/blob/master/src/override/main.js#L72)

If you didn't see the Chrome extension, it's worth a try - I really like the feeling of serendipity every time I create a new tab. It's a _little_ distracting, but I think in a good way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I had a similar prototype idea that I never built, but it was this:

* start a user off on a random wiki page. * Don't encourage them to start afresh .. they can instead click through to a different page from the current one. * Keep track of these traversals, and then allow the 'trail' to be shared with others.

It could be cool to see the wiki-trails people leave as they spend time soaking in the pages. Or compare trails of people from the same page.

You have some of it ready.. please steal this idea :)

<comment><USER5> I thought this sounded familiar, and I managed to find this app[1] that claims to feature a "2D mind map to keep track of your journey and suggest new paths".

[1]: [https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/wikilinks-smart- wikipedia/id...](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/wikilinks-smart- wikipedia/id990956008?mt=8)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I dig it, but the main content area is too narrow.

\---

Edit: My previous endorsement is now retracted, installing the Chrome extension changes the default new tab behavior. Hijacking default browser behavior is terrible. Bad form on the part of the author

</comment><comment><USER7> Throw this in your favorites, and have fun: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random)

</comment><comment><USER8> Nice interface, but gosh that makes me feel dumb. So much I don't know.

Could be the basis for a nice party game, along the lines of Trivial Pursuit.

<comment><USER9> TheWikiGame[0] is my favourite go to Wikipedia based game. Mostly because a non-automated version can be played even on the most restricted networks that just allow Wikipedia.

I have endless fun working out how to get from Norse Mythology to Arithmetic Logic Unit.

[0] [http://thewikigame.com/](http://thewikigame.com/)</comment></comment>


Having a Home by a Star Architect Is Amazing, Until You Try to Sell It - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-16/having-a-home-by-a-star-architect-is-amazing-until-you-try-to-sell-it <comment><USER2> Is anyone surprised by this? If you can afford one of these houses you have enough money to build exactly what you want instead.</comment>


Google Responds To FTC With "You're Looking For What, Exactly?" - <AUTHOR> http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2011/06/google-responds-to-ftc-with-%E2%80%9Cyou%E2%80%99re-looking-for-what-exactly%E2%80%9D.html I'd love for law knowing person lurking here at HN to explain why exactly does the FTC think they have anything near a case here, I do concede my Google fanboydom but other than they were pressured by Google competitors to act there doesn't seem to be any merit to this, right? <comment><USER2> That article is pretty biased. It seems to say that Google is Good and nothing it can do is wrong. It even claims that it had some hand in helping us weather the economics hardships of late...

Other than employing people, which every company does, I don't see how they made any difference. Maybe I'm just ignorant when it comes to that, though.

They also go out of their way to make the FTC look like bad guys. No, the FTC has had complaints, and it is doing it's job by looking into them. It has to. And Google appreciates that position and is complying. I really don't see any bad blood between the FTC and Google, so why this blogger is so hot under the collar is something I have to question. It's not like the blogger could know any more about the situation than the FTC does at this point.

</comment><comment><USER3> Article claims: \- Google should canonized (stock market as implied canon?) \- Anti-trust legislation is merely political whimsy \- Corporations don't have inherent structural problems, all problems are caused by individuals

Can we keep this shallow business major ideology crap off of HN? It is simplistic corporate knob slobbing. I expect a more empirical stance in this community.

<comment><AUTHOR> How about this then:

[http://techliberation.com/2011/06/24/the-ftc-makes-its- googl...](http://techliberation.com/2011/06/24/the-ftc-makes-its-google- investigation-official-now-what/)

Either way the investigation is lacking in merit.</comment></comment>


Swastikarchitecture - <AUTHOR> http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=wesley+acres+methodist+retirement+home,&near=Decatur,+AL&fb=1&cid=0,0,4652898211088325197&sa=X&oi=local_result&resnum=1&ct=image Say you've designed a cross-shaped building, but it looks dull. So, you add an extra wing to all four points. This way, you've neatly created four near-courtyards with one building. Sound like a neat idea? Well, look at the satellite images that Google Earth makes available to every Internet user and you'll realize you've just built a gigantic swastika. Avrahaum Segol, the same Israeli-American researcher who last fall helped publicize a swastika-shaped barracks at Naval Base Coronado in San Diego, is now demanding that the Wesley Acres Methodist retirement home in Decatur, Ala., become less swastika-shaped. Mike Giles, counsel for the Methodist Homes Corp. of Alabama and Northwest Florida, says it might not be able to afford that level of money, and is looking at inexpensive modifications. (The Navy said it would take $600,000 to alter its barracks' design.) Wesley Acres already received a $1 million modification to hide the shape following complaints from a state senator in 2001. Sadly the addition of two wings did little to hide the offensive shape, and in some ways accentuates it. <comment><AUTHOR> From WSJ.com:

Say you've designed a cross-shaped building, but it looks dull. So, you add an extra wing to all four points. This way, you've neatly created four near- courtyards with one building. Sound like a neat idea? Well, look at the satellite images that Google Earth makes available to every Internet user and you'll realize you've just built a gigantic swastika. Avrahaum Segol, the same Israeli-American researcher who last fall helped publicize a swastika-shaped barracks at Naval Base Coronado in San Diego, is now demanding that the Wesley Acres Methodist retirement home in Decatur, Ala., become less swastika-shaped. Mike Giles, counsel for the Methodist Homes Corp. of Alabama and Northwest Florida, says it might not be able to afford that level of money, and is looking at inexpensive modifications. (The Navy said it would take $600,000 to alter its barracks' design.) Wesley Acres already received a $1 million modification to hide the shape following complaints from a state senator in 2001. Sadly the addition of two wings did little to hide the offensive shape, and in some ways accentuates it.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Make sure to zoom in a bit, it's to the left of the pop-up.</comment>


The Skype for Linux Beta version 5.0 is now available for download - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.skype.com/news/2017/03/01/the-skype-for-linux-beta-version-5-0-is-now-available-for-download/ <comment><USER2> Do people still use Skype?

There was a time in the past, I used it _daily_ for getting in touch with friends, using chats and (video) calls. It worked very well, I used to love the offline messages feature.

Today I only use Skype once or twice a week to call a _single_ friend that lives in another country, or when I'm in holiday. Most of the people use WhatsApp calls, Google Hangout or FaceTime. I tried the first but usually calls quality is awful (i.e. communication is not possible, especially on cellular networks), I don't have an account for the second and FaceTime is limited to Mac and iPhones. Still, there are plenty of alternatives to Skype, and most of the people are using them.

Skype was a nice software. Then they started to change the Mac interface making it worse. On Linux, it was abandoned for years. On Windows, they made it confusing with 2 Apps: the standard one and the Metro one that had just a few of the standard features. The worse was on Windows Phone: just a basic and rarely updated App. Now there is Skype Preview, that it's nice, but I don't know anyone except me that is using it.

Also, in the (far) past it was working perfectly, even on more devices. Until last year (if I remember correctly) sync became a nightmare between PCs and phones with ghost messages, delays (sometimes you would get chat hours-old on one of the devices!), calls ringing only on some devices, or others devices that kept ringing even if you answered on one of them etc.

Oh, and I hated that Skype address book kept syncing with my phone address book, copying all my contacts on Skype. Finally now you can disable this feature.</comment>


Stress Testing Capacitive Touchscreens (Droid vs iPhone) - <AUTHOR> http://labs.moto.com/diy-touchscreen-analysis/

<comment><USER2> I believe the lack of edge sensitivity on the iPhone is a feature, not a bug. It's something that's caught me out a number of times when using the Nexus One one-handed - I reach across the screen with my thumb, but the effort often causes the base "pad" of my thumb to just brush the edge of the screen. Thus, some of my "swipe" attempts get interpreted as pinch zoom, as the screen has detected two points of contact.

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't think distortion at the edge of the screen has to do with tuning in the hardware, but a matter of how software converts sensor data into a point location.

When not at the edge, the finger touch area is typically a circle, so it is fairly easy to interpret the location as the center of the circle. The finger shape at the edge is harder to interpret.

I guess is that Nexus One's capacitive sensors is larger than the display screen, that's why the edge performance is so good.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> It's kind of shocking how bad the Motorola Droid is. They're finally releasing the Droid in Canada this week, and now I'm wondering if I should wait for something more accurate.

</comment><comment><USER4> The headline is a bit misleading. This really has nothing to do with "stress testing" (i.e. seeing how much it can take before it fails)</comment>


"so i spent a couple of months and developed a little tool called WhatsApp" - <AUTHOR> https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-technology/952359-thoughts-about-my-free-iphone-app-whatsapp.html <comment><USER2> This is great: deep in the thread [0], after being congratulated on the Facebook deal the day after it happened, Jan tells the story about how the deal with Facebook had to be scheduled around a frequent-flier award ticket he had for a flight the next day (and he's posting the story while on that very flight).

[0] [https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=22387891&post...](https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=22387891&postcount=72)</comment>


The Mind-Muscle Connection: For Aesthetes, Not Athletes? - <AUTHOR> https://www.psychreg.org/mind-muscle-connection/ <comment><USER2> This "article" is a verbatim rip from _Frontiers_. Example: [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190809085749.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190809085749.htm)

Or

[https://new.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-08/f-tmc080619....](https://new.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-08/f-tmc080619.php)</comment>


Before there was Aaron Swartz, there was David LaMacchia - <AUTHOR> http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/01/29/when-judgment-rewarded/2SdShgNQhA6FtgbkYS8aAP/story.html

<comment><USER2> Non pay wall link [http://epaper.bostonglobe.com/epaper/iphone/homepage.aspx#_a...](http://epaper.bostonglobe.com/epaper/iphone/homepage.aspx#_article0bd7a60c-a977-40d3-8759-15a4a3a2cebe)

Few points of interest:

Steve Heymnann was the prosecutor

Lamacchio offered Swartz advice but never heard back

</comment><comment><USER3> Interesting article - but it would have been nice if the Globe had more clearly explained the distinctions between making academic papers available for free, vs. making commercial software like Microsoft Excel or SimCity available free - a lot of readers will come away with the wrong idea there. Aside from the prosecutor and the venue, these cases really aren't very similar.</comment>


Why a Six-Figure Salary No Longer Means You're Rich - <AUTHOR> https://blog.personalcapital.com/investing/six-figure-salary/ <comment><USER2> As dual-income households have become more the norm, it's really the household income, rather than an individual's income, that's a better measure of (material) richness.

For instance, you might have a family with a sole breadwinner who has a low six-figure salary, but that has to cover all the family's expenses. Meanwhile, even if his neighbors, a dual-income household, both earn less than him, their household income could be considerably more.

By the way, the rising percentage of dual-income households has been suggested as an exacerbating factor in the growing income inequality in the U.S.

If you figure that people tend to marry others of the same educational level (more so now than in generations past), and if educational level is roughly correlated with income, then you can see how the gulf widens.

Whereas 50 years ago, when single-income households were the norm, a lower- educated fellow might bring in SALARY and a higher-educated fellow might bring in SALARY * 2. But now, with dual-income households, a lower-educated couple might bring in (SALARY * 2) and a higher-educated couple might bring in (SALARY * 2) * 2.

So, 50 years ago, there was one SALARY worth of difference between the lower- educated household and the higher-educated household. Nowadays, there is (SALARY * 2) worth of difference.

<comment><USER3> Surely requiring two incomes in a household is extraordinarily problematic?

Before, one partner could sustain the household and the other could stay at home and raise kids.

Now, if both partners are expected to earn and have careers, who looks after the home life? Who looks after the kids? Surely this is really really damaging?

And doesn't that mean that in real terms we're earning half as much?

<comment><USER4> Two incomes in a home is not required, it is just that our lifestyles have evolved to "require" that. Home prices over last 40 years adjusted for inflation have not changed very much (besides in the bubble in mid 2000's).

Previously on that one income a reasonable 40 years ago family could have a home, a TV, a car, and take inexpensive road trip vacations. Now the typical family has multiple cars, homes much larger than in the past, a vacation could be flying to some destination, $100 cable bill, $150 phone bill...

So if one wanted to live like in the past it is certainly attainable on a single reasonable income. That may mean "only" having a 1700 sf house with one bathroom and one car.

Even since I was a child things have changed a lot. The typical new home today would be something I would have considered luxury as a child. I think that things changed a lot in the dot-com -> Real estate bubble era that gave Americans a taste for luxury that is now the normal.

<comment><USER5> > Home prices over last 40 years adjusted for inflation have not changed very > much (besides in the bubble in mid 2000's).

This might be true as a national average, but it is definitely not true in areas where there has been consistent competition for housing. It's that competition which will push housing prices up to levels that require two middle-class incomes.

This includes most major cities. Even excluding bubbles, desirable urban real estate in the US has skyrocketed much faster than inflation. There are a lot of factors in that, but one of them is that the market has now priced in the fact that most homeowners in these areas are now dual income.

> So if one wanted to live like in the past it is certainly attainable on a > single reasonable income.

I'm not sure that's true. Take Houston, for example. Some of the most expensive neighborhoods were originally suburbs in the 1950s filled with workers who commuted downtown. Now those neighborhoods are considered urban and there is an entirely new ring of suburbs beyond them (in fact two such rings). The homes in these now-urban neighborhoods are now all $1M+.

A family with a reasonable income of $100k will be completely priced out of all those homes. They'll be forced to either live much further out (meaning very long commutes) or to live in an apartment/condo or, maybe, a townhouse. If they had lived in the 50s, they'd have been living in a neighborhood that is now reserved for surgeons, corporate attorneys, and even CEOs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Consumerism. It convinces people that once they make $100k/year, they require a vehicle that befits someone who makes that much money. It convinces people that they require a place to live that compares to their other 6-figure earning peers. More, bigger, better -- the importance of those three things outweighs most everything else.

I grew up (and now live) in rural Appalachia. The "American dream" is defined much differently here. The American dream is owning a trailer and not having to live off of food stamps.

Let's ignore the absurdity of comparing a 1980 $100k/year salary to a 2014 $100k/year salary. In most areas of the United States, six figures is enough to qualify as well-off. Compared against the backdrop of abject poverty, six figures is certainly rich.

My wife's cousin was talking to her about a new job he landed. He was giddy with excitement, as he told her he was going to be "making bank." The salary was $22k/year.

My point is that "rich" is relative to your geography and your upbringing. In most areas of the U.S., a six-figure household income is enough to have a warm place to live and healthy food to eat, with enough left over to provide security during times of famine

<comment><USER7> This comes up a lot. Sometimes they talk about a car, for a while there it was always a "plasma tv". Financial advisors, talking about middle class debt and financial struggles, would ask you, do you really need that "plasma tv".

San Francisco is probably an outlier, but with the median house price at 1.1 mil, and full time child care costs for two preschool kids at $40-50k a year, a plasma tv is a minor rounding error in the cost of living.

So while I agree with you about the TV, and the car, and the consumerism in general, I do think it may be a way to blame the middle class for not paddling hard enough toward shore as the ocean current carries them out around the rocks.

<comment><USER6> San Francisco, Manhattan, D.C. -- they're all outliers. My great-aunt runs a day-care facility in Kentucky. They charge $200/month/child. (This is definitely an outlier on the other end of the spectrum)

It's very difficult to talk about wealth, as wealth means different things in different places. My argument for a $100k/year salary being "rich" falls apart in expensive cities.

<comment><USER7> True, but keep in mind, 100k is a lot easier to achieve in those cities. Registered nurses and dental hygienists (and software developers), who all earn about 110k a year (median) in SF, tend to fall well below that threshold outside these centers.

<comment><USER8> Hygienists make 110K in SF? Do you have data to support this? These seem like outlier numbers to me even in a place like SF.

<comment><USER7> it surprised me too.

[http://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/dental- hygienist/s...](http://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/dental- hygienist/salary)

Personally, I'm glad dental hygienists make enough money that, with two incomes, they can live a middle class life where they work. But it really does put that "critical shortage of software developers" at an average of $110k a year in SF in perspective.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm not sure why the article is so obsessed with this "six-figure salary" thing (which seems to mean exactly $100,000).

$100k 30 years ago after inflation is $288k now. Anyone earning $288k now is definitely rich enough to "live the american dream" (in the article they price that at $130k).

It would have been a much more interesting article if it had just focused on cost of living increasing faster than inflation

<comment><USER10> You're confident that the problem isn't that inflation is being intentionally understated via the government having altered the CPI to mask inflation? (ie that the cost of living is showing the true rate of inflation)

<comment><USER11> So pick another index. How about the Billion Prices Project [1] from MIT. Oops, that pretty much tracks the CPI. Guess maybe the CPI isn't intentionally understated.

[1] [http://bpp.mit.edu](http://bpp.mit.edu)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It sure as hell does mean you're rich.

Median household income in the US is about $50k/yr. The average global income is about $10k/yr.

<comment><USER13> What if your job is in Manhattan where that means you are making negative income vs. your rent? And a good meal is ten times more than a beef soup shop in Taiwan? Or spending 2 hours every morning commuting into the city and back out on a bus to somewhere you can afford on $50k/yr? Is that still rich?

<comment><USER14> I've lived / worked in midtown Manhattan on both $35k/year and $90k/year (and between) within the past 3 years, and they are both doable. At 30k, I wasn't rich for sure, but I wasn't poor either. Still going out to eat mostly, and not missing out much with friends.

As it got closer to 90k, things got easier for sure. I'm not married, so no dual income, but my total monthly expenses come out around 2k (rent, good food (never eating at home), utilities, misc stuff) which leaves about 3k/mo left over. I would consider this materially wealthy, at least.

<comment><USER15> > I'm not married So having roommates was an option. And you didn't need > another bedroom for the kids. Your housing costs were _far_ below those of > an average family. Which is sort of the point of all the comments about dual > incomes being required.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> As the article mentions at the end, a big part of living within your means is reducing your spending -- and a lot of that has to do with recognizing what things are actually necessities. The chart of price increases mentions things like movie tickets, new cars, and private college tuition, which are certainly not necessities. Even high gas prices can be mitigated if you recognize the hidden costs of driving a fuel-inefficient vehicle long distances to and from work every day -- and that in many cases you're not forced to live so far away.

I recommend the Mr Money Mustache blog as a source of some decent advice about how to think more frugally and focus on early retirement: [http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/](http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/)

</comment><comment><USER17> Investing more is certainly not a way to "stretch a six-figure salary." Not sure why they included that part. Investing in your own retirement (vs. a pension) is probably a big reason why salary money doesn't go as far.

</comment><comment><USER18> Because we have to start with definition of what IS rich.

I want to think about it of as how many months/years I can live the life I'm living right now If out of a sudden I loose a job.

So being rich should be more about balance between earning and savings. And looking at those places like SF, how one can claim himself rich if 100k a year can barely cover cost of living there ( if can at all)

<comment><USER19> As someone who recently quit a six-figure tech job in SF... 100k/year does not "barely" cover cost of living. When I first got the job, I decided I wanted to live close to where I was working in SOMA, which meant paying quite a bit more in rent, but I never had any illusions that what I was paying for was a necessity of life.

Though I mainly picked it out for the location, it was easy to tell the building was built explicitly to cater to the wealthy (because that's the kind of building that's getting built in SF right now). When I first moved in, I felt everything about the place was conspiring to tell me, "Yup, you're a rich asshole now."

Even with that expense, I still had plenty of money. Even if you feel like you're too good to pack a lunch, and need to eat at a hip restaurant for every single meal, I have no idea where this "barely covering living expenses" is coming from.

<comment><USER20> That's sounds awesome until you factor in a family with several kids and some retirement goals. Not everyone lives in their 20's forever.

<comment><USER19> I'm friends with a married couple who's got one kid, planning on having more. Husband works in tech, wife doesn't work. Their finances end up looking a lot like mine, except they live in an area of Palo Alto where my rent gets them a decent-sized apartment. (Both I and they are saving for retirement.)

<comment><USER20> ok, so let's try to see how this works out

making $100k/household in Palo Alto:

$30k goes to taxes $30k goes to family housing, unless it's a trailer park probably about $10k goes/will go eventually to things like soccer, music, other misc kids stuff, unless you decide to punt on after-school development

the remaining $2.5k/month goes to food and clothing for 3 and I guess retirement savings? We also leave out cars, gas, vacations, cellphones, saving for college, etc etc.

There is not a chance to ever buy any housing in this area on that. I also don't see much room for more kids. Sounds like barely covering living expenses.

<comment><USER19> We live in a world where a lot of people are still living on $2 a day or less. And you consider $10k/year on soccer and music lessons a necessary living expense? Gimmie a break.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> A major cause of the increased cost of living in NYC, SF, Boston, SV is the "rent seeking" activity increasing cost of renting or purchasing a house through restricting housing density through zoning and through overuse of historic buildings designations.

Harvard Economist Edward Glaeser speaks of this. In these cities, the cost of housing is far higher than the cost of construction because politics is used to make wealthy landowners even wealthier at the cost to others.

Rent seeking is a sign of market inefficiency.

</comment><comment><USER22> How much of this is just personal perspective? What exactly defines being rich? $100k a year? $1m a year? More? Why go after being rich when you can go after being wealthy? If you have enough money generating assets that cover all your expenses, you're pretty much set. It's all about the cashflow.

</comment><comment><USER23> You're rich because existence itself is shockingly improbable. Beyond that, you even got to be human, with a human mind, which as far as we know is the most expensive thing the universe has ever produced. Lucky you!

You're poor because one day you will lose everything and everyone you've ever deeply cared for. That's a shame.

Enjoy the few moments you have left. You will have a better chance at this if you stop comparing yourself to others in terms of the milliliters of 'comfort' you can or cannot afford within an OCEAN, a absolute carnival of delight available to all.

<comment><USER24> Does a homeless person have a carnival of delight available to them?

<comment><USER23> No. A completely demoralized person (I think that's a better descriptor than 'homeless') would not experience much delight in life. Demoralization is genuine poverty. It's our duty to reduce and eliminate demoralization in all its forms to the greatest extent possible. You cannot do that with money, houses, or guns (aka govt. force). The character traits that prevent demoralization are courage, forgiveness, gratitude, authenticity and willpower.

But even so... finally, we all die a tragic, senseless, and humiliating death, the ultimate demoralization. So the only reasonable posture we can take towards a demoralized person (or any person for that matter) is empathy and compassion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Because inflation?

<comment><USER10> Yep. Since the year 2000:

Median and average price of a home nationally is up about 50% (even worse in hot markets)

US Dollar is down about 50% against the Swiss Franc

US Dollar is down about 40% against the Canadian Dollar

US Dollar is down about 30% vs. the Euro

Gasoline is up over 200%

Oil is up ~350%

Gold is up 300%

Silver is up 300%

Cotton is up between 60% and 100%

Corn is up 100%

Average cost of a new car is up 40% to 50%

And so on

A $30k salary in 1990, is now roughly equivalent to $60k to $75k today. Six figures just doesn't buy anywhere near what it used to.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> because money does not make you rich

<comment><USER27> One of my favorite quotes below, attributed to Bob Dylan:

"A man is a success if he gets up in the morning and gets to bed at night, and in between he does what he wants to do."

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Inflation.

</comment><comment><USER29> When has this EVER meant that you're rich? It doesn't, never has, and never will. Even a 7-figure salary doesn't by itself make you rich. You are only rich when you've learned how to make money work for you and when you have the freedom to do with your time as you please. This automatically excludes any kind of salary making you rich. Salary and riches do not mix. It's the wrong mindset altogether. A high salary CAN be a good initial catalyst on your way to riches, but by itself will never get you there.

</comment><comment><USER30> Is everyone on here a communist? Christ. The article is simple. The government uses it's hidden tax of inflation to steal the wealth of everyone and the media continues to (apparently successfully) fool people into thinking hard working wage slaves that make slightly over 100,000 are "rich". They are not. To make the equivalent of a 100k salary from 1980, you have to make 288k today. The government continues to print more money and this trend will continue until creating value instead of consuming it becomes what most americans strive to do. We have not reached utopia where everything is automated and work is an outdated concept. Yet, the "ism" of jealousy and envy, and perhaps more than a dash of laziness, prevents people from seeing the truth. Hating and taxing everyone that makes a living wage will not lead to prosperity. Yes I am talking about socialism. Although, most of the people on this site seem to lean more toward wanting full blown communism. Let the down votes commence.

<comment><USER23> Yes! It's about creation vs. consumption. We appear to be the only thing in the universe that has a choice about which of those two activities we want to be primarily engaged in moment to moment. It's a heady responsibility.</comment></comment>


Robotic suit gives shipyard workers super strength - <AUTHOR> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329803.900-robotic-suit-gives-shipyard-workers-super-strength.html

<comment><USER2> Main discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8133808](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8133808)

Other submissions:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8135262](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8135262)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8132336](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8132336)</comment>


Extinction Rebellion: Nuclear power 'only option' says former spokeswoman - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-54103163 <comment><USER2> Nuclear was perhaps the correct option 20 years ago.

A nuclear power plant can easily take a decade to build (Hinkley C, announced 2010, approved 2016, generation expected 2025), how many decades will it take to build enough plants to replace our current fossil fuel based generation?

It is time we don't have anymore. We should now be focusing renewables and, more cruicially, storage.

<comment><USER3> The IPCC predicts 2 degrees of temperature increase by 2050, which is the same as between 1950-2000.

I believe they also think world GDP _increase_ (not actual GDP) might be 6% less due to this, but don't quote me on that.

This is the number 1 authority on climate change.

While there are risks associated with that increase, it won't be the end of the world. Despite what the sensationalist media says, or democratic politicians and 15 year olds predicting the end of the world in 12 years. That is simply not true. The world will not become a ball of flame, in a few decades. Not even the UN thinks so.

There is plenty of time to build nuclear power plants, if that's how we wanted to deal with this issue.

<comment><USER4> Are you sure GDP is the right metric to be looking at?

Suppose there was some event that killed all homeless people - it might not affect GDP much. Should we do let such event happen and conclude it's no big deal?

<comment><USER5> Climate change will primarily affect Asian and African countries. There will be the largest refugee crisis ever but nothing a bullet to the head can't fix.

Westerners, on the other hand, will just stay at home thanks to AC and pretend everything is fine.

Of course GDP won't be a big deal. By the time the worst effects are there the Chinese population will have aged to the point where getting rid of the elderly is better for the GDP than keeping them.

<comment><USER6> You should not lump all western nations together. In northern Europe AC doesn't happen at home for the most part. Here in Germany it's a luxury because of the high prices for electricity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think it would be a good idea to put the first 2 words at the end of the title to make it less sensational?

<comment><AUTHOR> Extinction Rebellion (XR) is the name of the org -[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_Rebellion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_Rebellion)

<comment><USER7> But they aren't saying this if I understand correctly? Only someone formerly affiliated with them?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm not really a fan of ER, calls itself a rebellion and then has the most milquetoast performances that could scarcely be even called a protest.

<comment><USER9> And yet they've got Priti Patel condemning them, putting them on the PREVENT list: [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/10/xr- extinctio...](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/10/xr-extinction- rebellion-listed-extremist-ideology-police-prevent-scheme-guidance) and more recently talking up banning them entirely. It looks like their recent protest against the Murdoch press hit a nerve.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> It seems like the environmental movement spends an enormous amount of time and energy arguing over small details over what we should do (how much of electrical energy should come from nuclear). Meanwhile we do nothing because people who don't want to are a majority. So what's the point in arguing?

<comment><USER9> Much of the older environmental movement was anti-nuclear first. Before global warming became a key issue the big threat was the instant obliteration of a large fraction of humanity by nuclear weapons, and since civilian power and weapons were tightly linked this led to campaigning against nuclear power. There were also lots of issues with waste dumping.

This goes all the way back to the French government murdering a protestor and sinking a ship to suppress protests; the _Rainbow Warrior_.

<comment><USER10> It just seems like a convenient thing for people to be tribal over, while as a whole they achieve nothing. There's is a scene in red dwarf where there is a holy war over the colour of the hats people should wear. This is the same thing as far as I can tell.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> If you don't know why Zion Lights about turn is interesting, it's because of this well known disastrous interview -

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3kJwQBZOkM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3kJwQBZOkM)

I have to say, I'm quite surprised and happy, it seems there is hope yet.

</comment><comment><USER12> We have passed the peak of oil production. Nuclear is the only solution to mitigate the crisis we are going to face. I think we will need to get rid of nuclear at long term (like 50 years). But for the next 20 years (probably 40), we need nuclear.

<comment><USER9> You can't get rid of nuclear in 50 years, the decay products take centuries to become safe.

[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-53595839](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk- wales-53595839) "Trawsfynydd was shut down in 1991 after operating for a quarter of a century. Magnox said it still expected the site to be completely cleared by the 2083 target."

<comment><USER13> We have one long term nuclear waste facility in Finland (expected to be operational in 2023). It can handle about a hundred years of waste from an associated power plant before being completely buried. It was made because the Finnish law requires nuclear waste produced in Finland to be disposed of domestically.

I don't really know if any other country with nuclear power plants have any sort of a plan for what to do with it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Not, Not the only.

There are a lot of room for improvement in using energy better. Cars do not need to spend so much fuel as before, and there is room for improvement in isolation of houses so they don't need so much energy.

None of those are related with nuclear energy but would reduce the climatic problem just now, not in ten years, without putting a low probability but catastrophic collateral effect in the middle of the road for our grandsons.

In any case with or without nuclear, with the highest wildfires registered in the history in Russia, Australia, Brazil and US (2019-2020) we either focus and solve the arsonism crimes, predatory logging, and environmental lack of water problems or we aren't going anywhere. Deliberate arsonism should be reclassified worldwide as crime against (the future of) humanity. If we can bomb a whole city in Irak, we should be able to drop water in California or Canberra.

<comment><USER9> > If we can bomb a whole city in Irak

Notwithstanding the human and archaeological impact of this, the environmental impact was pretty terrible as well. The oil consumption of all those tanks and planes can't have been small, as well as the burning oilfields that blackened the sky and all the depleted uranium rounds littering the country.

<comment><USER14> You have a point here. I'll rephrase it. If we can bomb a whole city in Irak, we should be able to stop bombing cities also. Is a much easier task and would help also to fix the climate problem.

Has anybody calculated how many greenhouse effect gasses are released when moving and dropping a bomb?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The world's supply of containment elements beryllium, niobium, zirconium, yttrium, and hafnium would be exhausted within ten years to thirty years if we were to produce enough nuclear power plants to supply our 15TW energy diet, assuming all other industrial uses of those elements were to cease and no advances in engineering were to provide alternatives.[0] To obtain one-tenth of our diet, we could get from 100 years to 300 years out of nuclear power under those same assumptions, exhausting those materials for the duration of our species due to irradiation of the containment materials.

If nuclear is a stop-gap measure worth pursuing, then we must face dire resource limitations.

[0] Derek Abbott. "Is Nuclear Power Globally Scalable?" Proceedings of the IEEE, October 2011

<comment><USER16> > exhausting those materials for the duration of our species due to > irradiation of the containment materials.

Not going to comment on the rest of this, but I'm pretty sure we could reclaim those rare-earths if we really wanted to.

<comment><USER15> Since speeding up the half-life of the radioactive elements is off the table, what do you propose?

<comment><USER16> I propose that 99.9% of the rare earths have not undergone nuclear changes, and so could be separated out. If there are +neutron changes that create unstable isotopes, that would be hard - but ones that resulted in fast beta decay or fission would be easy.

<comment><USER15> Problems with transporting this large quantity of radioactive material (these elements being only a small fraction) to separating facilities and their subsequent handling are obvious, but the stakes are high enough that they're worth considering if what you say is true. Do you you think it's feasible on an industrial scale and without careful laboratory controls?

<comment><USER16> I think the issues with reprocessing low-level nuclear waste (which is what I think this would be) would be more political and economic than practical. But if we truly were running out of rare earths? Both of those would go away.

That being said, I would rather live near the power plant than the reprocessing facility. MUCH rather. But another few square miles of superfund site is a fantastic trade for the coral reefs of the world.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> My heart says no to nuclear power. My brain says yes.

<comment><USER18> My reasoning says regarless of the technical merits in theory, people have managed to mess every kind of nuclear reactor setup, have been saying for decades "this time with the new design it's different", and have a horrible track record of nuclear waste storage/disposal (or lack thereof).

<comment><USER19> I think the concerns around nuclear waste storage are a little overblown. A lot of nuclear waste is stored on site, which is an indication of how incredibly little of it is produced. Compare that to the hundreds of millions of tons (!) of toxic coal ash that are produced and dumped somewhere annually. Surely trading millions of tons of coal ash for a few tons of nuclear waste would be an improvement?

<comment><USER20> You are not considering how long this stuff will be around and how dangerous it is.

That's like comparing a stockpile of bombs and comparing it to a single atomic bomb.

<comment><USER19> A dump of coal ash will contain high levels of lead, mercury, cadmium, chromium, arsenic, and selenium. Which will either slowly leach into ground water and water ways (sometimes abruptly by dam failures) or must be kept contained forever.

Heavy metal toxicity may be less dangerous than contamination with radioactive isotopes. But it's not clear to me that the waste rich in heavy metals is preferable if there's millions of times more of it. Because of the smaller scale, radioactive waste could just be put in a big building with some armed guards and regular inspections. Coal ash cannot be kept contained to that degree.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> > Ms Lights said she has since taken a role at campaign group Environmental > Progress UK, whose campaigns include supporting the building of the Sizewell > C nuclear power station in Suffolk.

So she got a job at a nuclear lobby organisation.

This is great for her. I'm not sure the lobby will able to pay until her retirement but maybe she can make the jump back into renewables.

</comment><comment><USER22> It seems odd that extinction rebellion need to do crazy stunts like glue themselves to tube trains to get in the papers, yet someone who leaves and says its unreasonable to abandon fossil fuels gets featured across multiple publications.

</comment><comment><USER23> Why does she wear a kryptonite amulet?

</comment><comment><USER24> As someone who works in the energy industry: it isn't.</comment>


See the long URL behind the short URL - <AUTHOR> http://urlxray.com

<comment><USER2> Pretty useful for twitter. I'll give it a try.</comment>


Pentagon to review Amazon employee's influence over $10B government contract - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/01/24/pentagon-review-amazon-employees-influence-over-billion-government-contract/ <comment><USER2> Warning - ad popup on this page that wanted to do a "flash" update.</comment>


Show HN: SneakerBits, your sneakerhead bot - <AUTHOR> http://sneakerbits.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> During the last couple of months I started to be obssessed with the chatbot scene, it's exciting to see a lot of experimentation in this area, so I decided to get my hands dirty and mix it with one of my passions: sneakers. I created a "minimum viable (sneakerhead) bot" for Telegram that shares the day's best news about sneakers. The bot's behaviour is super simple, I plan to improve it and test the bot in other platforms: Kik, Facebook Messenger, Slack.

I would love to have your feedback and suggestions.</comment>


Vinegar May Be Cheap, Safe Way to Kill TB Germ - <AUTHOR> http://www.drugs.com/news/vinegar-may-cheap-safe-way-kill-tb-germ-50579.html?

<comment><AUTHOR> From the article:

 _" There is a real need for less toxic and less expensive disinfectants that can eliminate TB and non-TB mycobacteria, especially in resource-poor countries," said Takiff._</comment>