NYC subway and bus services have entered 'death spiral', experts say - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/20/new-york-city-subway-bus-death-spiral-mta-fares <comment><USER3> The problem with urban transport systems is that no one sees them for what they really are... an expensive thing that drives the economy. There seems to be an obsession in the west with making public transport pay for itself, but the reality is that a few billion invested in better public transport results in a lot more billions being made elsewhere.

We need to get away from this idea that public transport systems need to break even or turn a profit. They are there to help make money in other ways. An efficient reliable transport system should cost the taxpayer money, but they will get that back in profit elsewhere through a thriving local economy.

<comment><USER4> Nobody expects the NYC subway to "break even or even turn a profit." The subway historically recovers less than 50% of its operating expenditures from fares, compared to 70% for Berlin, 88% for Amsterdam, and over 100% in Tokyo, Taipei, Hong Kong, and Singapore: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio).

MTA is broke because it costs several times as much for MTA to do anything compared to its counterparts in other Europe: [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york- subway-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway- construction-costs.html).

<comment><USER5> Sorting that wikipedia table by recovery ratio, I see most of the profitable ones are in East Asia and distance based:

Osaka (OMTB) 137%, Hong Kong MTR 124%, Osaka (Hankyu Railway) 123%, Tokyo Metro 119%, London Underground 107%, Singapore (SMRT) 101%, Taipei Metro 100%.

Clearly it is possible to have profitable subways, so I don't think we should drop profitability as a goal.

<comment><USER6> The business entity that owns the subway being profitable is not the same as the subway being profitable. MTR for instance is a real estate developer as well as a subway operator:

"As compensation for the cost of building railway networks, the government grants the MTR Corporation land development rights along its rail lines, stations and depots – an increasingly lucrative business in recent years amid a red-hot property market."

[https://www.scmp.com/news/hong- kong/economy/article/2136403/...](https://www.scmp.com/news/hong- kong/economy/article/2136403/mtr-corp-announces-64-cent-rise-net-profit- hk168-billion)

<comment><USER7> It's well understood by the locals that the Hong Kong (and possibly other Asian cities) system reaps most of it's revenue from land rights around/immediately above the stations. In

In Asia transit hubs are often also retail hubs and the commercial rents become profit for the public transit system. This makes perfect sense as the retail value of the nearby land can most obviously be credited to the transit system.

I'd imagine that the problem with the United States is that this real estate was sold early on or was never owned by by the transit system allowing the spillover benefits of transit hubs to be captured by private interests.

<comment><USER8> Yeah, majority of Hong Kong subway stations has malls on premise. Not sure it's owned by MTR too, but it's there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is a really depressing story to read. I've always believed that a good indicator of a country's health, is its ability to tackle complex large-scale projects. Projects that require coordination on multiple fronts: politics, bureaucracy, technical-know-how, civic sacrifice. In the old days when all this infrastructure was built in the first place, we showed our ability to do so. But now, we've gotten to the point where even maintaining it is proving too challenging. When you look at other countries like Singapore, China, Korea and Japan, it's clear that our political and governmental institutions are lagging far behind when it comes to _" getting things done"_. I wonder what this portends for the coming century.

<comment> temp-dude-87844 I don't disagree with this sentiment, but it's worth pointing out that nearly all transportation projects from the "old days" around the world were done by private companies, and often met a swift end in bankruptcy. Creditors lost a lot, but the assets were then picked up by others, and refined through years of trial and error into endeavors of modest profitability. Only our sepia- colored glasses and the survival bias of remaining parts makes it look like people back then had it figured out, and we don't.

Private rail systems in Europe eventually were nationalized during the warring decades of the 1900s and remained that way longer than in the US, while in the US the government spun up Amtrak to relieve rail operators from passenger rail and its rapidly declining revenues, while letting freight railroads go through waves of mergers until only a handful remained. Soon after Amtrak, the airline industry was deregulated, and airlines proceeded to copy the idea: rack up costs, declare bankruptcy, sell, reset.

Truth is, big, ambitious construction projects, and big, ambitious service networks have always sucked, and the ones that remain went through many cycles of overruns and disappointment and service reduction before they stuck. Maybe what ought to worry us isn't that we've lost the magic touch of delivering ambitious, long-running deliverables (railroads, infrastructure, cities, government services...) sustainably, but that we never mastered it in the first place, and the things we have now are the much-recycled husks of former grand ideas that managed to eke by.

<comment><USER10> I'll take issue with your thesis. I was once standing in Marin county overlooking the Golden Gate bridge, there I read a plaque describing how the bridge was built ahead of schedule and under budget - in the 1930s (no computers!). Behind the Golden gate bridge in the distance you see the Bay bridge, built with tremendous cost overruns and delays measured in billions of dollars and many years, respectively.

I'll make the case that, as a nation, we have lost the ability to deliver civil infrastructure projects on time and on budget, not to mention manage them once they are operational.

Regarding NYC MTA, I'll share an anecdote. I have a very close friend who worked on the second avenue Subway line a few years back. He's a civil engineer by training and was in middle management on this project, employed by the general contractor awarded this contact. His comment was along the lines of: "imagine dozens of dump trucks full of hundred dollar bills backing up to an incinerator and dumping the money. That's what the MTA does. Burn money." The sentiment was that these public institutions are chuck full of incompetence with no repercussions for mismanagement or incentive to excel. As a life long New Yorker, I don't have to work in the tunnels to know that he's right.

<comment><USER11> I take issue with your thesis. Every day, I ride to work on the Metro Expo line, which was built on time (actually early) and only delayed opening because a private company couldn't get its shit together and build the rail cars on time.

I'll make the case that, as a nation, we're doing fine with the ability to deliver civil infrastructure projects on time and on budget, and to manage them once they are operational, in those regions where they actually care about their infrastructure. See, e.g., LA Metro, Denver's metro, Cleveland's RTA, our utilities grid post-Enron. These are all things done at a scale and density that have been equaled or exceeded only by authoritarian states.

<comment><USER12> We're not doing fine.

"New York's Second Avenue Subway cost $2.6 billion per mile... The approximate range of underground rail construction costs in continental Europe and Japan is between $100 million per mile, at the lowest end, and $1 billion at the highest. Most subway lines cluster in the range of $200 million to $500 million per mile."

[https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/01/why-its-so- ex...](https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/01/why-its-so-expensive-to- build-urban-rail-in-the-us/551408/)

<comment><USER13> I think the point is that while you can find your pet example of an over- budget project, other people can find examples of projects that didn't have those problems.

Rushing to post "but what about the Second Avenue Subway" in any thread on this topic is not useful, since you've provided no evidence that it's representative enough to generalize to all infrastructure projects in all cities of all states of the US.

<comment><USER14> It's well known that infrastructure projects in the US overall cost way more than comparable projects do in most of the rest of the developed world. Here's just one link, from a cursory Google:

[https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2017-05-31/the-u-...](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2017-05-31/the- u-s-has-forgotten-how-to-do-infrastructure)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It's bad.

The A/C/J/Z lines still contain R32 cars, which were built 54 years ago, and are _20 years_ past their service life. These cars were built before the moon landing, have terrible brakes, have terrible air conditioning, and are, generally speaking, sweltering rattly deathtraps.

The Second Avenue line is _100 years_ in the making and has a grand total of...drum roll...3 stations. That opened in 2017.

But hey, they're getting WiFi in the tunnels and installing flatscreen TVs in the stations. Three cheers for more ad space! Personally, I'd rather have less station closures, less delays, and less stopping-and-waiting-20-minutes because of track congestion.

<comment><USER16> Mobile reception and wi-fi on stations, and displays with helpful info and arrivals / departures are _very_ welcome additions, and likely did not cost a lot.

Consumer-grade connectivity within tunnels is likely piggy-backed on the connectivity required for the trains infrastructure. Currently the subway operates a system from 1930s to control the lights and detect train positions. It is based on mechanical / magnetic relays, and is prone to break often.

Replacing that with redundant modern electronics and fiber optics wold increase MTBF dramatically, lowering maintenance costs and wait times. One thing that the current antiquated system is limiting is train speed. Trains used to be faster, but were slowed down because of safety reasons. If the new connectivity allows them to run 30% faster again (or even faster, where the tracks allow), that would be a _huge_ win.

(Written on a subway train crawling through the ancient tunnels.)

<comment><USER17> > Mobile reception and wi-fi on stations, and displays with helpful info and > arrivals / departures are very welcome additions, and likely did not cost a > lot.

Installing countdown clocks on only the lettered subway lines cost $209 million. This doesn't include the numbered lines which have had them for about 10 years which also cost hundreds of millions. In all the project took 29 years. [1]

If you want to know how much it cost to install WiFi is was budgeted for $200 million and ended up at around $300 million. [2]

Remember how that healthcare.gov Website cost hundreds of millions and was a failure? It cost $250 million and came with a $75 million maintenance cost. And then a small group came in at the end and fixed it for $4 million with yearly maintenance of $1 million? Well, the MTA has a ton of these projects.

[1] [https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/11/why-d...](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/11/why- dont-we-know-where-all-the-trains-are/415152/)

[2] [https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/17/engineering-against-all- od...](https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/17/engineering-against-all-odds/)

<comment> throwaway-10001 > If you want to know how much it cost to install WiFi is was budgeted for > $200 million and ended up at around $300 million.

Except that none of this money came from the MTA. The complete project was funded by private entities. Most of the cost was passed through to the four major wireless carriers. Those carriers continue to pay, on a monthly basis, for their ability to offer services in the Subway and the MTA receives portion of that payment. So, from the MTA's perspective, this project generates revenue. Same goes for a number of similar projects.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This has little to do with the MTA Union and everything to do with Blasio resisting committing more money to the MTA unless he was guaranteed by Cuomo that the money would go towards the subways and subway throughput, and not other MTA services. Cuomo Controls the MTA; Not the City, or the City Mayor, that's 99% of the problem.

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo's planned to add amenities like new lighting and USB ports at nearly three dozen New York City subway stations, Completely side- stepping DeBlasio. In February, Cuomo put the vote forth to The board of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, (they control the MTA), voted 10-3 vote in favor, to approve 1 billion dollars of contracts to refurbish nine of the thirteen stations.

This is all apart of Cuomo's Enhanced Station Initiative which is entirely focused on cosmetics.

It's a shame.

<comment><USER19> Seattle has kind of a similar problem. They can't just raise local taxes to pay for local transit. So instead the state has to decide on most Seattle transit projects (and their funding), and of course all of the conservatives east of the mountains bridle at the idea of _their money_ being spent on those big city liberals instead of locally even though the balance of tax revenues and spending means money flows the other way. It's infuriating.

<comment><USER20> Except for that $53 billion dollar light rail extension that was voted for and is funded by tax payers in the three counties it runs in.

<comment><USER19> Yes, and it was like pulling teeth to get it done, it should have happened much sooner.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> > Drastically cut service or increase fares

There's another option: disband the MTA Union, the primary driver of operations costs. They have blocked technology and safety upgrades for decades to keep 'those darn computers and robots from taking jobs from poor workers just trying to make a living'.

<comment><USER22> Paying conductors a living wage isn't nearly as expensive to the agency (and the state, and we the taxpayers and riders) as mismanaged and corruptly nepotistic multi-billion dollar contracts for construction.

<comment><USER23> This is wrong in many ways.

* Unionized workers make very good money in New York.

* Unions are a primary political driver behind those expensive contracts.

* There's more to unions than conductors. Construction and maintenance, for example.

* The unions routinely put up strong opposition to any meaningful expense or quality control. They also strongly oppose any modernization attempts that might threaten their jobs. They've opposed electronic signaling and control for decades. The worse the subways are, the better it is for them.

* Unions are politically untouchable. No matter what the consequences for the public, people are willing to leap to the defense of the noble workingman. Actually, the noble workingman who needs a "living wage" is riding the subways, not maintaining them. The poor and desperate are found among the five million people who ride the subway every day. Transportation is a public good. It shouldn't be beholden to a small group of highly paid laborers.

<comment><USER24> * Unionized workers make very good money in New York.

I didn't believe a friend of mine who only finish college was making $218,000 a year basically for early morning train track cleanups (device to pickup trash, stay away from 3rd rail), until I saw his bi-weekly paycheck with my own eyes. He's been doing that for last 5 years and they hire more people to do the same. What an insult to anyone with MBA, PhD., anyone pretty much who doesn't work for Union.

<comment><USER25> Maybe we should form a union?

<comment><USER26> Can you imagine the bargaining power that tech workers would have if they unionized? Our industry relies on tech workers for training and hiring, so hiring scabs during a strike would be basically impossible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> j-c-hewitt Cities like NYC are overcrowded and dysfunctional, but our financial system allows dysfunctional and failing systems to continue to operate up until the point to which they physically collapse and start either entering prolonged periods of obvious mechanical non-function and/or killing people in embarrassing numbers.

Without all the bailouts, the MTA would have failed decades ago and would have had to have been restructured. Because NYC's political priorities have been to conserve past structures and agreements at the expense of the present and the future, you will see performance go down and down to the point to which 1950s performance will look like 1950s science fiction.

I don't think I would expect anything to change until a major accident kills a large number of people in one day. You should expect the people in charge of the system as it exists today to keep getting millions of dollars as service continues to degrade. But the MTA knows this, so they stop the trains constantly when there is any chance of a collision, so you get the slow motion choke for money that you have had for decades.

There's a great option if you are not happy with New York City and its governance: leave! NYC is a machine for fleecing young people who want to move there with heads full of movies and TV and rich foreign potentates with more money than sense. It's not a great place to live if you want to have a comfortable middle class lifestyle. It might have been that 30+ years ago, but not anymore.

<comment><USER27> > NYC is a machine for fleecing young people who want to move there with heads > full of movies and TV and rich foreign potentates with more money than > sense.

Eh, I'm actually not so sure about that. Salaries in NYC are a lot higher than in other parts of the country, so provided you're doing well (say you're in tech, perhaps!) you're not being fleeced at all.

I am a little more optimistic than you are that the subway may one day be fixed. Unfortunately its fate rests in the hands of New York State, not the city, and many in NYS government couldn't care less about fixing it (Cuomo, here's looking at you). But it feels as though we're reaching a breaking point where citizens will demand change without anyone needing to die.

<comment><USER28> He means move to a commutable distance away : )

<comment><USER27> Better not go to New Jersey, those NJ Transit tunnels aren't up to much either!

<comment><USER29> No, but the PATH is pretty reliable and buses work - especially the Spanish bus. Every time I hear people complaining about the train into NYC I ask them why they don't either come to Passaic, Union City, or Hoboken and take an easier and faster (and often, less expensive!) alternative in.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Expressed in Millions:

        Payroll: $5,392
        Overtime: 811
        Health & Welfare: 2,129
        Pension: 1,354
        Other Labor: 400
        </comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>----
        Total Labor: $10,086

        Non-Labor: 4,205
        Debt Service: 2,692
        BTL Adjustments for Expenses: (251)
        </comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>=
        Total: $16,732

</comment><comment><USER31> "The subway service and the bus service has become unreliable enough for people to stop using it. If people aren't using it, there's less money, and they have to keep raising fares without delivering better service."

I was a daily rider of the DC metro for 8 years. This is exactly what happened there. Reliability plummeted, then ridership, and all the while major fare increases.

<comment><USER32> If you haven't been back, I think you'd be surprised at the (weekday) reliability of the metro now. The metro is almost always terribly messed up on weekends (with single-tracking and line closings), but they make a damn good effort to get weekday commuters to work on time. I've been living in the DC area for the past two years and it seems like they have really been making the metro a priority. I have a transfer during my commute during rush hour times, and I hardly ever have to wait more than five minutes for either of my trains.

<comment><USER33> I second this. I don't use Metro often, but my wife commutes by Metro almost every day. There was a period of a couple of years where she'd pretty routinely get home an hour or two late because of some huge fuckup with the trains, but recently it's been very smooth.

I think this is connected to the constant weekend problems you mentioned. The trouble before was that they weren't maintaining the system properly because they didn't want to cause disruptions. They finally realized that maintenance isn't actually optional and started doing what it takes to get it done. The system doesn't have enough capacity to have sections out of service for maintenance without major disruptions, but at least now they happen at a time of their choosing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> > _Turning things around will require a huge infusion of cash_

I keep hearing this with zero justification. Why? I'm sceptical of New York's public agencies asking for lots of cash. I assume there are legitimate projects, but the MTA has been horrible at showing the public this demanded money will be well spent.

<comment><USER35> > I keep hearing this with zero justification. Why?

I'm confident officials have neglected long term maintenance costs when planning and building all the various infrastructure of major cities. The modus operandi is always underfund the project, get people to rely on it (or at least make the case of not just throwing away the first $x when all you need is $y to complete it), beg for more funding.

Maybe the problem is NYC is an overpopulated crap-hole and there's no amount of money to fix it. Plenty of other real estate in the US that businesses and people can move to. NYC is obviously past carrying capacity if we have to resort to boring holes into bedrock to shuttle people around like rodents.

<comment><USER36> Jesus dude, what??

NYC's fantastic. It's one of the safest major metropolitan areas in the world filled with a tremendous variety of culture. It's the most diverse place on the planet with only London even being at a comparable level.

And the level of contempt for people riding subways? Where do you get off? Not only are they better for the environment, they're one of the great equalizers. Any person can ride the subway for the same price as anyone else and get around the entire city 24 hours a day.

They get people to work during odd shifts, and allow those without so much to reach the same places those with so much can.

What a weird, haughty, better than thou comment.

<comment><USER35> > And the level of contempt for people riding subways? Where do you get off? > Not only are they better for the environment, they're one of the great > equalizers.

I don't have contempt for people riding the subway, I have contempt for the organization that perpetrates that fraud on society.

> Any person can ride the subway for the same price as anyone else and get > around the entire city 24 hours a day.

At what cost? As it turns out, at great cost. Misallocation of capital: making it easier to commute into downtown areas via rail only induces rail demand and increases cost of housing. If end users were forced to pay actual costs of transportation, businesses wouldn't be able to afford keeping down town offices and would move towards worker populations, otherwise they would have to pay higher wages to maintain their labor force. Subsidizing transportation is nothing but subsidizing corporate labor.

If you think NYC is fantastic, that doesn't make my opinion any less valid.

<comment><USER37> Your analysis is exactly backwards base on history. One of the main drives to create corporate campuses outside of cities was to prevent competing firms from recruiting employees. Same goes for creating company restaurants and dry cleaning etc. keep employees on your campus and a way from competition. When they work downtown and walk out into the community they bump into people randomly and those unexpected connections can create new relationships.

<comment><USER35> I don't think this is accurate whatsoever. I think the main driver of these decisions is real estate. It's simply much cheaper to build a low-rise complex on lots of acreage than it is to obtain the same square footage downtown.

However, if a corporation can reallocate labor capital into real estate, IMO what happens in the NYC area, that's what they'll do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> While looking for more information, I found this article [1] which gives more detail into the costs of the MTA compared to other cities. Regarding operator efficiency:

> The number of annual revenue car-miles per subway employee in New York was > 14,000 in 2010. In Chicago this number is somewhere between 14,000 and > 16,000 ... On Tokyo's Metro, the comparable figure is about 18,500.

[1] [https://ny.curbed.com/2017/10/13/16455880/new-york-subway- mt...](https://ny.curbed.com/2017/10/13/16455880/new-york-subway-mta- operating-cost-analysis)

</comment><comment><USER39> I lived in NYC for five years and the decline in metro service was significant between 2016-2018. From most reports, it was due to faulty switches or expiring subway cars.

Fast forward to living in Tokyo, the difference is night and day (except for the rush hour crowdedness). Maintenance is done every night (somewhere) and all lines shut down between 12 and 1 am. It's super inconvenient, and this is where I applaud NYC for allowing me to get home every late night I spent out. I would hope there's some middle-ground in there, though.

The MTA is looking at this in such a primitive manner, though. I know (from my time there) that track work is not efficient. It looked to be a lot of sit and wait until something is ready. Tokyo metro workers are _always_ doing something. It's almost if they have clear defined goals that they must accomplish before their day starts.

</comment><comment><USER40> Not surprised. Not only are we lacking in physical infrastructure, but also technological infrastructure. I still don't understand how we do not have stations like in developed Asian countries like Japan or Hong Kong. The trains are "one" unit and the stations are doubled door with people at each station assisting (or ticketing..) you if needed. The train practically drive themselves. The conductor is there for emergency purposes. We didn't even have speed regulator installed until recently (and not all trains have them!) until a bunch of trains kept on crashing because of human error. We spend billions on ONE new station, but we can't invest a couple billion to fix the infrastructure.

<comment><USER41> Our system is 100 years old and their's aren't.

<comment><USER42> The points made apply equally to London's lines, which are even older.

(Some lines aren't yet upgraded to walk-through trains, but they're ordered. Stuff like speed regulators is decades old.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> The NYT had a great article on how the subway got in the situation it is in.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/nyregion/new-york- subway-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/nyregion/new-york-subway- system-failure-delays.html)

<comment><USER44> When even the NYT is willing to implicitly criticize unions, you know it's gotten bad:

 _Even in the face of the financial crisis and budget shortfalls, the M.T.A. has given concession after concession to its main labor union.

Members of the Transport Workers Union got a total of 19 percent in pay raises between 2009 and 2016, compared with 12 percent for the city's teachers union over the same period.

The labor contracts also gave members lifetime spousal health benefits and free rides on the Metro-North and the Long Island Rail Road. (They already were allowed to ride the subway for free.)_

Particularly insane:

 _Subway workers, including managers and administrative personnel, now make an average of about $155,000 annually in salary, overtime and benefits, according to a Times analysis of data compiled by the federal Department of Transportation. That is far more than in any other American transit system; the average in cities like Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles and Washington is less than $100,000 in total compensation annually._

<comment><USER45> The article is 90% on the political mismanagement, but you instead focus on the workers with little influence making $150k in NYC, much of which is from working overtime well past 40 hours in a mostly mindless job.

<comment><USER4> The MTA spends over $10 billion per year on labor, much of it redundant ( _e.g._ two drivers per car): [http://interactive.nydailynews.com/project/mta- spending](http://interactive.nydailynews.com/project/mta-spending).

People say "oh, but diverting tax dollars from MTA, etc." The NYT pegs that at about $1.5 billion _over two decades_ (since Pataki). [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/nyregion/new-york- subway-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/nyregion/new-york-subway- system-failure-delays.html). That's $75 million per year, a drop in the bucket in comparison. About enough to build a mile of subway line.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> The article briefly mentioned competition from ride sharing services but I wonder to what extent it's made an impact.

Anecdotally, given how cheap Uber and Lyft are in Manhattan (typically $4-5 for a shared ride), I often find myself opting for that instead of dealing with the hassles of the subway system. Both are unreliable when it comes to timeliness, as ride sharing services often take longer than expected (especially Uber Pool and Lyft Line). And as painful as the subway system can sometimes be, I do appreciate the rich history and incredible performances you'll often come across in subway stations. I'm torn, to be honest.

<comment><USER47> Yeah, I'd be very interested to learn about anything about the sensitivities of ridership to other external variables in general.

Looking at the article's linked presentation [1] and the MTA's most recent financial plan [2] it seems like all the hurt is coming from really huge declines in projected revenues - labor costs seem to be growing pretty reasonably but there's basically zero projected growth in fares. If someone can give me a layman's explanation of what "Capital and Other Reimbursements" is, which accounts for about a $500mm decline between 2019 and 20222, I'd be much obliged.

So I am curious how sensitive riders are to the increased service problems, how much that makes them switch out, to get some sense as to how much the signal improvements will help solve this problem. Also how much to a fare hike, which seems like the more straightforward answer in a vacuum (i.e. other than taxes or other government infusions). The MTA says in [1] that even "draconian service reductions would have a relatively small impact on the deficit."

[1] - [http://web.mta.info/news/pdf/MTA-2019-Final-Proposed- Budget-...](http://web.mta.info/news/pdf/MTA-2019-Final-Proposed-Budget-Nov- Financial-Plan-2019-2022-Presentation.pdf) [2] - [http://web.mta.info/news/pdf/MTA-2019-Final-Proposed- Budget-...](http://web.mta.info/news/pdf/MTA-2019-Final-Proposed-Budget-Nov- Financial-Plan-2019-2022-Vol1.pdf)

<comment><USER48> Reducing service, unless you want to do it really painfully, is unlikely to do much in the long run. A good chunk of the costs are employee related (health/pensions) and debt service. The MTA shouldn't default on its bonds, and in NYS you can't constitutionally modify government pensions after they've been given. And the MTA hires as many drivers and buys trains and buses based on peak demand; cutting off-peak is unlikely to do much since you wouldn't be reducing the absolute number of drivers you need.

In fact, cutting off-peak services would probably worsen the budget outlook long-term, since the marginal cost of an off-peak service is very low.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Over the summer The New Yorker had a story on the president of the NYC Transit Authority. Entitled Can Andy Byford Save The Subways[1]? I found it interesting. They had a rather optimistic take, but this article 4 months later makes me think its not going well.

[1] [https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/07/09/can-andy- byfor...](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/07/09/can-andy-byford-save- the-subways)

<comment> ajay-d 60 Minutes also profiled Andy recently. They even show a machine (over 100 years old) to move train switches, by manually pulling antique levers. Scary to think how these things operate.

[1] [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mta-why-has-the-nyc-subway- gone...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mta-why-has-the-nyc-subway-gone-off-the- rails-60-minutes/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> You can market a 2.75 to $3 fare increase on the convenience of not receiving change.

It's nearly insignificant.

But I agree with the lead comment. Public transport should be seen as an enabler, and should be made free, or affordable, in order to maximise the benefits.

We spend how much on roads? All from tax payers, and some people don't own a car. Yet the idea of paying for public transport out of taxes seems to grate some people.

</comment><comment><USER51> A ride in NYC is crazy cheap compared to other parts of the world. I live in Europe (grew up in NYC) and a single ride costs $4.50 where I am. But the public transport is clean, well-maintained and safe.

</comment><comment><USER19> New York City's walkability and public transit are easily one of its greatest, most important, and most valuable features. It's a shame that there's been such a revolt against local taxation over the last 30-40 years. Our big cities are the lifeblood of our modern technological economy. And yet we are under- investing in them drastically. But it's absolutely an affordable problem, we have the money we just balk at talking on the responsibilities properly, we want to pretend that if we temporize and half-ass our way there the problems (not just transit but housing and opioids and so forth) will just take care of themselves or spontaneously disappear. That is an immature and unrealistic stance. We need to govern ourselves, we need to take care of and maintain our own cities and our own people. If we continue to fail to do so it won't just be public transit in one city in a death spiral, it'll be the whole entire country headed the way of a failed state. And it'll happen a lot sooner and a lot faster than you might expect.

</comment><comment><USER52> The MTA claims that New York City's transit system doesn't have enough funding to keep up with requirements. Critics of the MTA claim that the transit system has more funding than ever, and just isn't keeping up because of some vague inefficiencies or incompetencies.

This is the exact same argument that we have when it comes to education, health care, defense, and so forth. Some argue that it's because government spending is inherently inefficient, and while that may be true, that doesn't explain how governments outside of the United States still seem to be a lot more efficient than governments inside the United States, nor does it explain similar phenomena in things like housing.

This seems like a very broad problem that is currently beneath the public consciousness. SSC's "Considerations on Cost Disease" ([http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/09/considerations-on- cost-...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/09/considerations-on-cost- disease/)) is the first general discussion I've found of this, though Scott Alexander cites a paywalled Tyler Cowen piece in Bloomberg.

(Fair warning: while SSC doesn't mention defense spending as an example of this, the US has a ridiculously high defense budget without actually having the quantity or quality of troops and ships and aircraft that such a budget would imply. If China's defense budget were the same as ours, they would _whip our ass_ in a conventional war.)

Whatever the shared root cause or causes are, they need to be addressed. Just giving MTA, Medicare, the Pentagon, universities, etc. more and more money isn't going to be sustainable. And, despite the ramblings of certain conspiratorially-minded folk, I also don't really think this is inflation in disguise, because then you'd also have to explain why there hasn't been a corresponding increase in the costs of e.g. basic groceries.

I don't have any answers here; I just don't think we're asking the right questions if we just restrict the discussion to the specific areas where we see this happen.

<comment><USER53> The United States had a different path to development than most other developed countries. How different, is a theme developed in an essay by Samuel Huntington from the 1960s: _Political Modernization: America vs. Europe_. In a nutshell: the US never underwent a period of state centralization, like that associated with the age of absolutism in Europe.

This is good in some ways — effective bureaucracies got their start as support for monarchial ambition, in an era of unprecedented government expenditure and military devastation — but it means the US never developed a strong, effective state, either bureaucratically or socially. The US retains many of what Huntington calls "Tudor Institutions" — institutions like a powerful court system that can effectively determine public policy, a decentralized approach to military forces (including the right to bear arms), and the sometimes handicapping balance of power among the different branches of government and the states. When absolutism collapsed in absolutist countries, all the decentralized institutions had been cleared away; but the bureaucracies survived, and with them a strong civil service tradition (modeled on military service), a notional trust in government, and a wide variety of effective and efficient public agencies.

<comment><USER52> That might explain cost disease in the public sector, but I don't know if it's sufficient to explain cost disease in housing, higher education, or the privatized parts of the health care industry. Unless you want to punt and blame bad government for all those things, which isn't an indefensible position. For example, in health care, the US is very efficient in fields like LASIK (which isn't covered by most public or private insurance) and has occasional counterexamples to cost disease like the Oklahoma City Surgery Center ([http://reason.com/blog/2017/01/27/what-happens-when- doctors-...](http://reason.com/blog/2017/01/27/what-happens-when-doctors-only- take-cash) \-- warning: libertarian bias).

Still, it's a very fascinating phenomenon. The US is culturally and constitutionally more robust against tyrannical government, but at the expense of undermining the possibility for effective government. This really gets at the root of some of the discussion about American exceptionalism, too.

<comment><USER53> Regarding _That might explain cost disease in the public sector, but I don't know if it's sufficient..._ and what follows, it's worth considering that the US struggles to get the private and public part right, when a strong institution is needed.

When we get more government in the US, we usually don't get a powerful and effective public institution, responsible for delivering a service directly to the people, staffed with dedicated public servants. Instead, we generally get a tangle of regulation and a large private industrial complex.

A major exception to this -- though they are becoming less so -- are the various branches of the military. They overlap with one another and thus come into conflict; but all soldiers are dedicated public servants.

Immediately adjacent to the military is the US arsenal system, or military industrial complex, a web of not-really-competing companies that the DoD tries to manage via complex and demanding contracts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> I haven't noticed. In fact, it's been a several weeks since my commute was interrupted severely. I hear the green line is doing pretty badly though.

</comment><comment><USER55> $2.75 sounds really cheap to my British ears. How far can you go on that?

<comment><USER56> The NYC system isn't composed of "zones" like the systems in such cities as London and Paris. Essentially, once you pay your $2.75 you're free to travel to any subway station in the system. There's also a bus system with limited transfers.

<comment><USER57> DC metro has zones, as an example of a US train system with it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> For people here who are interested in transit, I highly recommend Jarrett Walker's book "Human Transit". He really focuses the conversation around a few ideas that almost everyone can agree on (and uses them to focus & have productive conversations in transit agencies) [https://humantransit.org/](https://humantransit.org/)

Last night I watched his talk "Transit Truths" \- [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5AHJA2-lAc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5AHJA2-lAc) \- which also summarizes the ideas in his book well.

</comment><comment><USER59> "experts"

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

"Span 2003b. "No one sought an answer to Quinby's most penetrating question (referring to the 1935 Public Utility Holding Company Act), "Who Is Behind This Campaign To Separate The Obviously Economical Combination Of Electric Railway And Its Power Plant?"

</comment><comment><USER60> "The system's financial straits have gotten worse in part because it has fewer riders, and is collecting less money in fares."

If there are less riders to serves doesn't logic dictate service levels be adjusted to fit market conditions?

Given that this might be the key fact in the whoke article, the article should have detailed why rider volume is down.

<comment><USER61> Why would it dictate that? Choosier consumers with more options require you to step up your game to compete. The point of the death spiral is that ridership is down due to reliability issues, which will get worse due to less fare revenue, driving ridership down further.

<comment><USER60> Why? Why not? If you need to move 1000 people to a given destination over an hour, and you run every 15 mins, and 1000 drops to 800, then approx every 20 mins will do.

But that's not drop in service (as it will be spun). That's just a common sense response to the needs of the market.

The problem is, any elected official who champions such common sense won't get elected / re-elected. Simply because it will be sold to the public as a drop in service. This why public programs always grow and too rarely never re- adjust (smaller) when appropriate.

Note: The article did __not__ say why ridership is down. It mentioned the reliability issue but doesn't name it as the sole reason. For all we know more people are walking because the need the exercise. Or perhaps those at the bottom of the economic ladder can't afford to ride.

Obviously, the former is good news. Healthcare is expensive. Obesity is a real issue.

Obviously, the latter is bad news. And few elected officials what to be the ones to say they haven't been doing what they said they were doing.

Or perhaps tourism is down? Which again, is not a feather in any politician's cap.

Anecdotally, I live in Central NJ. To take the train to NYC I have to pay approx $10 to park. That makes the round trip approx $40. In my mind, at $40 p/p p/trip, that's coming up on $50, opposed to a (psychological) shade over $25.

The article makes no mention of possible external factors.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> The cost of a single trip has always been the cost a pizza slice. [https://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/12/nyregion/nyc-beware- the-p...](https://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/12/nyregion/nyc-beware-the-price-of- a-slice.html)

</comment><comment><USER63> I'd rather see an increase in progressive taxes for individuals and companies in NYC rather than a fare hike.

I, at least, heavily depend on public transportation in NYC and would be more than happy to pay more to the MTA in taxes if it meant cleaner, more efficient, and more reliable service.

</comment><comment><USER64> This is one of the best articles on why the NYC subway is such a mess

[https://www.businessinsider.com/second-avenue-subway-cost- ny...](https://www.businessinsider.com/second-avenue-subway-cost-nyc- infrastructure-2016-12)

</comment><comment><USER65> The list of cities that offer [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_public_transport](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_public_transport) is growing. Maybe this is the model for the future!

</comment><comment><USER66> The New York subway system is riddled with inefficiencies, corruption, and terrible maintenance. You've gotta call it for what it is. Their bull shit has caught up to them. I feel nothing less than contempt for the people behind it.

</comment><comment><USER67> Vox has a great piece on how the NYC MTA got to its current state of affairs [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COLMODzYX7U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COLMODzYX7U)

</comment><comment><USER68> Everything that one needs to understand in order to explain why NYC subway is such a shitshow can be learned by any software engineer that attempted to change a gigantic legacy barely functioning code base of an organization with a single product that relies on this codebase which happened to still have "founders" running a show 12-13 years later:

When the company adds "new blood", everything that the new blood proposes gets tossed out for "legacy reasons". Periodically, someone floats a plan for a gigantic multi-year "keep X service but rewrite everything inside it from scratch" software engineering project. Those future "rewrite from scratch" projects are used to justify not making any incremental improvements.

</comment><comment><USER69> You can pretty much get anywhere on the ny subway system and it's pretty cheap. Bay area public transport is more expensive and it doesn't even go everywhere.

</comment><comment><USER30> Curious whether Uber or Lyft riders will change their behaviors as the toll on public transit becomes more salient..

</comment><comment><USER70> It's funny how pathetic America deals with any sort of public service. It's all about me me me.

<comment><USER53> The US had a very different path to modernization than most other developed countries, because it never underwent absolutism.

The typical effect of absolutism was to introduce an efficient and effective civil service, as part of the general centralization of authority. Absolutist states were monarchial, militaristic states; the combination of taxation and destruction was hard to endure and eventually they had to transition to something else as a result of revolution or defeat. After either event, though, the civil service stuck around and with it a norm of publicly provided services.

The US got off the train at just about the time that absolutism was getting going in Europe -- indeed, because it was getting going in Europe -- and thus retains a decentralized -- not necessarily selfish -- structure and outlook more characteristic of medieval Europe. These "Tudor Institutions" are discussed by Huntington in _Political Modernization: America vs. Europe_ : [http://pscourses.ucsd.edu/ps200b/Huntington%20Political%20Mo...](http://pscourses.ucsd.edu/ps200b/Huntington%20Political%20Modernization%20 --America%20vs%20Europe.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> solution it's pretty simple, hike the fare like in comparable cities, shut down subway in night like in comparable cities, remove unlimited ticket and replace it with time/zone limited like in comparable cities. you can't eat cake and have it

</comment><comment><USER72> Is this really a funding problem or is it an employee quality problem ...

</comment><comment><USER73> serious q: what alternatives exist besides buses and taxi/rideshare? Is walking/scootering a material number of people? If not, why about taxing rideshares to fund the subway?

<comment><USER74> Most NYC residents don't have walkable commutes, especially those living in middle or lower income neighborhoods that are generally further from the city center. The city is too large, and not particularly pedestrian friendly in the outer boroughs.

FWIW Biking has become more viable in recent years, with a good amount of bike lane coverage even in the outer boroughs, but that's still not viable for the less physically able, and I don't know if it's actually cheaper than public transit once you factor in bike equipment/maintenance costs and increased travel times. Also the weather gets fairly extreme in both the summer and winter.

Taxing rideshares sounds like a good idea, though I'm sure Uber would fight like hell against it.

<comment><USER75> Uber & others seem to be fine with a general congestion charge although, and actually seem to encourage it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> Why don't they just pave the tunnels and put autonomous buses in?

</comment><comment><USER77> This is clickbait based on old news. The MTA hired an unconventional transportation turn-around guru. It's going to take time to make things better.

</comment><comment><USER78> Amazon Cuomo will fix it.

<comment><USER79> I think if Amazon pitches in with some funds and help them out with logistics software planning for increased efficiency, they will go a long way in buying some goodwill from the NY public. It's great publicity while helping out the city citizens.

Put all that ML and AI expertise to some public use.

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> CLOSE THE SUBWAY MIDNIGHT-5AM and fix it

Like most other civilized societies who have a _functioning and well- maintained_ metro system.

That is really all there is to it!

<comment><USER36> That really hurts most a lot of poor people who work odd hours.

Then suddenly they have to find a way home or two work that will be much more expensive and eat into their earnings.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but "that's really all there is to it" will affect very negatively hundreds of thousands of people in NYC.

<comment><USER81> To serve much better for 99.9% commuters or serve poorly for 100% commuters, isn't that a easier decision?

<comment><USER82> i dont think it's really that simple. even it was i don't think the decision is that easy anyway.

it's important to think about who your decisions affect, even if they may be a minority (which is bigger than 0.1%). why is it okay to put more burden on the people who already have the most burden as it is?

<comment><USER81> NYC is the only city which has such requirement and have to provide subway to support them? How many other cities provide same 24/7 subway transit? why the other cities don't provide such service? The other cities don't have people work so late? How does those people commute?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> I think what everyone reading this story is missing and that the opportunity.

Betting someone clever on HN could invent a new signalling system for far less than $40 billion, perhaps $4 billion.

Once it's proven in New York you could roll it out anywhere in the world.

<comment><USER74> >Betting someone clever on HN could invent a new signalling system for far less than $40 billion, perhaps $4 billion.

Is this a satirical comment? It doesn't matter how easily a clever HN reader could devise a new, greenfield signaling system, you can't just build and cutover to a new subway signaling system in one of the world's densest cities, atop an existing subway with over 100 years of accrued legacy signaling technologies. The MTA has tried to modernize it's signaling system twice, and each initiative was a multi-decade, multi billion dollar morass. It's just not a problem that can be solved by throwing a shiny new framework at it - <USER2> that many real world problems can be.

</comment></comment><comment><USER84> > Critics say it is bad service that is driving people away.

One datapoint: I live in Rhode Island. Recently I attended a concert in Brooklyn. The obvious way to travel there was Amtrak to Penn Station and MTA (train or bus) to the final destination. However, I was warned that MTA service is unreliable. I decided to drive. Next time I probably won't go at all.

<comment><USER85> So, I haven't been to New York in a while, but I'm guessing that you were poorly informed.

Usually when public transit networks start showing strain, it's during rush hours, when they're handling _massive_ spikes in ridership. To give an example from Chicago: If you're trying to get on the train downtown at 6:00pm, you'll get on the next train, and probably get to sit in a seat. If you try to do it at 5:00pm, you stand a good chance of waiting 30 minutes for a train that you can even physically get on to. When you do, your ride will probably also take 50% longer than the 6pm ride would have. And maybe even 100% longer than a ride at 7pm would have.

You naturally get all the complaints from the rush hour riders. And yeah, if your concert were starting at 6 in the evening so that you'd have to brave rush hour traffic, then that would be a problem. But so would driving.

If, like most concerts, it was starting a bit later, you'd very likely have experienced smooth service.

<comment><USER86> > If you're trying to get on the train downtown at 6:00pm, you'll get on the > next train, and probably get to sit in a seat. If you try to do it at > 5:00pm, you stand a good chance of waiting 30 minutes for a train that you > can even physically get on to.

What line are you describing? I take the L every day from downtown around 5 and I can reliably get on the first train and it will arrive in < 10 minutes (and there's a good chance I'll have a seat). If a train takes more than 10 minutes, it will almost certainly be packed full, but it will also almost certainly be followed by another nearly-empty train in ~1-2 minutes.

<comment><USER85> The example I had in mind was blue line northbound from Clark & Lake.

Which is admittedly the worst scenario that I could think of, and I should have said that. It gets better quickly from there. I used to get on 2 stops further south, and, yeah, at 5 I usually had no problems and a decent chance of getting a seat, too.

<comment><USER57> Blue Line north at 5-5:30PM is a nightmare from Clark/Lake. I sometimes have to wait for 4-5 trains before I can get on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER87> The problem seems fixable, but as others have said, people will have to take some lumps.

A certain political figure with strong (both bad and good) ties to NYC has harped for a couple of years about a federal infrastructure bill. I think the phrase "third world" was used to describe the problem.

No reason why America's Greatest City (tm) could not wring a couple of bil out of the feds to start upgrading their subways. Move back to the first world, you might say.

In turn, because we're talking about a transaction, the MTA might also need to move out of a "third world" mentality. We can safely assume some of their payroll is spent on political favors. Maybe this "death spiral" talk will motivate the agency to make a least a token gesture towards good use of their riders dollars.

Maybe.

<comment><USER88> Not to get super political, but the concept of NY/NJ getting any transit infrastructure-related federal funds was nixed late last year in retribution against Sen. Schumer for... something?</comment></comment>


A response to ESR - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@coralineada/why-hackers-must-welcome-social-justice-advocates-1f8d7e216b00#.j0d6snbw6 <comment><USER2> Is it just me, or anyone else getting annoyed by the social justice crowd's emotional manipulations?

I say manipulation, because the modus opporandi is to make us feel guilty that there aren't enough women in tech. Or minorities. Ot lgbtq or whatever.

And the SJW movement seems to be willing to use all tactics including to reframe open-source develop as something that should welcome more politics, just because one particular crowd inside OS is driven ideologically. (Richard Stallman and the free software foundation - forgetting that many people participate in OS for non-political reasons)

Then the article poses the all important question:

"Are all people truly free to participate in open source?"

I would say, clearly, anyone with a computer, Internet, that can teach hom/her self to code, and has something worthwhile to contribute can indeed.

I am not aware of github blocking signups from people based on race or gender.

If a particular project does not want your contribution, you simply fork it. Happens to me too, despite my white male privilege.

Then the article attempts to refute the conclusion that people are generally free to contribute to OS just by stating the stat:

"Between 2% and 10% of open source contributors are women. Statistics are not available for other marginalized populations, such as people of color, people with disabilities, or people on the LGBTQ spectrum, often because the surveys that track these demographics do not even ask such questions–another manifestation of the problem."

The author does not show causality between this stat and discrimination, just infers it. Must be because we all hate women despite havinf mothers, sisters, wives, woman friends...

Finally saying in the above quoted paragraph that not quizzing people about their orientation and race, is part of thr problem!!!!

For real.

I thought not caring and not identifying people by their race or orientation would be a cornerstone of freedom and equility in the world of open-source where you can contribute under any moniker of your choosing.

Is it just me?

</comment><comment><USER3> Many points in the article that I personally find to be out of line.

FTA: _Are all people truly free to participate in open source? Between 2% and 10% of open source contributors are women. Statistics are not available for other marginalized populations, such as people of color, people with disabilities, or people on the LGBTQ spectrum, often because the surveys that track these demographics do not even ask such questions–another manifestation of the problem._

One of the concepts of open source that I find most beautiful is, open source doesn't owe anyone anything. It exists at the pleasure of those willing to contribute. It is freely forkable and not beholden to central authority. It is perhaps one of the best examples of free association.

Further, the fruits of open source have made technology more accessible than ever before or otherwise might be. Open source by its nature enables social justice, not the other way around.</comment>


Ask HN: Can someone explain proof of stake using an analogy? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> A very, very rough one is it is the crypto equivalent of buying ATM machines and installing them at your local shopping centres and collecting the cash withdrawal fees.</comment>


Samsung Confirms Critical Security Issue for Millions: Every Galaxy After 2014 - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/daveywinder/2020/05/07/samsung-confirms-critical-security-warning-for-millions-every-galaxy-after--2014-affected/#11d6c9053af7 <comment><USER2> Ugh, this submitted multiple times, and no traction. I ended up encountering the Forbes article from Firefox's new tab recommendations from Pocket. :/ Also the Project Zero article that's the basis for it didn't get any play here either, possibly because it wasn't obviously associated with any real world exploit.</comment>


Show HN: Realtime Website Analytics for Free - <AUTHOR> https://statvoo.com/ <comment><USER2> What is the difference between this and something like Google Analytics?

<comment><AUTHOR> All data is _always_ realtime with a very simple integration.

Integrating into SPA/Angular/React is so easy that you don't even need to tell it a page or event has changed! Simply adding the Javascript tagging anywhere on your site allows the analytics engine to detect if a SPA page has changed routes and it will then fire relevant events.

Other than the standard GA functionalities, you can also assign events to login/join pages to associate anonymous visitors as _people_ and then know which actions particular individuals are doing later.

All Javascript errors are logged with a full stacktrace where applicable so that you can immediately see if anyone on a particular platform/useragent is experiencing errors on one of your pages (happens more than you think!).

Other than that, there are many additional hidden features that you should find out for yourself ;)

You'd like it if you tried it!</comment></comment>


[Giveaway] Mac app to help you stay focused and reduce clutter - <AUTHOR>

I've got an update for HazeOver coming up, so I'd like to give away some spare download codes for you to enjoy:
7KPN667KAWXY NPLNXLLRRH6Y 443MR343FYNR JMPYNX4P3R9A EHPTEM4W9L4M T4TK7F67WKTF 7P67F9FXRFPN M3N3A7JPNPRW RYLFR9J6FRPK MEERF7LHH74J T43LHTPL4349 JEM4H6YPJXNW
Please write back about your experience =)
Oh, and here's a demo video: https://hazeover.com/ and Mac App Store link: https://hazeover.com/get/appstore <comment><USER2> I've always had problems with focusing on application windows. Recently I started using Better Touch Tool to fully maximize windows (when clicking the green button), but that might be a bit of a overkill on a 27" iMac. Maybe this app will work better. Thanks!

<comment><AUTHOR> I hope it does. The idea I had behind HazeOver is that I don't want to manage windows at all. I just want them to get out of the way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Just tested the App and I really loved it.

I was searching for something like this for quite sometime, as I tend to have a lot of windows open and this app helps me to focus on only one at a time.

Simple and efficient =)

Thanks !

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you. That's exactly what it is made for. I'm glad you like it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I love this app. I gladly paid $3.99 when I saw it, as I've been wanting something like this for awhile.

Question: any evidence of increased battery life due to the lowered brightness on a portion of the screen?

I was sitting in a dark room with my MBP at full brightness and noticed how bright the windows are when they're focused and you have the dim set sufficiently high. There's gotta be at least SOME savings, right?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you. I don't think MBPs have local backlight dimming in their LCDs. AFAIK only big expensive TVs do and MBPs displays are to thin to fit that =)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I just purchased this from the app store. Great work!

<comment><AUTHOR> Ooh, thank you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This looks awesome! Just got back from a camping trip and just saw your post. Might there be any spare codes left?

EDIT: if you are better by email, feel free to reach me at akoster (at) ieee.org Thanks in advance and looking forward to trying out and recommending this awesome-looking app.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sent one by email. Have fun.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Looks like these are all gone. Shame, given the lack of both points and comments.

<comment><AUTHOR> Here's one just for you. I hope you get to grab it: FLHLJJ777L3L

<comment><USER8> Hey sorry, I did something stupid and used the code you spared for @asherkin. Would be kind enough to share another one?

I'm kinda sleepy in my office and just copied and paste the code for fun, didn't expect it to work (or maybe can I reverse the procedure? I never used 'redeem' before :-/ )

<comment><AUTHOR> Giveaways are always a lottery =) Enjoy it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> UPDATE 2: Some time ago I sent some codes to bloggers. Unused codes are expiring soon and I'm going to give them away as well. Please comment if you'd like to get HazeOver.

</comment><comment><USER9> I'd like one--I often get confused about whether I've switched my focus or not, and this seems like a good way to manage that! Curious about the plans for the update, too. :)

Thanks!

<comment><AUTHOR> I think you'll love it. I'll send you a code when I get back home in a few hours.

<comment><USER9> Thanks, appreciate it! :)

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm back! [http://tokn.co/c53b53x5](http://tokn.co/c53b53x5)

<comment><USER9> Aw, man--I'm too slow, it was already redeemed. Thanks anyway!

EDIT: My email address is: john.d.swanson at the biggest search engine's email service dot com, if you want to try that. Again, thanks. :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Got it!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> UPDATE: apparently all gone. Please do check out the site and leave a comment if you'd like it. I have a few codes left to give out in the comments.

</comment><comment><USER10> Looks like all are gone. Will check out the app when i get home. I think this will help with what i have been wanting for awhile.

Thanks though.

</comment><comment><USER11> As a Windows user, I'm jealous this is for Mac only. Great work @pointum!

Does anyone know a similar tool for Windows 7/8?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you. Funny thing is that initially I planned to create this app for Windows, but then I switched to Mac.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> been looking for this for ages. Just happily paid $4. Feature request - I'd like to be able to turn it on/off per monitor.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you. The update I have mentioned includes better support for multiple monitors. I.e. each screen would wave its own highlighted window. Would that help in your case?

<comment><USER12> That's exactly what I want! At my desk I use a huge monitor, which is where I'm loving HazeOver. I keep my macbook air on my desk for email and chat, which is already hard to see due to it's size. So I usually keep that a little brighter. With HazeOver as it is now, it's dark all the time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I could use all the help I can get!

</comment><comment><USER14> Any more codes? This looks great!

<comment><AUTHOR> If you like it then you shoulda put a rxfxyh on it wnm9mm

<comment><USER14> :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Hello !

Can you share another one ?

Seems an amazing product =)

<comment><AUTHOR> Too bad there are no PMs in here fn6fe439mymy.

<comment><USER3> Yay ! Thank you =)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Is there a useable demo?

<comment><AUTHOR> Demos should have some limitations. It's such a small and simple app than I don't know how to make an adequate demo out of it.

<comment><USER15> I was just thinking time limited trial; full functionality for 3 days or something.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Id love one thanks

<comment><AUTHOR> Here wttwx you xh97nkx go!

<comment><USER16> Hero. Thank so much</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Crowdsourced video game information website - <AUTHOR>

Hi, I have recently launched Gamealoon.com which is a crowdsourced video game information and media and social network website. Gamers from all around the world can come, create and share their opinions, news, videos and more in the form of articles at Gamealoon. Also, they can connect with each other via the fully featured twitter-esque social network. Currently the challenge I am facing is that I am unable to get early adopters for my website.<p>Also, I want to reward the user for their contribution to the system. I am thinking of providing them some share from ad revenue or points via some gamification system via which they can exchange their collected points with something tangible. Its just that I am unable to think through how I should approach this problem or is it even the right time to approach the problem or not. Please advice and provide your valuable feedback. <comment><AUTHOR> Hi It will be really helpful if some advises and feedback can be provided as it will help me work in a much more better way.</comment>


All-in-One DNS block list - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/EnergizedProtection/block <comment><USER3> How to make a block list:

1) Find a bunch of high-quality block lists on the internet which have been painstakingly curated my their maintainers for many years

2) Combine it all into one big list. Tell everyone that you will quickly whitelist any domains if they are causing breakage.

3) Once enough people start using your list, get an advertiser to pay you to silently remove their domains. If anyone notices, just say it was to fix breakage on some obscure site.

I'm not saying that Energized or StevenBlack are doing step 3, but please realize that there are issues with using lists like these. Even if they aren't getting paid, they might still have some undesirable whitelisted domains. They also deprive the original block list maintainers of views (meaning they might be less inclined to continue maintaining them). You also won't receive updates from the lists as quickly because of the middle man.

If you are using Pi—hole, OPNsense, or any other tool which can run multiple block lists simultaneously, I recommend taking a look at [https://firebog.net](https://firebog.net) for a list of original-source block lists.

<comment><USER4> I can see how it might seem that way — I'm Steven Black.

I can point to thousands of combined...

* issues [https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%...](https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aclosed)

* ...pull requests... [https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Acl...](https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclosed)

* ... and commits [https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts/commits/master](https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts/commits/master)

...that indicate, it's not so easy.

The sources we use are all vetted. Some sources are remarkable in terms of activity, and responsiveness to problems as they occur.

Overall I think this area is far more dynamic than many realize. Some good people curate the lists we carry.

<comment><USER3> I don't mean to belittle your project -

Consolidated block lists like yours are still important for people who are using the traditional etc/hosts file. I believe the Pihole project would like to focus more on the software and less on the block lists - so they include your list, which has a good track record of vetting sources and responding to issues. I also appreciate that your project has produced its own original block lists (which happen to be included on the Energized list and firebog.net).

I just wish more people would use the original source when possible.

I dislike this Energized list, partly because I had a bad experience using one of their non-primary lists which wasn't well maintained, and partly because their website ([https://energized.pro/](https://energized.pro/)) makes it sound like a commercial product.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This repo has a 3-week track record, by one contributor.

Disclosure: Some of us have been actively curating such amalgamated lists for a long time. [https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts](https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts)

<comment><USER5> What are the dangers of using a sketchy blocklist?

<comment><USER6> I'm no expert, but the most obvious answer is "you MITM yourself".

If there is a userbase for a list, they have to trust the list to not filter out domains that shouldn't be filtered. I have a hard time thinking how this could lead to hidden repercussions, other than some security flaw that is only exploitable when some subset of requests go through.

<comment><USER5> Perhaps they can point a particular host to a malicious IP rather than "0.0.0.0". In a list of several hundred thousand domains, you wouldn't be able to notice this manually.

ex., make Bank of America resolve to a phishing site rather than the real BoA IP.

Pi-Hole and others might check for this though, I don't know.

<comment><USER6> I am under the impression that the blocklist programs (such as ublock origin or pi-hole) do not have an option to redirect to anything other than the void. I can only see downsides to allowing this.

<comment><USER7> Actually ublock-origin has some options to replace Javascripts with custom (presumably _less_ intrusive) scripts. Although I don't think 3rd party lists can do this.

Anyway the repository in this post also provides host files, which most definitely _can_ redirect you to malicious IPs.

Edit: Turns out 3rd party block lists _can_ use the redirect feature but only to Ublock Origin managed resources: [https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Resources- Library](https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Resources-Library)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I have been using NextDNS with a few block lists configured at the router level and device level.

The internet experience has improved a lot since ads and trackers are blocked system wide.

A few block lists that I would recommend:

1\. Steven Hosts - [https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts](https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts)

2\. Adguard DNS - [https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdguardSDNSFilter](https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdguardSDNSFilter)

3\. disconnect.me

The amount of DNS requests made silently in the background is astonishing across all devices.

<comment><USER9> I'm also using NextDNS and one thing that's a huge boon for me is that the default free tier covers my use case insanely well. Given the statistics for the last 3 months I seem to consistently fly under the free tier limit but if I ever do hit it, it will just default back to a regular DNS. A very user- friendly approach and I hope they keep it as they grow.

<comment><USER10> The other option would be to pay them. :) It's great service and pretty inexpensive, why not support them?

<comment><USER11> Agreed. They couldn't take my $20 fast enough. Such a great service.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I really appreciate projects like this because I'm sure keeping these lists up-to-date is not an easy task, and many people benefit from the efforts.

That said: maybe it's just me, but I find their website[1] a bit...strange?

It looks like one of those SAAS startup landing pages, you can pick your "pack of block list" ranging from "Tru lite" to "XTreme" etc...

Or maybe it's supposed to be ironic and I just don't get it :) [1] [https://energized.pro/](https://energized.pro/)

<comment><USER13> Ironically their website doesn't work if you block 3rd party JS due to Cloudflare.

<comment><USER14> I abandoned NoScript because I felt like I spent more time whitelisting JS than browsing the web and other people just couldn't borrow my browser.

NoScript really needs the ability to whitelist a TLD for providers like cloudflare.

<comment><USER15> They do? You can globally whitelist urls

<comment><USER16> The issue for Cloudflare is whitelisting the DDoS protection script included on each page. It's under a lot of URLs so it would have to be content-based.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Looks like my lists are intended to be included, but it was linking to the raw Github source instead of the hosted Github pages version. I went through a major refactor 21 days ago that moved my sources lists around a bit - <USER2> preserved the links that are supplied all over the README and the Github hosted pages. So, not only is the project linking to the wrong place, but my list has been broken in it for 21 days now without notice.

Its fine that people love creating these massive all-in-one lists. But I recommend just using the sources directly. That way, if a list gives you trouble, you know who to open a ticket with, or just disable that specific list if its too aggressive for your tastes.

My lists: [https://www.github.developerdan.com/hosts/](https://www.github.developerdan.com/hosts/)

</comment><comment><USER18> I am pretty happy with [https://www.reddit.com/r/oisd_blocklist/](https://www.reddit.com/r/oisd_blocklist/) as a All-in-One Solution ...

<comment><USER19> I use this with my Pi-Hole. Works very well. Along with a few other lists the Pi-Hole blocks about 30% of requests with almost no changes on the user end.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Fundamentally D.N.S is a naming system but each site has a separate naming system via user names.

Something like this should also be applicable for social networks as well. I found this for twitter - [https://blocktogether.org/](https://blocktogether.org/) not sure if it is possible for others like facebook.

</comment><comment><USER21> Also a ref to: [https://github.com/notracking/hosts- blocklists](https://github.com/notracking/hosts-blocklists)

They have a public whitelist and updates are pushed on a daily basis.

</comment><comment><USER22> Is there any tools out there that I can use to generate my own aggregated lists from a set of other blocklists?

Ideally it leverages things like GitHub Actions (or another CI tool) + GH Pages/GH releases/Netlify to relief the burden of having to host it myself.

The reason for this is so that I can use NetGuard, which allows for only 1 blocklist. Currently I'm flipping between Blokada and DNS66 because they allow for multiple lists.

</comment><comment><USER23> I've been using blockslists from a couple github repositories for a long time, heck probably since they were found on regular web pages.

They work pretty good, but can be a little cumbersome to turn off or to enable certain domains from time to time (such as when a site has so many ads it breaks the site). But the increases safety and speed while surfing is well worth it.

</comment><comment><USER24> Some other blacklists here: [https://github.com/dnscrypt/dnscrypt- proxy/wiki/Public-black...](https://github.com/dnscrypt/dnscrypt- proxy/wiki/Public-blacklists)

Along with a script that aggregates data from multiple lists, removes duplicates/overlaps, whitelists, etc.

</comment><comment><USER25> right now I actively using [https://doh.tiar.app](https://doh.tiar.app) maintained by my friend [https://twitter.com/pengelana/](https://twitter.com/pengelana/)

</comment><comment><USER26> Alternative client to update your hosts file: [https://github.com/goldfix/pigHosts](https://github.com/goldfix/pigHosts)

</comment><comment><USER27> This list can be used on Android or iOS by downloading the Blokada app

</comment><comment><USER28> Very cool, I'm gonna try this out with PiHole.

</comment><comment><USER29> Are there any Firefox, Ubuntu ppl around? Can you guys bake this stuff (host blacklists) into browser, os autoupdates?

<comment><USER30> If you're familiar with *nix stuff I'd suggest just run a pi-hole.

<comment><USER31> if youre not familiar I would suggest it too :)

I've gotten a few friends started on pi hole and ended up with minecraft servers, free nas, kodi, and retropi</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: A lightweight planning tool suitable for Kanban/Agile/Scrum - <AUTHOR> http://www.hyperplan.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Hyper Plan is a simple visual planning tool. Like sticking post-it notes to a wall, but in software. Currently in free open beta for Windows and Mac. Would love to get your feedback.

</comment><comment><USER2> Why a desktop app?</comment>


"I'd give up a year of my life for just half a day with my parents" - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704875604575280400596257236.html?mod=WSJ_LifeStyle_Lifestyle_5

<comment><USER2> That was pretty depressing.

Having had both parents, all four grandparents, and 6 of my 8 great grandparents alive for the better part of my childhood, and then watching as 6 great grandparents and 2 grandparents passed away, I have to wonder if it's easier for them to pass when you're very young.

Obviously there is quite a difference between grand* and direct parents, but aren't children able to get over things more easily?

Then again - I can't imagine the additional life impact losing both parents as a child would have.

Very depressing :(

<comment><USER3> I am uncomfortable with the reality that I will have to watch my parents and three remaining grandparents pass (and the same on my wife's side), but there's no way I'd give up the years we've had and the support they've given and will give for having experienced it earlier. I'm so much more equipped to deal with the sorrow now as an adult. As a kid, it just hurts and makes no sense at all. As the study points out, if you lose them young, you're left to wonder what might have been. If you lose them old, you know.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: where to keep passwords - <AUTHOR>

Right now my system for keeping passwords is terrible and unorganized. I'd like to know what the best and most secure and also accessible way is.<p>I'm talking about personal passwords too, but mostly I'm thinking about work passwords. Your client's hosting or domain registrar password, the system db admin password, your basecamp password, etc. etc., etc., -you can't remember them all, what do you do so that they're secure, but you can access a system when you're not in front of your main machine? Or instead of a super-mega secure bunch of passwords (that you change regularly, like they say you should), is it better to have a single (or a couple) secure one(s) you can remember, then not have to keep anywhere? <comment><USER4> Better to memorize 3-4 master passwords. I heard about KeePass password management utility but never used it.

A new authentication device will be available later this year - based on Hitachi's Finger Vein imaging (VeinID) and fingerprint identification technology.

</comment><comment><USER5> $ nano passwords

<enter all your passwords here>

ctrl+x y

$ gpg -c passwords

and you have all your passwords in a password protected and encrypted file. To decrypt:

$ gpg passwords.gpg

<comment><AUTHOR> sounds ok, does the -c mean that I don't need to make any keys, like if I look at the file on another computer?

<comment><USER5> yes - it's just password protected and encrypted with the passphrase you use when gpg asks you. all you need to open the file on another computer is gpg and, of course, the passphrase used.

even better - when you need certain password you can do:

$ gpg -d passwords.gpg | grep firstname.lastname@example.com

and you will get the password for that mail account only and the entire encrypted file will stay encrypted and never will be saved as plain text file on the system you use at the moment.

<comment><AUTHOR> of course you need to keep this file in a secure place as well, because if you don't need keys, then anyone in possession of the file can brute force the password, right? (this assumes that the password you've chosen isn't random w/ non-alphanumeric chars, too long, etc.) ....then that requires another password for dropbox, etc..... it never ends if you start to get paranoid I guess.

<comment><USER5> yeah - if you start to get paranoid you will end in a mental institution :)

no, seriously, if you choose a good 'primary' password -it's ok. Choose somethimg around 10-15 chars and use digits, caps, smalls, special. But do it in a way that it's easy to memorize. There is a plenty of papers on how to do this around the net. But in short (and very paranoid way to construct password):

1\. Get a phrase that is meaningful (for you at least);

2\. Get first letter of the first word, second letter of the second word, third from the third etc. If there is not fifth letter in fifth word - <USER3> last one;

3\. Substitute some of the letters with look-alike digits or chars: A for 4, a for @, l for 1, e for 3, s for 5, g for 9 etc etc;

4\. Make second, forth, eight (or first, third, fifth) chars uppercase (if they are letters);

5\. Done.

It sounds complicated but it isn't. It's easy. And soon enough you will be able to construct such a passwords in a seconds in your mind. :)

example:

 _'Someones screaming my name, Come and make me holy again, Im the man on the silver mountain'_

1\. Scyeedeeynmennern

2\. sCyeEdeeYnmenNern

3\. 5Cye3deeYnmenNern

Not very good example because all of these repeated characters but you get the idea. You can memorize it just singing Rainbow's 'Man on The Silver Mountain' to yourself :)

And don't go very paranoid. If you want to be very very very very secire - <USER3> retina-scan device or DNA tests before you give access :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> 1Password. <http://agilewebsolutions.com/products/1Password>

<comment><USER7> +1 for 1Password. It also can generate difficult passwords for you, so you're not even aware of what they are. Add private sharing via Dropbox and your secure passwords are with you on every machine.

<comment><USER6> "private sharing via Dropbox"

Wouldn't that expose your passwords to a prying DropBox admin? I don't use DB, so I'm not sure whether you generate your own key to encrypt data at rest.

<comment><USER7> Your password archive is encrypted at rest with a passphrase that you set. Even if you got my password archive and you had 1Password you'd still need to crack the master passphrase before it would be useful.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Hobbit movies were awful, and now we know why - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/19/9764016/peter-jackson-the-hobbit-movies-terrible-explanation <comment><USER2> Premise is wrong. The Hobbit movies were far from awful.</comment>


The Killer Shark Caught in the Thames in 1787 - <AUTHOR> https://mimimatthews.com/2016/09/01/the-extraordinary-tale-of-the-18th-century-shark-in-the-thames/ <comment><USER2> The watch makes this a good story; swimming up the Thames isn't that extraordinary. The beluga (a whale living in the Arctic) nicknamed Moby Dick that swam 300 km up the Rhine certainly bests that:

 _" On May 18, 1966, a few Rhine skippers near Duisburg reported a white whale in the Rhine to the water police. They reacted by first making the mariners take a blood alcohol test, which came up negative"_

([https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moby_Dick_(Rhine)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moby_Dick_\(Rhine\)). Video at [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFBGhB- APMs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFBGhB-APMs). This beluga apparently was on board a ship that sank while carrying it to England)

</comment><comment><USER3> I feel like there's a Doctor Who joke to be made out of this.

<comment><USER4> I feel like if this happened on the other side of the Atlantic, there'd be a punchline along the lines of, "So that's what happened to the alligators!"

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Depending on where in the Thames the shark was caught, it was more likely unwell due to being in freshwater instead of saltwater</comment>


Microsoft pulls Windows 10 October 2018 Update due to major issues – The Verge - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/6/17944966/microsoft-windows-10-october-2018-update-documents-deleted-issues-windows-update-paused <comment><USER2> This is what happens when you stop paying for QA and want your end users to do the work for you.

<comment><USER3> > want your end users to do the work for you

They don't: they skipped release preview step this time.

<comment><USER4> That's even worse, because they rolled this to non-RP users straight away. Though I must admit I never saw it in the updates list.

<comment><USER5> It's worse than that: my files were deleted as Windows Update downloaded the files _before_ it even asked me if I wanted to install the update. I never even had a chance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've been using Windows 10 since the beginning and I believe it's the best desktop OS out there (I use Ubuntu at work and I have a Macbook Air too, I can compare).

However, I'm getting a bit tired of the overall poor quality of the biyearly updates. There's _always_ one machine (either my main workstation or one belonging to my close relatives) where it'll miserably fail. The error messages and logs are completely unhelpful and so is whatever you'll find on the Microsoft Community website. In the end, I'm sure I'm going to have to reinstall at least one Windows cleanly, every six months.

<comment><USER7> In what way is windows 10 then the best OS? An OS that keeps breaking by updates is pretty much the worst OS by my standards. At work about 30% of computers have been reinstalled due to windows update failures over a year or so. Pretty awful if you ask me. Oh, and no problems with our ubuntu machines.

<comment><USER8> I've always had a Linux partition and a Windows partition on my laptop.

Years ago I would end up drifting back into Windows.

However I haven't logged into Windows for a while now, and I'm considering deleting the partition.

When are Adobe and Autodesk going to support Linux properly? They are the only non-gaming reason for Windows now.

<comment><USER7> The unholy Word/excel/powerpoint trinity is what is keeping my win10 alive at work.

<comment><USER9> More and more companies that I work with are shifting to google docs for better or for worse ...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Is this also the reason why the download page of Windows Server 2019 images [1] within the Microsoft Evaluation Center has been removed? It worked three days ago when it was referenced at the end of the general availablity announcement [2].

[1] [https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/evalcenter/evaluate- windows-...](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/evalcenter/evaluate-windows- server-2019)

[2] [https://cloudblogs.microsoft.com/windowsserver/2018/10/02/wi...](https://cloudblogs.microsoft.com/windowsserver/2018/10/02/windows- server-2019-now-generally-available/)

</comment><comment><USER11> The issue being that documents get deleted.

2018\. Windows update deletes non system files.

2018.

<comment><USER12> This is not a regular Windows update. A Redstone update is effectively a new version of Windows, and the updater replaces your existing Windows installation with the new version during the mandatory reboot. In other words, it's more like do-release-upgrade than apt-get upgrade. Obviously, this is going to be much more risky than the typical security patch.

But Microsoft is doing its damnedest to make it look like just another update to ordinary users. It's the same trick they used to automatically "upgrade" Windows 7/8/8.1 computers to Windows 10, only subtler this time because users already have Windows 10 which helps conceal what's going on.

<comment><USER13> The real problem here is what you mention in your second paragraph: Microsoft has deliberately chosen to blur the lines between different types of update. The Windows 10 world makes little distinction between a small, essential security update with no normally observable change in behaviour and a full reinstallation of the underlying OS.

So, I don't think Microsoft should be allowed to rely on the kind of argument you make in your first paragraph. If it's going to push everything out as being just the latest version of Windows 10 that everyone must have, then _all_ updates are now "regular Windows updates", and the entire-OS update needs to be as reliable as the essential security update that just replaces a flawed networking library with a bug-fixed version.

If Microsoft can't do that -- and obviously it's an extremely difficult requirement to meet, with ample evidence suggesting that it won't happen -- then maybe the whole mandatory updates strategy isn't such a great idea?

<comment><USER12> I agree with everything you said. It would be really interesting to see Microsoft adopt the Arch Linux release model, but unfortunately I don't think it will happen. They're stuck in a difficult place, trying to do SaaS with an operating system installed on users' devices.

If you use Windows 10 Professional or above, though, you can defer Redstone updates for a maximum of 1 year while still getting the usual bugfixes. I guess that's how long Microsoft wants to keep supporting the not-updated version.

<comment><USER13> _If you use Windows 10 Professional or above, though, you can defer Redstone updates for a maximum of 1 year while still getting the usual bugfixes._

That's OK as far as it goes, and maybe for casual power users (if there is such a thing) it's better than nothing.

However, for small business users who would traditionally also be using the Pro edition of Windows, a one-year delay is marginally more valuable than a chocolate teapot. We're talking about the operating system, the foundation on which the rest of our software base is built, and that software base may cost thousands per machine. The guaranteed support period is missing a zero if it wants to be taken seriously.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I updated the day the patch was available.

Although Windows 10 Pro had the option that would have deleted the files set to "not configured" which as far as I know is safe. I set it to "disabled" just to be extra safe.

This reminds me of an ongoing gag in the movie Airplane![0]

"Looks like I picked the wrong week to [stop smoking, stop drinking, stop sniffing glue, update Windows 10]".

[0]: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v46plhmxXU4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v46plhmxXU4)

<comment><USER15> To be fair, no matter the OS updating on the latest and greatest immediately after release is always risky and should not be done unless you have clean backups and are ready to reinstall it all if needed. Linux testing, iOS, OSX, Windows 10, ... All of them.

If you want stability and safe update, you either use safe release version (Debian stable, Win10 LTSB, ...); you wait the service pack, or you give it a month or two to have issues found.

<comment><USER7> Is win10 LTSB available to anyone who wants on win10 home/pro?

<comment><USER16> I don't think so, you need some corporate contract or the like.

JFYI, accordingly to this, LTSB is now LTSC and you _shouldn 't_ choose it unless you have an embedded device:

[https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/ukplatforms/2018/06/11/s...](https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/ukplatforms/2018/06/11/say- no-to-long-term-servicing-channel-ltsc/)

Of the twelve key points/reasons given in the above, more than six make me actually want to have a LTSC, however.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Wonder what this means for the next Enterprise LTSB? Glad y'all beta testers caught this. Muchos gracias.

</comment><comment><USER18> _facepalm_

</comment><comment><USER19> There is so much negativity about this update or windows updates. I must tell you that they roll out the same update to more than million machines within Microsoft even before its released to public.</comment>