Traffic Experiments -- How to clear traffic jams - <AUTHOR> http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/amateur/traffic/trafexp.html <comment><USER3> In northern America, I think most of the cars have automatic transmission. In France, (where I live), we mostly (maybe 99% ?) have manual transmissions. Have you ever experimented a traffic jam with a manual trans. car ? You have to switch gears every 10 seconds and it's very very very annoying.

I'm telling you that, because as a frequent driver (well, today I drive a bike but still) in Paris, and kind of very observant, I clearly see that most people are not doing what these drivers do in this experiment. Most of the time, everybody will let a huge space between the car behind them in order to avoid changing the gears too frequently.

On the contrary, on automatic cars (I had one and drove another for 6 months in Canada), that's easier to go & stop & go & stop & go & stop, etc...

Not sure if it's related, but I think it is, in a small proportion.

edit: my english

<comment><USER4> why exactly do you need to switch gears? Just leave it in first. And engage the clutch when you are stopped.

<comment><USER5> If you're stuck in traffic for a long time, your leg engaging the clutch can get very tired. So you're constantly switching to neutral to rest your leg.

It's also not uncommon for traffic to go from stopped, to fast enough to warrant 2nd gear, back to stopped.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Where I live there's something called 'block driving' (I haven't found a better translation for the Dutch word 'blokrijden'). On busy summer days, when the highway to the coast is jammed, a police car will block the highway, then drive at a constant speed (and slower than the maximum speed), with no one being allowed to pass the police car. Apparently this helps to resolve the traffic waves.

<comment><USER7> The California Highway Patrol appears to do this in Southern California as well. I've seen a patrol car start weaving between two lanes, then three, weaving more and more until it's blocking all lanes of traffic like a weavy pace car.

<comment><USER8> It's called "running a break", and I've only seen it used to clear debris or disabled cars out of lanes, or so that a construction crew can close a lane. It'll freak you out the first time a cop car swerves in front of you across 5 lanes of traffic.

<comment><USER9> I've definitely seen it used in both Nor Cal and So Cal to slow traffic down. They do it on I-5 fairly often during rush hour, of all times.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> An oldie, but a goodie.

I base my commuting style on this guys articles. Drive _slightly_ slower than everyone else and let large spaces grow in front of your car. It's a _lot_ harder than it sounds (for me anyway) but when I get it right, it makes my drive much more enjoyable.

People that just HAVE to drive as fast as possible will go around you (you should never do this in the left lane) and everyone else will sort of get in line after you... it looks a bit like those nascar groups where all the cars go exactly the same speed.

<comment><USER11> Except that people who want to go faster than you will pass you and get in front of you. This leads you to either keep slowing down to maintain the space or start shrinking the space.

<comment><USER10> Yes, many people will pass you and go in front. That's not such a big deal since many of them switch into yet another lane (Some will even exit the freeway only to immediately re-enter) as they try to gain even half a car- length on everyone else.

I don't feel like competing with them.

Personally, I'm not trying to fix traffic for everyone. I'm selfishly trying to make my own commute as pleasant as possible. By following the advice in this old article I've managed to greatly improve my own drive, and I find the amount of time I spend in the slow pockets of traffic greatly reduced.

<comment><USER5> I'm concerned that when cars doing this are the minority, with other traffic constantly going around them, they just become an obstacle in traffic. If you inspire other cars to change lanes to pass you, because you're intentionally driving slower, you may be making traffic less safe.

<comment><USER12> This is a fair concern. I have not seen this in practice, though, and it might be a matter of the part of the world where I drive vs where other people drive. But let's cut to the chase with how the system works:

You are not supposed to be driving slower. You are supposed to be driving in average speed with the traffic. You may have had to slow down in the first place to do this. If you are just starting out, a good rule of thumb is to just leave space between you and the vehicle in front of you; keep pace.

The key is to maintain enough space between you and that vehicle that you can

(1) allow people to freely pass through (they are going to do something crazy to do it anyway if they do not have the space)

(2) absorb traffic waves

It is likely you will not be able to do #2 consistently. But you can let off your gas and not hit the break. Hitting the break is an instantaneous warning signal to people behind you, causing something of a reflex for them to also hit the brake. You are trying to avoid the brake-light wave. Letting off easy generally does not cause as much reaction.

What if you end up in a traffic jam anyway? Leave space anyway. It does help.

Aren't more accidents are caused by people getting panicky as they try to cross lanes of traffic that are closed to them? They force their way in or speed up to get around a bunch of people?

It is all about leaving that space so they are comfortable. Everything begins to move faster. And you are more relaxed in your driving because you are not freaking out at what is going on in front of you, allowing you the freedom to react as necessary to all the other kinds of problems traffic can bring.

Intentionally driving slower over a long distance is a misapplication of the principles. As the article points out, it is all about the average speeds. Frankly, very rarely does anyone get "pissed", and all they do is pass around you. And then they end up hitting their brakes and shifting out quickly. Passing != bad thing; we are not trying to win a race here. I have never been honked at.

<comment><USER13> "But you can let off your gas and not hit the break. Hitting the break is an instantaneous warning signal to people behind you, causing something of a reflex for them to also hit the brake."

...As long as you're careful about doing this, of course. If the people behind you aren't paying enough attention to notice a slow decrease in speed (and can't see the reason you're slowing down), they'll be hitting the brakes hard to slow down when they're suddenly too close.

In hilly city driving (hi, SF), I will actually intentionally use my brakes to signal to the people behind me I'm trying to slow down, because there's often not enough space to notice when your line of site effectively stops at the next intersection's brief period of flat road. And yeah, this behavior was inspired by seeing someone rear-ended right behind me.

<comment><USER12> Yeah, I am sure I am not alone in despising tailgating. It is the exact opposite of what we are talking about in this thread, a product of impatience and bad assumptions. You simply cannot stop some people from hitting the brakes repeatedly. You can just work to reduce it by not causing the reflex response in most situations.

I also refuse to be pushed by people who ride my tail; I maintain my speed and ignore them (which is oodles better than slowing down to teach them a lesson, which actually does the other thing I was warning against here, causing a ripple in the traffic). It is my rebellious nature against their several ton weapon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I used to do this every once in a while. One thing to be aware of, are large trucks behind you at the top of hills. They tend to want to increase speed going down hills to use their velocity to climb the next. It's probably a good idea to accommodate this.

</comment><comment><USER15> Interesting observation is that what TFA calls the "cheaters", ie those who drive to the end of their lane before merging at the last minute, may actually be doing the right thing. See Tom Vanderbilt talk about it here <http://www.vimeo.com/6779064>.

If you're interested in this there's a nice longer interview with Tom at Streetfilms <http://www.streetfilms.org/tom-vanderbilt-talks-traffic> or an hour long Google talk.

<comment><USER16> He doesn't say _why_ in the short one (I haven't watched the long one). Late mergers are definitely bad in some situations - for example, when they are merging into a slow-moving turnoff lane, blocking a whole lane of ongoing traffic.

<comment><USER15> He goes into the research a bit more in the Google talk and you see where he pulls the magic "15% improvement" from. Also he has a book (which I haven't read) called Traffic so he might explain it more or cite studies there.

I agree though that it doesn't really work in all situations. Tom uses the example of two lanes merging into one for roadworks. Maybe some situations where it doesn't work are an example of poor road design by traffic engineers?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I had the good fortune to do a three month internship in Seattle last spring. And I have to say - after growing up in Dallas, now living in Florida, and seeing traffic in other places... Seattle drivers are unique.

I've seen this [appear to] work in Seattle. While I was there, I tried it, and it appeared to work.

However, while I lived in Dallas, I was aware of this idea, and tried it there - and no way. People cut in, people tailgated - it completely doesn't work.

So I think it partially depends on the nature of the city's drivers. And there is something special about Seattle.

<comment><USER5> I live and work in DC. I go to Dallas at least once a year and drive every day during the week and weekend. I agree this would be impossible in Dallas traffic. It doesn't feel as intentionally aggressive as DC traffic, instead it's like everyone in Dallas can't take their foot off the accelerator even if they wanted to. It's hard enough finding a space between two cars to merge, you usually have to just go for it and hope the rear car can find his brakes.

<comment><USER17> It definitely took me a while after moving away from Dallas to change some of my driving habits.

I still definitely change lanes more than most drivers around here - <USER2> I do my best not to cut anyone off, and I actually let drivers in here... something definitely not done often in Dallas.

It also helps that I went from a 90 minute commute (each way) to usually a 10-15 minute commute here (depending on where I've worked). Smaller towns do have _some_ benefits...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The solution to traffic jams is to not leave transportation in the hands of clueless, distracted, reckless drivers. The solution is fast, reliable, ubiquitous public transit.

<comment><USER19> Public transit is impractical and uneconomic in many areas. The real solution is smart roads and computer-driven electric cars.

<comment><USER20> Perhaps, but in the context of the article, traffic jams only exist because of commuters. The interstate & highway systems were not designed for commuters and should not be used for them. While I think computer-driven cars will be a boon to the environment and economy, the capital investment needed is pretty fantastic, which is going to be some decades off.

In fact, a real solution to this problem that could be applied in the design of our current urban landscape would be a multi-pronged effort to spread out the commuter traffic. Alternating work and school hours could widen commuting hours and distribute load across all commuter infrastructure. Increased levels of telecommuting would also contribute to this. This would be a sort of supply-side fix to commuter congestion. Local or regional governments could create incentives to encourage these changes.

<comment><USER19> The first-generation interstate highway system wasn't designed for commuters, but everything added or upgraded in the past 40 years has been. Many new luxury cars already come with limited computer driving, in the form of adaptive cruise control. The capital investment is small and rapidly dropping, and just that one innovation could deliver a major reduction in traffic congestion. <http://www.springerlink.com/content/p56714553g82r2h7/>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I've tried this in Boston. Mass-holes will not stand for you to screw with their traffic jams.

<comment><USER22> I agree that this doesn't work well around Boston. My opinion is that the fluidity of traffic, ie. lane changing, doesn't break down at low speeds in Boston. If you let a cars length open in front of you it will fill up with a car. I tend to think that this makes efficient use of the pavement available and tends for a traffic flow that is as maximal as possible but I don't have any evidence about that.

<comment><USER23> If efficient use of pavement means park the most cars on it Then by all means fill every available space. Safe following distance increases with the square of the speed so higher average vehicle speeds means the road carries less traffic. The road moves the most cars around 30mph, so if traffic slows below 30 it will crash to 0mph

<comment><USER22> Cool! What is the science backing this? Is it coming out of studies or some theoretical modeling? I've been wondering what the most efficient speed for moving traffic was on a typical highway for a while.

<comment><USER24> Google on "Fundamental diagram" of traffic, or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_diagram_of_traffic_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_diagram_of_traffic_flow) It's a set of graphs. Density plotted against speed, etc. It's old stuff, empirically derived. As flowing cars slowly get closer together on average, drivers slow down a bit for safety, yet with more cars passing per second, so the flow increases. But then as they approach even closer, drivers must greatly slow down because of reaction time issues, even though more cars are packed onto the roads ...and so the slowing dominates the extra cars per mile, and average flow decreases. The peak flow ends up being 30MPH - 40MPH. That flow will most rapidly drain out the backups. I hear that it's a different value in different countries.

But worse is the problem that once everyone slows past the 35MPH hump, traffic becomes unstable, and you get oscillations or standing waves which slow things far more than you might expect.

Rule of thumb (but I've never seen it stated anywhere) 35MPH=51FPS, 3 seconds between cars, gives 150 FEET BETWEEN CARS. Closing up gaps will wreck the max. flow pattern. During congestion, if you start trying to stop others from "cutting you off" or merging ahead, then you're the one causing the jam. (Or to be fair, 30MPH and 2sec gives 90ft spacing, perhaps the bare min.)

Another issue: in 1998 Helbing and Huberman discovered the existence of distinct 'phases' in simulated multi-lane traffic. When all lanes seem to lock together like a moving crystal, that's now called "Synchronous Flow," and gives maximum throughput. But it's on the edge of collapse, and "condensations" are triggered by anyone who tries outrunning neighbors by switching lanes, or who approaches too close and has to tap the brakes. [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v396/n6713/abs/396738a0...](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v396/n6713/abs/396738a0.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Heh, I didn't realise that it had such an effect, but this is the exact same game I play when caught up in a heavy traffic: the how-long-can-I-go-before- breaking game! ;-)

It could be related to driving a manual and being lazy, but it helps your concentration no end :)

<comment><USER26> No idea why you were at -1; your comment was informative and on topic.

On a side note, I also tend to play that "game" when stuck in slow home-from- holiday traffic over the mountains. Changing speeds all the time while driving manual is such a pain.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I've actually spent quite a bit of time pondering this. Here are my completely unscientific conclusions.

Imagine a [moving] wall, on an interstate, moving at 30MPH. No matter what is happening behind this wall, it is impossible to maintain an average speed faster than the wall. You can try any amount of tricks to smooth out traffic, but it will be impossible to ever move past this wall. As long as there is a steady stream of traffic, no car will ever do more than 30MPH until this moving wall gets out of the way.

So now let's, more realistically, replace the wall with a bunch of slow drives, and ask 2 important questions:

1\. How to get out of this situation? -- We want these drivers to all SPEED UP! It's really as simple as this. Until these bottleneck drivers move out of the way, you can only smooth out traffic, but never increase the speed.

2\. How to avoid this problem in the first place? -- In general, there will be some bottleneck. After too many cars are going through this bottleneck at once, there will be slowdown. Ideally, these bottlenecks should be identified and no more than the maximum amount of cars at a time should enter the bottleneck to decrease the speed of traffic.

Of course, that's easier said than done, but I think the important thing to take away from my ramblings is this:

The best way to get rid of a traffic jam is: if you are in the front of the pack and have a chance to accelerate, you should do so as quickly as possible. If everybody were to do this, average speed could then be increased.

<comment><USER24> But note that there aren't any slowpokes here, instead, every single car is blocked by the car ahead of them. The people behind you think that _you_ are the slowpoke driver. But nothing is blocking the traffic, instead the average speed of the long column of cars is determined by the spacing between cars, and that spacing is determined by psychology.

In light traffic, some people go far faster than average, but nobody tries to stop them. When we arrive at heavy congestion, don't we suddenly decide to close up ranks to prevent aggressive drivers from passing, stop them from "cutting us off?" If everyone habitually blocks the speeders, then it means we've compressed the traffic pattern past the peak of maximum flow, and pushed it into the unstable realm of stop/go oscillations and standing waves or "ghost jams."

Want jams to vanish? Then do as the pro truckers do and just freaking back off. Happily encourage other cars to merge ahead. (They're not "cutting you off," there's no such thing as "cutting you off." They're just trying to merge into the adjacent lane!) If traffic momentarily slows way down, everyone just make sure to keep an open space that allows merging, and you'll find that it speeds right back up again.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Yes, absolutely. This is my experience as well. Related: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=785498>

</comment><comment><USER29> Somewhat different from the commuter-oriented topic of the article, I've seen attempts by truckers to enforce a similar pattern in construction zones (traffic reduced by one or more lanes) on long stretches of highway: In a situation where one lane has to merge because it is closed in the distance, the "nice" drivers all merge far ahead of time, while the aggressive drivers attempt to go all the way to the end of the lane and then merge ahead of everyone, causing the kind of grinding gears described in the article. To combat this, a couple of big rigs driven in parallel in the open lane and the lane that is closed ahead block all traffic from passing. This prevents the aggressive drivers from attempting to merge at the last second, smoothing out the wave. I've seen this happen several times on cross-country trips; I wonder if the truckers coordinate over radio or just choose to do it independently.

On a related note, I wonder if "lane closed ahead" signs placed too far ahead actually make this problem worse, since many drivers will immediately merge out of the closing lane far ahead of time, causing a wall of traffic if the front of the line has to slow down for aggressive last-second merges.

</comment><comment><USER30> I remember reading this article while back: "Traffic jam mystery solved by mathematicians". <http://www.physorg.com/news117283969.html>

So now when I'm in a jam, I just slow down instead of engaging the speedup, break pattern. Haven't looked behind me though to see if I had any effect on the traffic behind me.

</comment><comment><USER31> In Melbourne, Australia, a similar concept was used to ease congestion entering freeways. We had a peak-hour problem where cars would flood the entry ramps, but struggle to merge with the existing freeway traffic - this caused people to brake/slow down which resulted in major jams.

To alleviate this issue "there are traffic lights at some freeway entrances to control the flow of vehicles onto the freeway when the traffic is heavy. When operating, the lights will change quickly, so that when the light is green only one vehicle in each lane will be able to enter the freeway." (taken from VicRoads website)

The lights basically cycle from red to green every 2 seconds. That's enough to regulate the flow onto the freeway and minmises jams on the entry ramp and at the merge point between the freeway and entry ramp.

<comment><USER31> In fact, here is a YouTube video of the lights in operation: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFrEd8qSVCc>

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> The problem with slowing down miles in front of a traffic jam is that those who normally gets of before that space now has to suffer too.

In addition, most people would cut you of if you drove slower than the maximum speed.

</comment><comment><USER33> So, what would happen on major interstates if highway patrols kept a steady pace? Is that a viable solution? Wouldn't they eventually run up on another wave of cars and ruin everything?

I would be really interesting to see if this actually improved interstate bandwidth during rush hours. But even more interesting, I bet a good portion of drivers would get upset at the fact that there are huge, unused gaps. I wouldn't be surprised to hear from people who think it is grossly more inefficient than regular old traffic jams...

</comment><comment><USER5> The success of this technique can't be accurately measured by the driver who's trying "smooth" out the waves. It needs to be witnessed from outside of traffic. It usually just moves the problem to behind the "helpful" driver as other drivers can very easily continue to drive competitively and recreate the effect. Even if he's successful in removing the "wave", it's just by decreasing the average speed of traffic.

Please don't try this in the left lane.

<comment><USER34> That's exactly why nobody would play along even if they knew. Big trucks eventually do that because it's painful for them to do the gears 1,2,3 constantly, they stay in second or third and just slow down the whole thing.

Here is the thing where it falls short though:

the guy at the front riding the wave really slow to "help lane locks" will also get merging traffic many many time right in front of him (people taking advantage of the free space), as a result, it won't help that lane but only make it worse if you're stuck behind such driver (or truck).

So if everyone stuck to their lanes, didn't change unless extremely necessary, and played the wave-canceling technique, it would work.

In other words, this will work when cars will be driven by computers hooked together via apis and maybe a traffic controller. I'm not signing for the beta.

<comment><USER35> Actually, the fact that people in the middle lane are taking up his 'free' space _helps_ the long term traffic.

The main cause of traffic wave is from someone stopping too abruptly, eg. if someone changes lane in tight traffic, he forces the other person to slow down too fast, which begins the wave.

If you allow more people to get in front of you in a smooth manner because you have given yourself a lot of distance, then there will be less 'cutting off' slow downs from the middle lane guys, which in turn causes less cutting offs in the right lane.

How much does it hurt over your entire commute to let even 100 cars in front of you? You'll be 500 meters later to your destination, what's that at 30kph...1 minute more? That's the worst case scenario. The normal case is you'll get there quicker because you've raised the average speed of the entire traffic wave.

<comment><USER36> Absolutely! I've thought about this so many times... what is 5 seconds for you (allowing someone to merge in front of you) would translate to much much faster commute to _everyone_ else. It is all about the balance between my personal greed and what's better for the common good (if only we could solve this on _and_ off the road).

Where I live there is terrible traffic... and I've contemplated causes and solutions many a mind-numbing commute. I realized we behave differently when we are behind the wheel... Very few people would behave or maneuver the same if it where lines of people instead of cars. That is why your best chance to merge is to make eye contact with the other driver - if they recognize you as another human not just another vehicle than they are much more likely to move over or make space.

When I drive (during rush hour) I suffer a lot to justify my actions. What I have settled on... is a simple rule: In any situation the person who is in the wrong is the one who has contributed to the impediment of the overall flow of traffic. This comes back to what zepolen says (and I agree with). If we could ever make the connection that what's good for my fellow (wo)man is good for me too... we would be so much better off in general.

<comment><USER5> I agree in the situation where all other drives on the road are equally intelligent and paying attention when they drive.

Sadly, in the area I drive in, many drivers are constantly paying more attention to their phone than the road. Those drivers cause all of the traffic problems I see. They likely contribute to many of the accidents as well. They will end up leaving huge gaps in front of them at the expense of traffic behind them even when traffic ahead of them is moving smoothly and quickly.

The cost of letting cell phone drivers in front of you can be many minutes to your commute per each driver. Add a few minutes for each traffic light or merge lane that you will spend behind the inattentive drivers.

In a 5 mile commute, following the flow of inattentive drivers can add 45 minutes to my drive. Attentive driving and following the flow of other "aggressive" drivers can make it a 10 minute drive total.

So what I have actually found helps, in a real world scenario, not a fictional one where all drivers are equal, is trying to identify and cooperate with other "aggressive" drivers helps the group of aggressive drivers get through traffic efficiently and gives the cell-phone drivers plenty of time to concentrate on their conversations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> As a side note, I remember reading articles on this author's webpage almost 15 years ago. Some awesome stuff from a long-time netzen!

<http://amasci.com>

</comment><comment><USER38> A side effect of doing this is that it is much more fuel efficient to not have to go into a cycle of breaking and accelerating again.

</comment><comment><USER39> Maybe the author never heard anything about green waves. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_wave>

<comment><USER36> Green waves are a pet peeve of mine. They've tried to implement these where I lieve... a spectacular failure. Green waves only work when there is NO traffic. Speed is regulated and the flow moves fine. During rush hour they are a disaster. Every light is backed up to previous. My light turns green, then I have to wait 10 seconds for the next light to turn green and the entire line of traffic to move, before I can advance. This usually results in a stop at each light. A much better solution is what I remember from NYC: all the lights turn green at once, all the traffic moves.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Thats what those changable speed limit signs on the motorway are trying to achieve.

(I've also seen markings to keep cars 10 metres apart on some roads).

</comment><comment><USER41> Old.

<comment><USER5> He's right, this has been posted on HN before. I seam to remember the old article having more animated illustrations. I don't know if it's the same page, same author or just similar content.

<comment><USER42> The animations are linked at the bottom of the article.</comment></comment></comment>


NYPD Refuses to Disclose Information about Its Face Recognition Program - <AUTHOR> https://theintercept.com/2017/05/02/nypd-refuses-to-disclose-information-about-its-face-recognition-program-so-privacy-researchers-are-suing/ <comment><USER2> If you want to know who controls your society look to those that you are not allowed to critic</comment>


Understanding JavaScript Objects - <AUTHOR> https://blog.halolabs.io/understanding-javascript-objects-d31cd24ca60f <comment><USER2> It's always nice to find this kind of article where the author synthesizes a lot of knowledge in a single place.

I just have an advice, please don't mix upper case and lower case for programming names in your text, it makes it a little harder to understand, as a reader I was not sure if the author was talking about the same object/function or not. For instance I could find "object.assign()" inside a paragraph but then "Object.assign()" in the code example.

<comment><USER3> He also uses `_proto_` (should be `__proto__`), `('b', 'c')` (should be `('b', 'c')`) etc. in the inner text.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Is the prototype chain an example of an object as well? An object doesn't need to be instantiated as any sort of class, it can be a function?

<comment><USER5> Functions are indeed objects in JS, however:

'function' === typeof (function(){}) while 'object' === typeof ({})

There are no classes in JavaScript, the way there are in some OO languages.

The new syntax of 'class' introduced in ES6 is just a synthetic sugar which will be translated to an Object and would use inheritance via the prototype chain.

I suggest the book 'JavaScript: The good parts' (by Douglas Crockford) for more on this topic.

<comment><USER4> Thanks, I'll take a look! I've been in industry a couple of years now, but my experience with JavaScript has largely been "hit it until it works and then don't touch it again" \- there seems to be at least two ways to do anything with no way to tell if one is objectively better.

<comment><USER6> Well, that's because due to compatibility we still have the old way of doing things alongside the new ways of doing things plus the multiple future-now way of doing things. JavaScript recently has been moving fast both from a community and committee perspective. However, I think is nowhere near as bad as C++ where you can do similar things is different ways with big nuances on end results.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> What's with the giant photo of a hipster starter kit at the top of the article?

<comment><AUTHOR> Probably a subtle nod to _objects_ , as in, these are the objects you need to be a hipster.

<comment><USER8> As someone who hates working on a laptop, it's sad to learn that this will prevent me from being a hipster.

<comment><USER9> I suggest meta-hipsterism... being too hip to actually, you know, _be_ a hipster. How dull that would be.

<comment><USER8> That would probably make me feel misunderstood all the time.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Ducksboard, from nothing to private beta in four months - <AUTHOR> http://blog.ducksboard.com/2011/06/ducksboard-from-nothing-to-private-beta-in-four-months/

<comment><USER2> You should turn the "s" in Ducksboard into a duck (logo); if not, people like me will keep forgetting that the letter is there and remember it as "Duckboard".

It's probably the easiest character to draw as a duck, so it's not going to be a big problem. :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Ah, our quest for a logo was truly epic. One day we'll write a blog post about 99designs...

Anyway, I hope that this exact conversation will make you remember it's duckSboard.com ;)

<comment><USER2> I can't unsee the duck s now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> For people asking for an invite, this is how we are going to share them:

1\. The first batch goes to close friends. This is not favoritism, we just feel more comfortable sharing the rough edges with them :)

2\. The second batch will go to people who helped us validating and testing.

3\. Lastly, we will provide invitations on a first-come/first-serve basis (you can subscribe from the site's sign up form).

We will give out the invites as fast as we can… but be patient!

</comment><comment><USER4> Your product looks like Geckoboard: <http://www.geckoboard.com/>

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, both are dashboards for online metrics, so they will necessarily be similar.

We believe that our product puts the accents in different places. Two things we put much emphasis on are user interface and true realtime updates. We spent a lot of effort polishing the UI and making sure it's consistent and informative, we're using websockets to deliver updates as soon as our backend gets them.

Check out the demos for both of them and pick the one that pleases you more.

<comment><USER4> I like that your board is real-time. Geckoboard requires an upgraded subscription to improve update speed. Will real-time be a feature on all plans of ducksboard?

<comment><AUTHOR> It's definitely going to be included in all plans.

To expand on that, we do real real-time. For services that provide real-time updates, like Twitter, you get notification in the exact same moment someone retweeted you or followed you. For custom widgets where you provide your data, it's the same. Your system pushes data to the dashboard and your dashboard shows it instantly. For services you need to repeatedly poll, we're doing as many API requests as their limits allow us.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Looks really cool.

What are the main things that differentiate you from similar products like Geckoboard? Also it'd be pretty cool to get a list of all the widgets that you currently have.

<comment><USER3> Hi, glad to hear you liked it.

To answer your question, our main assets are:

      * real time and continuous (even when the user is not connected) data retrieval.
      * a very polished UI.
      * mail reports and XLS and other formats exports in a near future.

<comment><USER6> IMO you may want to re-think emphasizing "a very polished UI", currently Geckoboard's UI is much more "polished"[1]. Instead, play up the tangible benefits over Geckoboard (realtime, data export).

[1]<https://demo.geckoboard.com/dashboard/B6782E562794C2F2/>

<comment><USER7> beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I prefer db to gecko, it looks great. +1 on very polished

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Very nice! I'm currently building our wallboard, so thinking about this space a lot recently.

Are you planning on providing a means to create custom widgets?

<comment><USER3> We provide a write API where customers can send their own data. Any existing widget can be used to display those values.

Custom widgets are currently our top priority.

Expect it to land in the next few weeks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> If I may ask, what were you considerations for having near 100% unit-test coverage even before private beta?

<comment><AUTHOR> A very good question.

First, we caught bugs (not even regressions) just by writing tests. More importantly, many time when we left code without tests, we found a bug in it later. We're not 100% sure it's been a good investment, but we're 90% sure.

Second, because it wasn't that hard. With the tools available, writing tests that cover all of your code is not too painful.

Third, in private beta we're sure we'll have to change things as we face scaling problems and get failure reports. We wanted to have these tests before we started monkeying around with code.

<comment><USER9> Thanks. Glad to see cool new services coming from Europe :)

But you should think heavily about differentiating from Geckoboard. For one I would add some kind of Apple / Android appstore metrics. Geckoboard doesn't have those and I would be glad to pay you if you did.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, we've taken note. Definitely something to think about.

On a tangential note, our main objective is not differentiating from Geckoboard, it's creating the best online dashboard out there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This looks awesome. I rarely sign up for Show HN's but I just signed up for yours. I run a startup and it's inconvenient to hunt and peck between Google Analytics, Facebook, Twitter, etc to find this info. Good idea to bring it all together. Nice design too. Good luck with it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, we'll try to get you an invite as soon as possible but we're still in the "too embarassed to show it to anyone else than close friends" stage :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Looks good, how many people do you have working on it?

<comment><AUTHOR> We're two technical people and one biz.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I like this. A simple place to get a snapshot of what's happening with your stats across all channels.

Hope I get an invite. :)

</comment><comment><USER13> Well...this is definitely pretty. I am going to play around with the demo but I'd like an invite code as well if possible.

</comment><comment><USER14> Within the last couple of hours, I have received a newsletter from chart.io, Ducksboard and Geckoboard. Coincidence?

<comment><USER15> My attention was drawn to Streamerapp who also announced today!

Welcome to the space :)

<http://betali.st/startups/streamer> <http://www.streamerapp.com/>

<comment><USER16> Hey Paul,

Thank you! Still, we are a real-time platform, where you can build a real-time dashboard like Gecko or Ducks but it also adds collaboration to all this data in the system. We believe that collaboration systems shouldn't add a new data silo to the business, so you get all this data into Streamer, and can create real-time widgets to transform data into information or Vertical Streams where users can collaborate (like, comment, share). Also, we dont follow a format, any developer with knowledge about APIs, and Highcharts can build whatever they want (they dont need to follow our format). It's 100% node.js, socket.io and MongoDB and its a 100% real-time environment. We are very proud of what we have built, and although we may be on the same space, its a different target! Congrats on Geckoboard. Well done.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Invite codes? :P

<comment><AUTHOR> Short answer: we're ashamed (if you're not ashamed of what you launched, you launched it late) :)

Long answer: we're inviting close friends first, expanding to people that signed up back when we launched the first teaser and then the rest. As soon as we see how well does it scale, we'll start sprinkling invite codes on HN.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> This looks and feels great. Great idea and concept. I've already requested an invite. Best of luck!

</comment><comment><USER19> your front page animation is broken in chrome (but not ff).

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, we found that after we already made the page public and didn't want to touch it right after launch.

We have a fix that we'll apply in a few minutes. Thanks!</comment></comment>


An Astrophysicist Who Maps the Universe's Terra Incognita - <AUTHOR> https://www.quantamagazine.org/priyamvada-natarajan-maps-the-invisible-universe-20190204/ <comment><USER2> "My game — cosmology, dark matter, black holes — has a very particular competitive culture that I don't fit into. But thankfully this is the thing that time does. If you stick with it, you do good work, then you don't have to conform; you can eventually just be who you are."

Reminds me of that patent office guy.

</comment><comment><USER3> Today's Space Weather News touches on the 'black hole' at the center of our galaxy (2:30), and mentions a presentation by the director of Princeton's Plasma Physics Lab on the magnetic universe. We may really be amidst a Copernican level shift in thinking about how our universe actually operates: [https://youtu.be/YX8afWRQkIk](https://youtu.be/YX8afWRQkIk)

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm trying and failing to wrap my brain around the passion, hard work, and sheer intelligence reflected by her sky map software anecdote.

With much more powerful computers and frameworks now, I'd still be hard- pressed to write something that sophisticated in 6 weeks, even without having to teach myself new math to do it.

Quite a remarkable woman.</comment>


A non-programming recursion explanation  - <AUTHOR> http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=477013 <comment><USER2> That implementation had no exit conditions on the recursion, so after the child fell asleep, my computer went to sleep.

<comment><USER3> It appears that the exit condition is that you're a little weasel, or your mom finishes the story.

Clearly, the original mom could have optimized by telling a story about a little weasel that couldn't get to sleep.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> ... except that's not recursion.

<comment><USER5> No, but it does a good job of explaining the "flow" of a recursive function. It's like doing a manual trace of factorial(4) without needing to know about coding.</comment></comment>


Kahlan – A Next-generation Test Framework for PHP - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/crysalead/kahlan <comment><USER2> I've used Kahlan, it's sped up my test writing massively. I feel a lot more productive and less frustrated. It's also blazingly fast and the code coverage is MUCH quicker than PHPUnit/XDebug!

</comment><comment><USER3> PHP without Kahlan is like going to the office with no pants. It's been invaluable to improving our team's code reliability.

</comment><comment><USER4> the best test framework I've ever seen</comment>


Secret Google lab 'rewards failure' [video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25883016

<comment><USER2> I think they should say that Google's lab rewards doing research, not rewarding failure. Managerial incentive systems' biases toward positive results holds the entire R&D community back.

</comment><comment><USER3> The timeframe aspect of research projects is really important. I think I heard Exxon's Corporate Strategic Research labs have a 10 to 20 plus year horizon.

I've often wondered how one could provide the benefits of long-term, highly speculative projects to younger, smaller companies that think and operate entirely in present-tense terms. Something along the lines of strategic research as a service.

Though I suppose companies that have a mutually beneficial dynamic with the open source projects they depend on, contributing time or resources, are realizing a good chunk of the potential value already.

</comment><comment><USER4> Wow, quite the Google PR piece. Certainly something aspirational.

Though it's unfortunate to see the outdated myth of Google being an apolitical meritocracy still being spread. These days Googlers certainly have their share of politics.

<comment><USER5> I've been reading Google gossip since the early 2000s and it's always been my impression that it can be just as political and inane as any big corporation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> "Be the best possible version of yourself..." sounds like cult leader speech.

<comment><USER7> Cults are often quite good at getting the most out of people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> If the rest of Google were run like X, it would be an exceptionally good company-- very likely one of the best.

<comment><USER9> What is fun is that I remember this: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3134609](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3134609)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Plays like something out of a Christopher Guest film!

People don't have clean water because of corruption... wow, this guy has no clue what he's talking about.</comment>


Elixir and the Internet of Things – Handling a Stampede - <AUTHOR> http://www.neo.com/2014/01/14/elixir-and-the-internet-of-things-handling-a-stampede

<comment><USER2> Glad to see more Erlang/Elixir/OTP articles on HN. With all these newfangled cool kid concurrent languages, people seem to have forgotten the sophisticated, decades old solution. Funny to think telecoms were solving a lot of the same problems web devs are now (High Availability, Low Latency, Fault Tolerance, large amounts of concurrent connections).

<comment><USER3> It's quite funny, since the the backbone server operating principles we all use were developed at a telco anyways (hooray *nix!).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The funny thing is that most people choose Elixir over Erlang because of the syntax - personally I can't stand Ruby but love the Erlang syntax. When I see Erlang code, everything just clicks - almost like I'm reading prose.

So, if you want to harvest the power of Erlang, I'd suggest you start with the real thing first. The only drawback is that once you get used to functional programming, guards, pattern matching, OTP, cheap processes, links and all the other goodness, there's no way back.

If you still feel Erlang is weird after spending a couple of days working with it, feel free to jump on the Elixir bandwagon. :)

<comment><USER5> Personally I don't find Ruby and Elixir to be very similar. Maybe some of the terms are the same, but in general they feel very different. Elixir has a much more consistent syntax than Erlang (imo), it's macros are more powerful, it has a great build system right out of the box (inspired by leiningen for Clojure), and it can make use of any Erlang library with no additional effort. I'm also a huge fan of Elixir's pipes feature, which I think makes a lot of code much cleaner and easier to read. I love Erlang, but I wouldn't call the use of Elixir over Erlang a bandwagon - there are good reasons why one would favor Elixir as a starting point. There are probably reasons why one would choose Erlang instead too, but I feel like if you are at a point where you can choose one or the other, Elixir makes the most sense.

<comment><USER6> Erlang syntax is a) Prolog inspired and b) more than 20 (closer to 30) years old. While it generally gets the job done without much hassle, it's very possible to improve on it. The macro system you mention is the reason I'm going to give Elixir a whirl, despite being happy with Erlang otherwise.

Anyway, the situation of Elixir and Erlang looks more like JavaScript and CoffeeScript to me than like Java and Scala. Of course, Elixir is similar to Scala in terms of implementation - they both compile to bytecode instead of transpiling like CS. But the features Elixir brings to the BEAM are less groundbreaking and more practical, just like in CoffeeScript and unlike Scala, which transforms JVM so much that it's almost invisible.

There's a difference, too - JS is being reworked and Harmony will bring many improvements which Coffee has today, but I'm not aware of "next generation Erlang" being actively worked on (Joe Armstrong does erl2, but I don't know how active it is). So while there are people who don't use Coffee because "it will be in the standard in a year anyway" this argument does not hold true for Erlang and Elixir.

Just some random thoughts, I like them both and am actively learning Elixir while maintaining a project in Erlang (and I also like Scala!) and I hope they can both thrive. It's a symbiosis, really - Elixir brings a new wave of developers to Erlang, and Erlang gives a solid foundation to Elixir.

<comment><USER7> Respectfully, I'm not sure I buy this comparison. Yeah, CoffeeScript adds some cleaner syntax and OO niceties onto JS, it's still basically just a higher level abstraction that get boiled down to JS. Elixir is a multi-paradigm language that that gets turned into the same type of byte code that Erlang does and is interoperable with Erlang. Its more like jRuby and Java both living on the JVM and being able to call Java code in jRuby, or maybe its a bit like ClojureScript and Clojure?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I only skimmed so far, but you might want to checkout Ranch instead of rolling your own tcp acceptor pool, [http://ninenines.eu/docs/en/ranch/HEAD/guide/](http://ninenines.eu/docs/en/ranch/HEAD/guide/)

<comment><USER9> Thanks for the link to Ranch. As this was done as a spike with people who (until that point) had never done Erlang or Elixir, it's certain that we reinvented the wheel at certain points. That being said, we didn't really know we were building a socket acceptor pool until we built it. I'll definitely take a look at ranch and see if it would make sense to replace our home-grown implementation with Ranch.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This seems pretty neat but what advantage does this have compared to terminating SSL at nginx? I guess you still need to have something that nginx can hand the connections off to.

<comment><USER11> I previously worked on this project, and most of the devices we handle are not communicating over http. The goal is to manage long-lived TCP/IP connections.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Oooh, I didn't even know this existed. I've always been curious about learning Erlang, but I'm always suspicious of languages that predate the vowel generation.

<comment><USER13> I don't know how good the tutorials for Elixir are on teaching you the basics of concurrent programming on the Erlang VM. It's very different than the concurrency models you'd encounter in almost every other language (Scala, and the Akka framework not withstanding, since they basically borrowed everything from Erlang and implemented it on the JVM), so it's not merely a matter of learning syntax and a couple of new constructs; your entire mechanism of problem solving changes (I'd almost argue that Erlang is unique in being a 'concurrent language' rather than, say, an OO one, or procedural, or functional. It's functional, yes, but its concurrency mechanism is messages, which have no guarantee of delivery, so are by definition side effects).

As such, I'd recommend starting with Erlang rather than Elixir simply because you'll find tutorials on how to start thinking about and breaking down problems to take advantage of the environment; trying to write an Erlang app using a paradigm learned from another language is going to be frustrating and not performant.

Joe released a 2nd edition of Programming Erlang last year, which is a -really- good introduction to the basic ideas of the language, as the focus of it (as compared with the first edition) is very much beginners, and taking advantage of the platform. [http://www.amazon.com/Programming-Erlang- Concurrent-Pragmati...](http://www.amazon.com/Programming-Erlang-Concurrent- Pragmatic-Programmers/dp/193778553X)

<comment><USER14> Also [http://learnyousomeerlang.com/](http://learnyousomeerlang.com/).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Gripping article, but his incorrect use of apostrophes made me want to an hero.</comment>


How Hospitals Coddle the Rich - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/26/opinion/hospitals-red-blanket-problem.html <comment><USER2> "But if we don't challenge the necessity of luxury services, then we have accepted that hospitals — and medicine in general — prosper in part because they cater to the wealthy."

My wife and I paid for private medical care when we had our children. The result was better care, less stress, and better outcomes for all of us. Perhaps that was 'luxury' care relative to public healthcare, but it was worth every cent.

I don't quite get the thrust of the article.

<comment><USER3> (You don't say what country you're in.)

Before you paid for private healthcare: what information on patient safety did you look at?

<comment><USER2> To be honest I don't remember the details. The key differentiators that I remember were:

* longer stay in the private hospital * private rooms * better ratio of staff to patients * easier access to useful services (physio, breast feeding consultants, etc.) * specialist assistance like breastfeeding courses and the like, if needed

As it happens our first child was born by emergency C-section after a nasty fall and partial placenta abrupta, so we really tested them :) Everything went very well.

I was suprised by the _second_ birth, because that was a 'normal' C-section. People were laughing, chatting etc. and it was a much less "game face ON" environment than the first. I'd probably have noticed the tension more if I'd been paying more attention to anything other than my wife at the time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The biggest danger I see is not of doctors or nurses _intentionally_ shortchanging other patients, but of being less immediately available when something unexpected happens. Seconds can count. If somebody is on that luxury top floor answering extra questions for a VIP patient, and has to hustle downstairs to handle an emerging crisis, they haven't exactly done anything wrong but the difference in outcomes might still be huge.</comment>


Once Every Four Days, the US Power Grid Is Under Attack - <AUTHOR> http://www.tripwire.com/state-of-security/latest-security-news/once-every-four-days-the-us-power-grid-is-under-attack/

<comment><USER2> Tonight when I drove by the substation that was shot at back in 2013 I saw it was surrounded with some kind of concrete walls; I go by every day and this was the first time I noticed it. It looked like a somewhat ad hoc set up, though I admit it was hard to judge at dusk and at highway speeds.</comment>


Monday's medical myth: reading in dim light ruins your eyesight - <AUTHOR> http://theconversation.edu.au/mondays-medical-myth-reading-in-dim-light-ruins-your-eyesight-3149

<comment><USER2> I was expecting some evidence, such as a scientific study. Instead, all we have is someone merely claiming that it's a myth, which is no better than someone inventing a myth in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER3> Bright light contracts your pupils. The smaller diameter leads to a greater effective depth of focus. For people who have difficulty focusing on close items, this can help, I believe.

It doesn't mean dim light is "destroying" your eyesight. However, it could be reducing the effective depth of focus, making it difficult to see what you're looking at clearly.</comment>


The National Inquirer Is Up for Sale - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-10/national-enquirer-is-put-up-for-sale-in-wake-of-bezos-scandal <comment><USER2> Would truly love to know who's actually buying this publication on a regular basis.

I'm assuming 80% of sales are impulse purchases in the checkout line, but really, who is getting these delivered to their door (if that's a thing).

</comment><comment><USER3> The title of the publication is National Enquirer according to the actual article title. "National Enquirer Is Put Up for Sale After Bezos, Trump Scandals"</comment>


Uber enters dockless bike wars with Jump acquisition - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/uber-enters-dockless-bike-wars-with-jump-acquisition-1523280600 <comment><USER2> This is a puzzle to me. Uber faces some critical issues ahead. If they can solve them, the bikes will be a rounding error. If they can't, the bike business won't be enough to save them. Why add the complexity when they could buy or build something later?

I especially can't figure out why the Jump CEO would do it. The odds of their work surviving to the 10 year mark seems so small. It reminds me of something like Dodgeball. (For those who don't remember, it was a company basically like Foursquare, but years before. Google bought it and did little with it. Eventually the founders got tired of it, left Google, and started the same company _again_.)

<comment><USER3> I think you may underestimate the impact e-bikes are going to have on major (non-car centric) cities. They'll likely reshape cities significantly as infrastructure gets improved for biking. You can get significant traffic density improvements by pushing bikes instead of cars, and e-bikes make this more accessible.

<comment><USER4> That would take a lot of political will to do something like that though and it would take YEARS! I don't think the US is a great market (right now) for city-bikes. Outside of maybe Manhattan & SF I can't think of any major city where a bike would take you places faster/better than another way of transportation would. When you consider all the hassles that biking as a transportation comes with, I doubt this has any large potential (compared to the Uber scale). Could be wrong though. I actually really hope I am!

<comment><USER5> Seattle? Portland? Minneapolis/St. Paul? You might consider bicycling while you travel more. In Seattle alone, OFO, LimeBike, and Spin are all competing.

American bicycle infrastructure is behind, but it exists. I don't own a car. I get around those cities on bike without issue. It's as fast or faster than a car in many cases and I'm peddling the old fashioned way (with legs).

<comment><USER6> Minneapolis? As someone who commuted via bike "before it was cool" in Minneapolis I want to ask what you're smoking :)

The density simply isn't there, and the infrastructure is pretty horrible aside from some _exceedingly_ small areas of the city proper, and of course the amazing bike paths (which typically are not useful for anything other than leisure). If that's what you consider a high bar for "bike infrastructure" in the US, I think the situation is pretty dire.

I moved to Chicago largely due to transit-related reasons, and the bike commute here isn't exactly stellar - but it's at least night and day compared to the average suburban-oriented city in the US.

That said, spending significant time in the Netherlands may have raised the bar too far for me to really think of _any_ US bike infrastructure as being much more than an afterthought at best.

<comment><USER7> I don't understand biking in Chicago or Minneapolis. What do you do when it rains, or snows, which is like 2/3 of the year? And after that it's 95 degrees and 98% humidity. There are probably no more than 30 to 45 days a year where it's really decent biking weather.

<comment><USER6> Well, in Chicago you pretty much bike on the good days. The infrastructure isn't great (like noted by OP in his followup to me) - but the density of the city makes it pretty workable if not entirely enjoyable. You can typically get around on bike on the good weather days faster than most other forms of transit - largely because you're only a few miles from anywhere you need to be.

So in Chicago the typical bicycle commuter commutes on the nice days (maybe half the year?) and will take public transit the rest.

In Minneapolis I commuted via bike for financial reasons so it was mostly a "suck it up, buttercup" sort of deal. You brought changes of clothes, outfitted your bike for the weather, and otherwise just made do. Honestly summer was worse than winter because I sweat a lot in heat. I cannot imagine living in that area without a car voluntarily. You just cut yourself off from far too much - but I suppose this was pre-Uber so the situation is a little bit more tenable.

Public transit in Minneapolis is basically for poor folks or those with DUIs - so it's not exactly stellar and usually not an option for most folks living in the metro area.

Edit: The follow up of "maybe 15 bad days" you had is for what most would call hardcore riders. The number of days the casual fair-weather bicycle commuter rides is far, far, less. I feel pretty comfortable saying this considering my family was known as crazies because we'd bike throughout the winter no matter the weather.

<comment><USER8> > Public transit in Minneapolis is basically for poor folks or those with DUIs

What? No.

I'm in Minneapolis. I live downtown. I find using the bus and light rail far more convenient and easy then a car. Let alone the baggage a car brings such as maintenance, insurance, upfront costs, and not to mention parking.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Awesome! Having used Jump this weekend, I wouldn't say dockless is the main value prop to me as a customer - it's the power assist that makes it feel more like a scooter than a bike. Going medium distances (1-2 miles) and up and down steep hills in SF was a breeze. If you're commuting, it's "sweat free."

IMO Uber Pool/Lyft Line has gotten so slow (I'm sure Pool/Line's share of total rides vs regular X/Lyft is more than 80% in many cities now) for short to med distances that powered bikes has become more and more appealing.

<comment><USER10> _it 's the power assist that makes it feel more like a scooter than a bike_

There are many comments online about how awesome electric bikes are and many skeptical responses. I think the basic divide comes down to one thing: Has the person tried an electric bike? Almost everyone who has immediately sees them as awesome. Many who haven't don't get the point.

There are finally some reputable electric bikes available for around $1,000 ([https://www.propella.bike/products/singlespeed](https://www.propella.bike/products/singlespeed)), but most people want transportation without having to deal with hassle on either end.

<comment><USER11> > Has the person tried an electric bike? Almost everyone who has immediately > sees them as awesome. Many who haven't don't get the point.

Probably depends on your goals as well.

I got one of those 2-stroke engines to put on my bike a while ago and when it arrived I was looking at it and thinking "if I put this thing on my bike I'll never get any exercise". Instead I went to the pawn shop and got another bike and put it on that one instead -- and it sits in the corner unused to this day. One of these years I'll get it out and ride it around because it's actually pretty nice looking, a "lowrider" beach cruiser that fits the engine perfectly like they were made for each other.

<comment><USER12> I had a similar response. I bike to work, and one of my coworkers got an electric bike that he let me try. I was very tempted to get one, as it would make longer distance much more viable, but I was also afraid I'd always use the electric bike and not get any exercise.

I'd love something like Jump in Austin for trips when it's hot out, or longer distances.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Just signed up for this in San Francisco -- Only to find that Russian Hill, Nob Hill, and North Beach are excluded. Plus Fort Mason, the Presidio, and anything west of the Panhandle.

"San Francisco" it is not. Which I guess is fine, but they make you pay up- front, so I found that a bit of cheek.

Admittedly it's only $2, but even on principle it's annoying. They should be much more transparent in the signup process. They even geolocate you, so they'd be aware you're out of their coverage zone.

Edit: This is the coverage map: [https://www.evernote.com/l/ACu5gnYkvnNKq6r8MPguZAczRDuT1B7p6...](https://www.evernote.com/l/ACu5gnYkvnNKq6r8MPguZAczRDuT1B7p66U)

<comment><USER14> One factor that may limit the deployment is San Francisco's permit requirement, which specifies that stationless bike share companies must commit to a "service area" which must have at least 3 bikes per square mile all day, and 20% of bikes must be in Communities of Concern. See regulation [http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/transp...](http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/transportation/divisionii/article900permits?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:sanfrancisco_ca$anc=JD_909) and permit application [https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/projects/2017/Bike...](https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/projects/2017/Bike%20Share%20Permit_v1.1_FINAL.pdf)

<comment><USER13> I feel for them having to deal with SF regulations - so no beef there.

My main niggle is a UX one. They really need to communicate the coverage in the signup process (especially if you're outside it when you sign up).

To their supreme credit - I contacted support asking clarification. They got back to me with an answer in minutes. Plus they refunded my initial payment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> We need to be aware of the problem that's happening in China with bike sharing [1]. There is a large saturation problem. Ofo seems to be one of the main contributors to the issue. In Seattle it seems like I see more and more Ofo bikes on the side of the road, and rarely do I see anyone riding them.

[1] [http://time.com/5218323/china-bicycles-sharing- economy/](http://time.com/5218323/china-bicycles-sharing-economy/)

<comment><USER16> I wonder how much of such a bike can be recycled? I'd think it's close to 100% and that it probably pays for costs of pick-up. If not, cities could make companies pay for costs of disposing of bikes. Shouldn't be a big environmental issue then, just Chinese subsidies that help recycling companies and consumers. Pretty similar to all those VC billions that provided free Uber/Lyft rides to millions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> [http://archive.is/GrVXE](http://archive.is/GrVXE)

</comment><comment><USER18> Does anyone know if going dockless increases ridership in any significant way? The consumer benefits seem great but it seems like such a nightmare to maintain compared to a docking system.

<comment><USER19> Yes, because docked bikes need to be done in cooperation with a city or business to install a dock station. With dockerless, the streets where I live have just been littered with bikes and scooters.

<comment><USER20> A lot of regulators in the US are thinking about requiring dockerless systems to coordinate with them now. Many cities don't want the littering issue.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I live in the biggest dockless bike market currently and its an eyesore. Our corrupt government has decided not to even think about making legislation about the companies until September.

People are getting very sick of seeing them laying all around and its starting to go the way of Paris, whose people rose up against the bike share companies and got them to pull out through sheer vandalism.

Someone cut one in half and mounted it on a telephone pole the other day

<comment><USER22> > the way of Paris, whose people rose up against the bike share companies and > got them to pull out through sheer vandalism.

I think you're confusing the cause for the vandalism, it is much more "casual", the bikes are vandalised because they are there and the companies stupidly provided fragile bikes. Also the opposition from the city council did not help.

<comment><USER21> I'm not confusing anything. I can point you to many social media posts urging people to vandalize them because they are annoyed at the bike share. The bikes being absolutely littered everywhere does create a lot of opportunistic vandals, but there FOR SURE is a concerted effort to fuck over the companies.

<comment><USER22> I did not see any of these, but maybe it's because of my near-zero use of social media. So I'll take your word for it, that some of the bike degradations were caused to fuck the companies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I stopped road riding several years ago. It's just gotten too dangerous in my opinion - probably due to smartphones. Unlike many European cities, ours are and will likely remain geared towards cars only. That isn't going to change in my lifetime. But if I'm wrong, and there are some US cities rebuilding their roads to separate bikes and cards, please do let me know which ones.

</comment><comment><USER24> I think these bikes miss the mark on two major fronts:

\- Why do they need to be electric? Bicycles are phenomenally efficient, even for people who aren't in "good shape." In SF you can find routes around the really crazy hills. Furthermore, electric bikes reduce the barrier to entry for douches to "go cruising". Every day (NYC) I almost get hit by one of these things buzzing around. I'm sure these bikes are less powerful, but come on, exercise!

\- Dockless. There is plenty of room for docks, USE THE ROADS. This video does a great job showing how inefficient cars are with space: [https://vimeo.com/223171024](https://vimeo.com/223171024). It's not right for a company to co-opt public space with their bikes. These should be designed into cities. It's not hard; make space.

<comment><USER25> It's much harder to bike in SF without an electric assist. I biked for 2 years in Seattle with no problems, moved to NYC and enjoyed the occasional trip over the Williamsburg bridge. Now in SF and I've only tried to bike once. It was fun bombing the hill outside but I immediately hit another hill and another.. I've essentially given up on riding here.

I use Jump regularly to run errands when I'm downtown and it's much easier to pickup/drop off bikes than it would be worrying about my own expensive bike getting stolen. These aren't quite dockless as they have to locked up properly and are tracked by the app/gps.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> would be interesting to see what lyft does. spin? $8m raised, based in sf, founded by lyft exec and yc alum

<comment><USER27> I too have heard this rumor picking up steam in SV.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I'm currently sitting in the Dutch city of Eindhoven. One of the first things you notice when you get here is that there are not bike lanes, not bike paths but very seriously bike roads on either side of the street. These are filled pretty much all the time by people of all ages on their personal bikes. There are no rental bikes anywhere. The moral of this story is that if you want people to bike, build bikeable cities, don't fill sprawled out and hazard filled cities with functionally useless rental bikes.

<comment><USER29> I am in the city of Sydney, where no less than 4 dockless bike rental companies started operating overnight.

They have become urban clutter. Users park them in locations where they're easily knocked over and, from there, they usually get damaged.

There's also a very high incidence of vandalism. Bikes with no seats, no pedals, bent wheels, on top of trees, in canals.

It's common to see heaps of scrap bikes on the road. These companies not only are using public land to offer their services but also polluting my city.

All this has made me a vocal opposer of dockless rentals. Work with city council to put your bikes on a dock or don't come here.

<comment><USER30> The dockless jump bikes seemed to be locked to something. I think it's a requirement for riders to lock them after use, and so far, they haven't been cluttering SF.

Maybe that is the compromise. No docks, but have to be locked to some sort of normal bike rack to prevent clutter. The manufacturer / city isn't responsible for maintaining expensive dock infrastructure where company A cant use company B's docks, and apartments & businesses can create bike parking space in an adhoc manner, making the over all market more efficient.

<comment><USER31> Do they have the same problem other bike rental companies have had in SF where users ride them to the bottom of the hills where they just stack up?

<comment><USER30> I would think that ebikes would cause stacking at the top of hills, since it does all the work for you :p

Being serious, I have no idea.

I think all bike systems will need rebalancing of some sort. Be it through cheaper pricing or other incentives or something else.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> It'd be nice if they can expand their subscription plan to more than low- income users. Kind of sucks to pay $3 per ride no matter how often you use it.

</comment><comment><USER33> I've seen these types of bikes around from time to time (in London), but certainly not enough to consider them a reliable form of daily transport. Whereas the station near my work, and near home, always has a healthy supply of docked Boris bikes waiting for me.

Does anyone have experience with these?

</comment><comment><USER34> Riding your bike to work was one of the only things that is the same in San Francisco no matter what socioeconomic class you're a part of. Jump changed that. Disappointing.

Everyone riding a bike used to deal with the same problems. Unfortunate as those problems are they could happen to a rich person, a poor person, or anyone in between which is an equitable sharing of the social cost. The privileged people used to be able to easily spend more money to replace a stolen bike which is the problem Jump solves for the people that can afford it. That's now a bigger burden on the people who can't afford Jump and are less likely to afford replacing a stolen bike at all.

<comment><USER35> Is Jump really that expensive? Last time I used it, it cost something like $2. It's cheaper even than the Ford bike shares.

Plus it can't get stolen.

I guess if you use it every day it does add up to a new cheapest walmart bike every 45 rides. Hmm.

<comment><USER34> Personal e-bikes for $1000-2000 (same experience as Jump) can easily be under $.25 per ride. I have 1000+ rides and 4500 miles on my $1800 ebike in under a year and I could sell it for $1400.

<comment><USER35> Yeah but if it gets stolen you're out $2000 and since you said Jump benefits the not-poor, I assumed you meant "People who can't shell out $2000 on a bike".

I also use a Boosted Board because I break even wrt Uber every 3 months or so. But if I didn't have $1600 to spend on that purchase, then all the future savings in the world wouldn't mean shit.

<comment><USER34> You should get renter's insurance ($8/mo) which covers your Boosted Board or bike even when it is locked up somewhere other than your home.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Walk to a Jump location in the app and there's no bike? Take an Uber

Find your Jump hasn't been charged and is dead? Take an Uber

Jumps are a little more expensive after a price increase? Take an Uber

<comment><USER36> Aha! Someone found the value add!

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> "Yet in recent months, Dallas has become ground zero for a nascent national bike-share war, as five startups armed with hundreds of millions of venture capital dollars have blanketed the city with at least 18,000 bikes." \-- [https://archive.is/kczBY](https://archive.is/kczBY)

It sounds like boom times for Dallas scrap dealers. No one who has ever been to Dallas could ever think this makes sense: Dallas and Fort Worth are about 80 km in diameter, and unpleasantly hot and humid for about half the year. No one wants to rent electric pseudo-scooters there.

<comment><USER38> It's true there's an extremely strong car culture in Dallas (and the rest of Texas) for reasons of weather and geography. But the bike shares in Dallas are concentrated in the denser areas full of boutiques, restaurants, museums, etc. The idea is not to replace cars so much as allowing you to park once and then get around on the bike.

The issue that's immediately apparent to anyone who actually goes there is that the sidewalks are littered with dozens of bikes, most of which have tipped over. The docks at least force you to keep the bikes somewhat organized and out of the way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> I can't figure out why e-bikes are considered bicycles and not mopeds or motorcycles. How does this not require a drivers license, with or without a motorcycle endorsement? Is the output limited (like the 50cc moped)?

Why are motorized vehicles allowed on bike lanes just because they have electric motors instead of gas?

I'm also totally blown away by Seattle's disregard for helmet laws to enrich some venture capitalists. We didn't even bother repealing the helmet law, we just don't enforce it.

<comment><USER40> Re: the helmet laws, they've been shown to do more harm than good[1]. Helmet laws suppress ridership, and riders tend to be safer when they're surrounded by more bicyclists. This is why cities like Amsterdam and Copenhagen are actually safer for riders despite having no helmet laws.

[1] [https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/04/how- effective...](https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/04/how-effective- are-bike-helmet-laws/521997/)

<comment><USER39> Yeah I'm with you on the helmet laws. I'm not ok with the selective enforcement. If they cause more harm than good we should repeal the law.

When I took the MSF class there was talk of repealing the motorcycle helmet law for similar reasons. Not sure how I feel about that. It apparently came with an automatic DNR provision if you crash without a helmet.

<comment><USER41> And presumably automatic permission for reuse of organs

<comment><USER39> There are potential religious conflicts there so I assume it would defer to whatever the drivers license says. Not really sure. It seems strange to me that we will just let people die because of the way they injured themselves, seems arbitrary.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I first read "Uber enters dockerless" and thought that it's now cool not to use docker :D

</comment><comment><USER43> I thought Uber was cutting back and focusing on core competencies?

<comment><USER44> "Make transportation as reliable as running water, everywhere, for everyone."

<comment><USER43> I look forward to Uber Airlines in that case.

<comment><USER45> What would it take for a airplane to be able to pickup someone without stopping?

<comment><USER36> The army figured this out in ww2 to extract soldiers and others. Using a harness and pole attached to the rider, and catch cable attached to a plane, the rider is plucked at speed into the air. Much like the old air-mail systems. There are youtube videos of it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Of course Uber's doing another shitty thing.

Dockless bicycles in Melbourne are being thrown into the river at an alarming rate, because people are sick of companies relying on littering in public as a business model.

So of course Uber is joining the party.

<comment><USER47> Share bikes have a huge potential for the environment and overall, commute efficiency. While there may be bad parts to start, I think there's plenty of great parts to come.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Can we only include non-paywalled articles? Hard to contribute to the discussion when you can't read the content.

<comment><USER49> [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989)

Users often post workarounds in the threads (edit: as someone now has in this one).

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Beginning of the end of Uber. Stay focused, stay hungry. Or perish.

</comment><comment><USER51> Self-driving bikes probably have a lower fatality rate than cars. Maybe this gives them some breathing room to improve their AI under-the-radar, so to speak.

<comment><USER52> How do you imagine a self-driving bike would work? (serious question)

<comment><USER53> You could gyro-stabilize it :)</comment></comment></comment>


Is Automation Really to Blame for Lost Manufacturing Jobs? - <AUTHOR> https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2018-09-07/automation-really-blame-lost-manufacturing-jobs <comment><USER2> Actual paper from that author.[1] From 2016.

Her real point is that the electronics industry is doing great, while some other parts of of US manufacturing are not. Fig. 2 is useful. Textiles, apparel, furniture, and paper products are the big losers. The apparel industry was totally crushed by imports from low-wage areas. That took out the US textile industry, since exporting textiles to be made into apparel and re- imported was pointless.

US motor vehicle output is up, not down. That hasn't been crushed by imports.

Primary metals (which is mostly steel and aluminum) are up.

More breakdown of the computers and electronics sector would help. We'd probably see semiconductors through the roof and consumer electronics down. That data is available.

This is useful. Trade is an industry-specific problem. The American apparel industry is mostly gone, but we have cheap clothing. The metals industry complains but isn't in real trouble. Motor vehicles are doing OK. A breakdown of consumer goods by category would help. That would show where to apply tariffs.

Paper products are down because newspapers are obsolete, and they used vast amounts of paper, and because offices use far less paper. Not import-related.

[1] [https://upjohn.org/sites/default/files/pdf/state-of- american...](https://upjohn.org/sites/default/files/pdf/state-of-american- mfg.pdf)

<comment><USER3> Another thing to consider, when pondering counterfactuals to free trade: offshoring destinations are _also_ automating. China is now the largest market for industrial robots:

[https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/26/china-is-the-largest- market-...](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/26/china-is-the-largest-market-for- robots-in-the-world-right-now-abb-ceo.html)

Maybe when the local factory shut down in years past it transferred 500 jobs straight to China. That doesn't necessarily mean that it kept employing 500 people for the same output in the years since. Re-shoring the same volume of production may mean significantly fewer jobs today, in e.g. textiles:

"U.S. Textile Plants Return, With Floors Largely Empty of People", 2013

[https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/business/us-textile- facto...](https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/business/us-textile-factories- return.html)

 _... Take Parkdale: The mill here produces 2.5 million pounds of yarn a week with about 140 workers. In 1980, that production level would have required more than 2,000 people. ..._

Or in the case of fields that still are very little automated, like garment sewing, it would require pretty much the same number of workers now as 20 years ago. As you say, it's very product-specific.

If we broaden the category a bit from "manufacturing jobs" to "industrial jobs" (including things like coal miners and workers at coal fired power plants), you also see strong effects from process-and-input changes. It takes far fewer people to produce a terawatt hour of electricity from a modern combined-cycle natural gas generating plant than from a modern (worse, built- in-1970) coal plant. It also takes fewer workers for a TWh from solar PV or wind power. The rapid growth of jobs in renewable energy is a temporary excursion, mostly an artifact of current rapid expansion. At steady-state it will take fewer people to supply electricity from a renewable-heavy electricity system than a coal-heavy system. That's one reason that I am bullish on the long term price-competitiveness of renewable electricity but skeptical that "green jobs" are a panacea for declining industrial employment in other sectors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's not just automation it's also digitalization which removes a lot of middle layers which used to be part of the cost. A much better to think about this is from the perspective of technology.

The music industry is the best example of what happens.

Basically, things that used to require all sorts of manufacturing and distribution layers are now more or less compressed into a single digital device.

</comment><comment><USER5> It'd be interesting to see a breakdown of what 'forms' of manufacturing are leaving the nation. Its pretty obvious that as trade agreements rise up and its more cost effective to move manufacturing to other countries with lower payed workers that the company would do that but my guess would be that higher(?) quality manufacturing still goes on stateside rather than in China or Mexico for fear of IP theft. So for things like high grade medical devices - MRI, CT scanners would still be manufactured here because of the knowledge and technology necessary to construct it.

I also think theirs a good Stephen Hawking quote I like to think of when people discuss how in a post scarcity world with full automation life will be a utopia and its something along the lines of "If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed,"

</comment><comment><USER6> Go tour a factory. Where there used to be 300+ people there are now 20.

Guess what automated robotic things you now see that weren't there before ?

<comment><USER7> I'm in low volume electronics manufacturing. Sometimes it's not even cost effective to pick-n-place circuit boards, rather have someone stuff a PCB by hand. The USA has probably moved to a lot of low-volume manufacturing.

Could be that people are not buying as much stuff. I have read that credit card debt is back to 2008 levels. Maybe everyone is maxed out; not good.

<comment><USER6> Where I live people are on facebook selling home cooked food and offering to do handy man work. Jobs I grew up with in fast food that could be relied on to provide 38 or so hrs a week now provide my teenagers 16-20. The teenagers are competing with adults for the jobs.

I am of the opinion outside metropolis areas the entire nation is running on Empty as far as finance goes. The people I know who live here and work normal blue collar jobs run just under the max on their credit cards and keep alive by paying minimum. Opening new lines of credit to pay for emergencies

Granted this is only my personal experiences but its common enough its disturbing.

When people run out of money to buy things what happens ?

<comment><USER8> When they run out of money, they become illegal and then are detained. As soon as they need to defecate they will be breaking the law. So usually after losing your money you become a criminal within 24 hours.

If they keep trying to "sell food" or other illegal activities out of their home, they will be put in prison.

<comment><USER6> Glad to see I am not the only person who is aware of this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Is automation to blame for lost agricultural jobs? Lost textile mill jobs?

Yes, it is. Do we miss those jobs? No, we don't, because we're so much wealthier when we can replace human labor with machine labor. That frees up humans to do higher-order tasks, improving our standard of living.

Yes, there are winners and losers with any change, but long-term we are far better off than we could have imagined at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.

<comment><USER10> > Yes, there are winners and losers with any change, but long-term we are far > better off than we could have imagined at the dawn of the Industrial > Revolution.

This is a deeply ignorant statement that renders invisible over 2 billion completely disenfranchised people in the third world. Just because you don't experience the consequences - while you gorge on the bounty of human progress somewhere amongst the top decile of our species - doesn't mean they aren't there.

<comment><USER9> I recommend that you go check out some of the data here: [https://humanprogress.org/dws](https://humanprogress.org/dws)

In the past 150 years, the human race has made extraordinary progress, lifting billions out of poverty.

There are still many globally who are left out, and I am aware of that. But you can't argue against the widespread gains to humanity through improved technology.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> >> If, for example, this year's model sells for the same dollar price as last year's but has more features that consumers want, its true price has, in effect, dropped. So government agencies produce statistics showing that output, adjusted for price, has risen.

This is a terrible way to view it. If we pack twice as much on a chip vs last year, did output go up? But price went down by about the same amount. Should we measure output in transistors? Printed die area? Dollar price of chips? Number of man-hours required to produce things? Labor cost?

If Intel spent a bunch of cash on a new fab, made circuits with twice as many transistors, reduced prices on the old model and sold the new ones at the old price, then sold the same number as last year, did "output" really change? If yo u think it did, then I ask if it changed in any way that is meaningful to economic measures - it didn't change GDP, it didn't change cost or amount of labor, it didn't even change the companies profits.

<comment><USER12> Maybe take a larger view of it. Instead of just looking at Intel, look at the companies buying intel chips, are they getting more output with the same dollar input?

<comment><USER11> >> look at the companies buying intel chips, are they getting more output with the same dollar input?

Probably not. The ones who were constrained by computing power are now doing higher quality work - FEA comes to mind as something that seems to produce more accurate results with increased computing capability. Games get "better" but their market doesn't get bigger - just more demanding. Hollywood does more CGI, but that doesn't actually increase their market. These are all things that don't affect GDP.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It occurs to me as I think about this topic more and more (sadly article is paywalled so I can't speak to it directly), manufacturing is to blane for lost manufacturing jobs. Economies are self balancing, and since manufacturing makes goods cheaper, eventually people will do other things that are still expensive. This is prediminantly why people talk about transformation to service economies.

Manufacturing is inherently about mass producing, which means it's always been about scale, which means doing more without adding proportionately to labor. Automation is just one of the many things that help scale, it's just one of the many things that requires capital investment.

The bigger problem for manufacturing jobs has been globalization. When you can take your capital to a market with cheaper workers, then labor becomes a scaling tool (ironically?) in that you can throw labor at a problem to get your labor costs down. What's interesting about this, though, is that at some point you can't do this anymore. Textiles, which is considered level 0 for manufacturing, has nowhere left to go for cheaper labor than Bangladesh (without significant political instability issues).

</comment><comment><USER14> Automation certainly isn't solely to blame. Our estimate of productivity is wrong.

[https://qz.com/1269172/the-epic-mistake-about- manufacturing-...](https://qz.com/1269172/the-epic-mistake-about- manufacturing-thats-cost-americans-millions-of-jobs/)

</comment><comment><USER15> No. Not as the root cause.

I mean it's definitely a contributing factor, but only because of the axioms that drive our definition of a good company.

The ideal company is seen as an investment vehicle that creates shareholder value. Full stop.

We don't measure well performance of a company in terms of hiring people. Nor do we even measure it in how well they do what they are there to do. It always getsmeasured in value returned to investors. Investors are generally not laborers in this day and age. And any company that can make more long term by automating and dumping the need for laborers will.

You can blame Automation all you want, but it's something far more basic that makes automation a worthy goal in the first place.

And no, neither automation nor the incentives that make it desirable are "easy" problems to fix.

<comment><USER16> >The ideal company is seen as an investment vehicle that creates shareholder value. Full stop.

Even if that were true, that's not a factor that just suddenly started to have force in the last couple of decades.

<comment><USER17> Massive tax cuts for the wealthy, particularly for capital gains and dividends, have reduced the resistance for money escaping corporations into the hands of investors, rather than the value add of paying employees more or improving working conditions and benefits. These changes started to occur in the 1980's, rather than the Dodge vs. Ford decision from 1919.

While it is certainly true that nothing legally changed (edit: this isn't true: there is a full on attack on collective bargaining ongoing) in the more recent 30-40 years to allow for the massive accumulation of wealth and corporate practices that make the 'FULL STOP' in the original comment more accurate than before, the modification of tax law certainly has had a major impact.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Well obviously automation is to blame, that's why the economy shifted to buying real goods made in China and Mexico, two nations that at the dawn of the 21st century were at the forefront of robotics. Also places like Bangladesh and Vietnam. It also explains why imports from places like Japan and South Korea, clearly laggards in robotics, declined over the last couple decades.

Oh, wait...

<comment><USER19> Although China is on the other side of the equation, it provides plenty of clear examples showing automation _not_ eliminating jobs. It changes the available jobs, and generally improves them (ie digger operator instead of hand-shovel "operator") but jobs are still available.

<comment><USER20> Well I wouldn't call an excavator automation exactly. But at the same time, you think ten guys digging a ditch at least some of them aren't made redundant when you get an excavator? You don't need ten excavators, and maybe you don't need 1 excavator driver and 9 ditch diggers...

I mean I think you're engaging in selective reasoning.

<comment><USER21> > Well I wouldn't call an excavator automation exactly.

go dig a trench by hand and get back to us.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> On NPR this morning, they said that USA manufacturing jobs have decreased this 1/4, despite total number of jobs increasing.

</comment><comment><USER12> Paywalled partial article.

</comment><comment><USER22> Nope, speculation caused it.</comment>


Ask HN: What's a hobby? - <AUTHOR> - They say that there is more in life than work.<p>- They say that you must spend time with your family.<p>- They say that you need a hobby.<p>What's a hobby? Why should a person have any? What would be the purpose? That isn't clear to me. <comment><USER2> A hobby is something you do for fun, that usually doesn't earn an income or doesn't earn much of an income.

A lot of free and open source projects started out as someone's hobby and grew over time.

<comment><AUTHOR> Is it a requirement for a hobby not to generate income? Don't most successful people have hobbies as their job? Still can't see the difference.

<comment><USER2> I am using the IRS definition of a hobby. If your business doesn't earn enough money the IRS classifies it as a hobby. Once you earn enough money it is no longer a hobby and must be taxed.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you keep track of contracts and other documents? - <AUTHOR>

A bit ago, one of my clients stopped answering my calls and emails. I went looking for the contract, to mention it, only to realize that it expired a couple months ago.
So, how do you keep track of all your contracts?
And how much interest would there be in an app for managing legal documents? Something that would send expiration alerts, keep track of revisions between you and your client, sign them digitally and have an "at a glance" view of all your documents with a client. I'm building a simple solution like this for myself, but if it'd help other people, even better. <comment><USER2> Looks like there are a lot of solutions out there: [https://www.google.com/search?q=manage+contracts+saas](https://www.google.com/search?q=manage+contracts+saas)</comment>