Why you can't dislike something on Facebook - <AUTHOR> http://www.benfrederickson.com/2013/06/03/rating-set-distributions.html

<comment><USER2> I don't think this is it. The point of allowing only Likes and not Dislikes seems to me a social thing rather than a usage thing.

Netflix lets you "dislike" something (implicitly using star ratings) because no one sees those ratings except you.

Amazon and Yelp let you dislike things because there is, for the most part, no interactivity around the ratings. A Yelp review or Amazon review generates no flame wars or ill will towards the user base.

So, at least from the examples in this blog post, that leaves Reddit, where downvotes frequently embolden trolls, causes large amounts of moaning about receiving said downvotes, and escalates flamewars as the downvoted have karmic reason to fight more and with increasing aggressiveness.

Disliking things has a negative social impact. It escalates disagreements and makes everyone simply observing the content feel just a bit dirtier for having to witness the ensuing melee.

Sure, it reduces the breadth of possible communication, but people go on Facebook and G+ to feel good and catch up, so a system where things can only be liked and it's hard to hate on something is preferable, even if it is unrealistic.

<comment><USER3>
        > [...]but people go on Facebook and G+ to feel good[...]

Very true, but to add to that another factor that shouldn't be underestimated is that it's companies advertising on these platforms that are footing the bill for their operations.

Fewer companies will want to advertise with you if their company/product page can be disliked. To name an example Monsanto has ~22k likes (<https://www.facebook.com/MonsantoCo>) they'd probably have at least two orders of magnitude as many dislikes if people could "dislike".

<comment><USER4> I'm not sure that's necessarily true. Sites like Amazon, NewEgg, EBay, and anyplace else with a ratings system for products and product sellers seem to do fine, despite the potential for getting negative reviews and ratings. These are sales channels rather than advertising channels, so maybe that makes the difference.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> While the data is interesting, my understanding is that pales to: if your posts get Liked, you keep using Facebook, and if your posts get disliked, you stop using Facebook.

Some people think Facebook is a drama creation engine. That's a bit unfair: it's a usage creation engine, which does allow usage by people who are prone to creating drama. (Talk to e.g. teens sometime: for some people, implicit competition within real-life friend groups for who gets the most likes on their photos is A Thing.) Facebook is not unaware of social patterns like this, so they make product choices which make them less likely to negatively affect Facebook's interests.

<comment><USER6> > for some people, implicit competition within real-life friend groups for who > gets the most likes on their photos is A Thing.

I didn't realise this until my sister told me recently that I was "getting pretty good at Facebook".

<comment><USER7> Upvoted, you're getting pretty good at Hacker News.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> _This is in sharp contrast to the rest of the ratings systems around the web..._

That's because the like button isn't a rating system. The like button is simply capturing one subjective reaction (the desire to express your overall like of something with zero context) to provide a objectively comparable metric (number of likes). We're talking about apples and oranges here. Rating systems at least _try_ to achieve feedback by providing context, likes do not.

 _Why people don't usually leave negative reviews - People don't dwell on things they dislike_

None of the analysis here takes into considerations around the motivations of people to leave reviews in the first place.

 _people avoid things they will dislike, causing universally disliked things to remain unpopular. Its important enough that I thought I would sneak it in twice in different forms though._

Or maybe there are loads of hidden variables that are affecting this data. Like, for example, why people chose to write the review in the first place? I'd love for someone to do a scientific experiment to draw conclusions about humans motivation to write reviews.

 _Nobody sets out to write a terrible novel, open a crappy restaurant or create a horrible movie, and people mostly succeed in not being abysmal._

That chines restaurant down the street has value sets that people can't articulate correctly when describing their feedback (low price, quickly made, etc), and yet will get 1-2 stars on yelp for being "poor quality".

Recommendation systems are complex because we're effectively trying to scale subjective attributes into objective context. It will never perfect and will always be gamed. This debate will last for centuries...

</comment><comment><USER9> > The truth is that people just don't dislike things online that often

You've got to be kidding me. From what I see, and maybe it's just the places I frequent, that's what the internet is for!

<comment><USER10> I think constructive criticism is underrated. Criticism often leads to improvement which most everyone benefits from.

As far as his data, sure most people can't be bothered to criticize something they don't care about. But imagine if Picasso hadn't criticized Matisse or Matisse hadn't criticized Picasso. It's not really popular opinion that matters, it's the few people that give a shit that makes all the difference.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Some of the discussion here may be PART the reason...but only a small part. If you really think about what Facebook and Twitter are trying to do, they're trying to construct 'graphs' -- a social graph or an interest graph, depending upon which suits your cup of tea; and graphs are based upon connections. When you "like" or "retweet" or "follow" something/someone, you establish and create a link in this gigantic web of connections. Think of it like developing a system of telephone wires.

Therefore, in this model, it doesn't REALLY make sense to have a dislike or a 'dis-retweet' option because you can't create a 'non-connection' more than leaving a void space between you and said other object. That's why these words aren't in the vocabularies of these tools mentioned.

At least that's the visual mental model that I have, and I would encourage others to consider this.

</comment><comment><USER12> Hi, since I can't leave comments on you nice post, I'm doing it here.

* Thanks for putting up 'long form' posts which I guess what the kids are calling regular articles which take up more than 130 characters.

* Thanks for writing about your work, which I think more people should do.

* For the five star rating, if the mean is not 3 then the distribution can't be normal. It has to be skewed.

* Thanks for making the nice graphs, but please take pity on the color challenged and use much brighter and color blind friendly colors (or simply use gray scale, which would work just fine for your data).

Again, nice work on doing market research and putting up your findings for us to see.

I especially like that you develop a hypothesis at the end of your data description.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback!

You're totally right that ratings datasets will skew positive. I was trying to get really get across that they aren't bimodal at all (unlike what some other people have claimed) and tend to look somewhat normal if you squint hard enough.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Interesting for comparison could be Diaspora (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaspora_%28social_network%29>) github final comment on why they would not implement a dislike button (<https://github.com/diaspora/diaspora/issues/1474>):

[...]

I can't find the records of the past conversations we've had about this, but the final decision was this:

A like (or whatever) button is a way to show appreciation without leaving a comment. It is pleasant to get likes, it provides positive reinforcement, and it's simple.

Dislikes would do the opposite, it's like someone spitting on you and not knowing why. You can express your dislike in a comment, which is perfectly adequate.

[...]

Moreover being Facebook a commercial system, dislikes would have negative impact on its advertisers. So I think that this togheter with the above reasons made up for a like-only rating system. No need to look for more esoterical reasons.

But still the article was appreciated and it might spin up interesting conversations.

Anyway, I'd greatly approve a dislike button :)

<comment><USER14> decentralized social network program pump.io has a dislike button. But features like this are implemented as apps, and so you can implement these kinds of features however you want. In effect a like or a dislike is an activity post on your own account with a backreference to the content, and others who subscribe to your feed see this. You can't aggregate all data as in a facebook "like" system, but I see this as a feature rather than a bug.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> _Most things don't suck

Nobody sets out to write a terrible novel, open a crappy restaurant or create a horrible movie, and people mostly succeed in not being abysmal._

Not actually true. The abysmal stuff is filtered out for you by gatekeepers in publishing distribution, financing and so forth. If you want an example of how things look without gatekeepers, consider an unfiltered app store (like Android's a year or two back) filled with endless imitations and one-note ideas (Justin Bieber sliding tile puzzle! Miley Cyrus sliding tile puzzzle! Paul Graham sliding ti...you get the idea).

The approach of Facebook and G+ is that if you don't like something, ignore it and it will go away. This doesn't really work that well (see the other popular post about FB on today's front page, and the diminishing quality of Google News as more sources are added to it).

</comment><comment><USER16> You can't dislike something on Facebook because users will feel discouraged. The whole point of Facebook is to share content with people you know and have content shared with you. By participating in the "negative" this goes counter to that idea.

Facebook is an identity/friend/family driven network, you wouldn't like seeing that John and Mary disliked your marriage. This works perfect in an HN/Reddit environment since you can dissociate yourself and provide pseudonymity.

As for Facebook Pages, maybe there is potential here. Though again unless you are a big brand, I don't know with certainty whether a post with 10 dislikes and faces attached to them is better than no likes at all.

The OP has an interesting way to look at it, though, I'm pretty sure this has been explained more than once by Facebook Engineers.

</comment><comment><USER17> The problem with a full range rating (positive and negative) is that over time people will abuse it. We've seen this on an older web project (<http://www.trendbuero.de/dk/>). If you have a negative rating sooner or later little groups in your community will emerge and they will try to dominate everyone with their taste. They will call their peers and ask for downvotes. And when someone get's a lot of downvotes for a post it's unlikely that he will ever post again - he's scared away - forever. In a just positive rating system: If someone does not get any likes, he'll try again - maybe with different content. So traffic wise it's besser to just allow positive ratings.

</comment><comment><USER18> I think this is shortsighted. The lack of negative rating is an issue. Even though social networks do not allow for them they should at least try to infer them as a 'hidden' or 'latent' variable (from the lack of sufficient amounts of up-votes after a large amount of views).

I'm pretty sure that G+ doesn't try to infer downvotes because of the large amount of sensationalism, alternative medicine, celebrity gossip in the "What's Hot" circle present in your feed by default. These type of posts would not rise very far on Reddit.

Also, downvotes are important when it comes to computing trust metrics in recommendation engines or buyer/seller rating frameworks especially if you want to be able to use transitive trust metrics (A trusts B and B trusts C therefore A can trust C). Negative trust ratings are useful in avoiding bad products or bad actors. The availability of these ratings would be quite valuable in helping with online transactions and give confidence to users the first time they buy from a new source.

Without the two data points, it is more difficult to determine the parameters of multinomial/dirichlet distributions used in, for example, subjective logic which can be used to build networks of trust. see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_logic>

</comment><comment><USER19> A score is punishment or reward by consensus. I always thought the reason was psychological. There's a (very difficult to subdue) urge for a lot of people to punish those they disagree with; individual merits of the argument be damned.

I've seen it here, and it can't be discounted as just a downvote for tone. I think the wisdom of not being able to downvote someone who has replied to you really shines here (along with Slashdot's more extreme example of killing any mod points on a thread you're participating). It sort of forces you to be more objective before dishing out punishment.

The positive distribution may be skewed due to self-censorship to some degree. People tend to look at their score if it's displayed (one of the reasons, I wish "karma" was not shown and instead showed a Slashdot style label score for community standing). There may genuinely be more likable things than unlikable things since scoring of some sort with a very specific number is involved.

I'm more inclined to believe the negative review assessment. It is true that _most_ folks just browse away to something more uplifting if the conversation or the story itself has become toxic.

</comment><comment><USER20> I think the conclusion here is wrong. There may be fewer negative ratings, but it doesn't necessarily follow that they are less valuable for making recommendations. In fact they may be more valuable. If people go around indiscriminately "liking" random things, but reserve their "dislikes" for things they really hate, then "dislikes" might actually carry more useful information about their preferences than "likes".

</comment><comment><USER21> On a previous ratings-based site I was working on, we ran into a big problem: distinguishing _not caring_ from _not liking_.

Because to "like" something, or give it 4 or 5 stars, means you both like it, _and_ it matters to you.

But if you're getting notifications in your newsfeed about a particular band, for example, giving it 1 star could either mean you hate the band's music, or it could mean that you've just never heard of the band and don't want to hear about it.

Depending on the site, you may want to do drastically different things given the two cases, but I've never seen any site that successfully distinguished between the two things in an intuitive way. (And giving 3/5 stars is not really the answer either.)

</comment><comment><USER22> I must be a very strange/negative person, as I tend to downvote much more often than I upvote, be it on SE[0] or HN.

I also killfile people much more quickly than others, or so I was told. Maybe I'm just angry and hate everyone =)

[0] Not really using it anymore, though.

</comment><comment><USER23> Part of the purpose of the 'like' button is obviously help form a more complete profile of a given user in order to more effectively customize advertising - would incorporating a 'dislike' button make this task any easier? That is, would an approach that refines advertising content by filtering out subject matter a user actively dislikes have a substantive advantage over an approach that just focuses on homing in on what the user actively likes? My guess is that it doesn't, otherwise it would have been implemented already.

<comment><USER11> Not necessarily true -- you can report/dislike ads anytime/anywhere on Facebook and Twitter (maybe Google+? I don't use it really)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Consider the burgeoning community of Redditors. Up-vote AND down-vote are integral to Reddit's success.

The article's hypothesis needs MUCH more work/research.

</comment><comment><USER25> I think it would be interesting for Facebook to allow the user to set/select additional interaction verb-names. So you could have "dislike" button if the poster _wanted_ it there.

My local newspaper often has stories that say "small child dies in horrific house fire" [like this on facebook], which seems.... inappropriate.

<comment><USER26> The lack of an option for the author to change the verb really does suck. People wanting to show empathy to someone's post on facebook about something shitty which has happened ends up in a long thread of sad faces, which kind of shit up any real conversation which takes place.

Being able to make a thumbs down available for select posts would solve that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Haha, it's funny because if how accurate it is for me on HN. I see both up and downvote buttons, and it simply slows me down with a risk of pressing the wrong one. I never downvote comments I dislike, I just ignore them and upvote good ones. So I'd prefer to hide my downvote button.

</comment><comment><USER28> There are some newspaper websites powered by Facebook comments. I wish I could downvote some of the comments I see there. I see some of the most terrible comments get liked a lot and the commenters become star commenters (or whatever FB calls them).

</comment><comment><USER29> >I think the biggest reason is that even if they did offer a dislike button, people just wouldn't use it often enough to justify the precious screen real estate it would take up.

Ha! Let's test that, shall we.

</comment><comment><USER30> I see I cannot downvote this story, either.

</comment><comment><USER31> I guess this disproves the old "People are more likely to go online and say something bad, than something good."

</comment><comment><USER32> The reason you can't dislike things on Facebook is that what Facebook calls a "like" is not a rating, it is actually a connection.

They are building a network graph, and the opposite of a connection is not-a- connection, which is the default state.

There's nothing "lower" or "worse" than the absence of a connection. This is sort of like the old joke that the opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference.

</comment><comment><USER33> I wonder:

Whether dislikes, especially from an unknown walk-by, have a stronger emotional effect than likes. (And whether this varies by gender and anonymity of the attacker.)

What subset of posts tend to attract dislikes. (I could easily see questions and things like that attracting dislikes because they don't add general utility and then one dickhead comes by and decides to spit on someone for being ignorant/learning.)

Whether when people dislike something they're really just trying to make it less visible.

#

Though, since we're really talking about something's size in the search space, if people just ignore it it has more or less the same practical effect as it getting downvoted. Which makes the fact that something can get posted early in the day and be missed, and then be posted later by someone else and be seen kinda ironic.

I don't know, I've long thought that rating systems done on a per-post basis are really bad for promoting positive content. You don't get to customise it to show each user what they want, you don't get to cache any of your work really - and there seems to be something wrong with it, at least based on back of the hand personal eye-balling, that seems to make it wreck communities (i.e. since it's been becoming popular I've found less value in online discussion.)</comment>


Tech Companies Are Ruining America's Image - <AUTHOR> https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/05/14/tech-companies-are-ruining-americas-image/ <comment><USER2> It's completely true. I do recruiting for non-tech roles (sales, marketing, design). A few years ago, I'd visit a foreign university, and they'd see USA on my badge, and would start flocking to me. Now all I get is heckling about sexism and stealing people's data. We really need to clean up our act.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I followed HN rules on the title, but I think a less click-baity title would better describe the real research behind the article:

 _The world 's attitude on America's new cultural export: Internet tech_</comment>


Fewer Americans bike to work despite new trails, lanes, bicycle share programs - <AUTHOR> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/01/02/bike-work-fewer-americans-new-trails-share-programs/2319972002/ <comment><USER2> I feel like in Europe and America, the attitude is "If somebody breaks the rules, it's morally justified to endanger that person".

I recently experienced cycling in Taipei. Traffic rules seem to be somewhat "loose" compared to the situation in European cities. Two lanes, but some space? Let's make a third lane. Red light? Better pay attention while running it.

But, and that's my main takeaway, people don't want to kill each other and keep calm in any situation.

Riding the bicycle doesn't feel like "one against them", it's more like "I'm in this chaos together with all the others".

[edit] I'm not advocating for less rules, but for a more harmonic attitude towards others in traffic.

<comment><USER3> This is a generalization but very many less developed countries have much less adherence to traffic laws and very many more traffic injuries. The attitude might be better but the outcomes are worse.

<comment><USER2> You should google Taipei, it's location and development, though.

Taiwan's HDI is between Austria and Luxembourg.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> When the route to work was mostly bike trails and I only encountered two heavy traffic intersections, I cycled to the office a few days a week.

Otherwise, it's just too dangerous from my perspective. Too many drivers do not pay attention.

<comment><USER5> Walking can also be dangerous. Especially if you follow the laws. If find it a lot safer the do the made up crime of "jaywalking" between intersections than crossing legally. I have had several close calls crossing legally because of people just not paying attention. I have had zero close calls crossing between intersections.

<comment><USER6> Am I right in thinking that American traffic lights don't actually stop cars for pedestrians? They just sort of give you more priority don't they? What's the advantage of crossing away from the lights?

<comment><USER7> Away from the lights you have 2 directions to check for traffic from. At an intersection you have to be aware of people coming from 4 directions potentially turning towards you.

<comment><USER6> Just wait for your turn to cross at the lights? People don't often just full on run red lights do they?

<comment><USER7> The walk light will often be on at the same time as the green light for drivers going the same direction. Sometimes a turning driver won't notice you. Doesn't happen that often, but happens often enough that you have to be aware of it.

A lot of times it is just easier to cross in the middle of a block because you have a much better buffer area where random cars can't pop out from. Obviously it depends on the particular road. If it is some 6 lane wide main thoroughfare, I'd probably opt for the cross walk.

<comment><USER6> > The walk light will often be on at the same time as the green light for > drivers going the same direction.

Well that's just bonkers.

Where I live when a pedestrian wants to cross the lights stop all cars for the duration.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Here in Germany there is a strong culture to bike to work. Even with bad weather (as now in winter) you see a lot of people including kids biking.

At the company I'm working at there is some programs where you can buy a bicycle and the company pays you some percentage of the price back [1]

[1]: [https://www.jobrad.org](https://www.jobrad.org)

<comment><USER9> In the UK as well. As someone from Australia, I was so surprised so many people riding in all conditions, when back home it was incredibly rare even though the conditions were so good, all the time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Keep in mind this is the American Community Survey, which, unlike the full census, only counts about 1% of the population.

Given that cyclist commuters only only account for 0.3% of the population already, the large swings become a little less statistically significant.

I don't find it hard to believe that cyclist commuting decreased by a few percent overall, but it is hard to believe that cycling decreased in Oakland by 25% while increasing in Philadelphia by 20% in one year.

</comment><comment><USER11> Is this a surprise? America's run on the car for over 100 years; it's deeply ingrained in the culture. Replacing that culture was never a matter of trails, lanes, or bike sharing.

</comment><comment><USER12> Not mentioned is whether sprawl has increased the distance between home and workplace, beyond acceptable cycling limits.

</comment><comment><USER13> How much of the new infrastructure is just paint on the roads? That doesn't do very much to make people feel safe on a bike.

</comment><comment><USER14> This is because this issue is now tribal and political. In "Critical Mass" bicyclists gather together and block common roads. Very American, but not an effective way to promote anything.

Was there also some other action where mostly ugly fat people drive around naked - the purpose of which now escapes me.

Also in America you can often see fat bicyclists in tights, to reduce wind resistance I presume?

</comment><comment><USER15> I wonder how much electric scooters impacted the decline over the last year, anyone have any data or further insight on this?

</comment><comment><USER16> The Seattle bikers disappear when it's cold and rainy.

In Amsterdam, the bikers are more sensible. They wear street clothes, and ride heavy bikes suitable for street clothes and casual use. In Seattle, it has to be a $$$$ racing bike and one has to wear a tour de france spandex outfit. It's the law.

<comment><USER17> Amsterdam is also flatter than Seattle. Heavy bikes (without assist) and street clothes don't work as well on large hills.

<comment><USER18> A racing bike for commuting isn't that sensible an option either though. Unless you race in your spare time and want to get miles on the bike, a hybrid or touring bike will be a lot more comfortable and durable on city roads.

<comment><USER17> People don't actually commute on racing bikes in Seattle all that often. At least not the ones I see. Touring bikes, cyclocross, and similar with slightly larger tires and often disc brakes seem more common.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I would _love_ to bike to work everyday, but there are a few things that prevent me from doing so, none of which are the weather like another poster suggests.

1\. Lack of showers in basically everywhere I've worked. I don't mind making a 10+ mile trip each way twice a day, but not if it means I get to sit there at work smelly and gross the entire day.

2\. The ingrained sense of "fuck bikers" that most people feel in the US. I mean, go on any public forum and ask people what they think of bicyclists riding their bikes on the road, where we are legally allowed to do. You will be met with so much vitriol. People will literally tell you they hope you get ran over and die because you deserve it.

<comment><USER20> > I mean, go on any public forum and ask people what they think of bicyclists > riding their bikes on the road, where we are legally allowed to do.

To be fair, there just is no good way to share a 40mph thoroughfare between bikers and cars. Most of the Northern European countries get away with sharing by having _MUCH_ slower roads.

Bikers need their own dedicated lanes that don't interact with automobile traffic.

<comment><USER21> The safest place to cycle, among 40 mph traffic, is in the middle of the lane where it is 100% obvious to everyone driving that you are there.

Now tell that to random people and they will get angry and upset and wish you harm.

It seems like the problem isn't the lack of bicycle infrastructure, it's the ingrained culture.

<comment><USER22> It's also a problem with people not being smart enough to pass someone on a bike, which causes everyone in cars anger. I can't wait for cars to be not operated by humans. It will be safer for everyone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I feel like biking to work is being promoted just for the sake of polishing city's reputation. Cities would build all these fancy facilities, which are grossly expensive infrastructure to build and maintain, just for sake of feeling that they did something to solve traffic problems. Everyone is aware of problems a biker faces on everyday commute(lack of amenities at work, not safe, weather, lack of infrastructure and motor driver's attitude) all of which needs to be solved for more people to adopt biking.

<comment><USER13> In what way is improving infrastructure not a step in the right direction?

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Bikers tend to forget the class separations that biking entails. You can only ride to work if your work supports biking. That means a place to lock your bike and a place to shower/change. Most people work at places without such luxuries. And you have to be in a job where you don't have to look nice all day. Public-facing people such as receptionists or sales people cannot bike to work. People who have to haul their own tools cannot bike to work. If your job can tick all the boxes, great for you. But don't lecture those who don't have such options.

I'm reminded of that scene from the IT Crowd where the boss, in bike shorts, is yelling at a room full of people in suits about stress. The ability to bike to work is often a distinction, something to be waved over those in you organization who dare not wear spandex in an office environment.

<comment><USER13> You don't need to shower or change after biking to work in many climates. Look at the cyclists in Holland. They wear street clothes and don't go fast enough to sweat a lot.</comment></comment>


A New HTTP Status Code for Legally-restricted Resources - <AUTHOR> http://www.tbray.org/tmp/draft-tbray-http-legally-restricted-status.html

<comment><USER2> In case you're wondering why it's 451... <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451>

</comment><comment><USER3> What are the chances of this being "accepted" and existing?

Also further to this how frequently are new HTTP Status Codes proposed like this and what percentage are/aren't "accepted"? Not sure if I should add it to <http://httpstatus.es> or not (with some sort of "proposed" signal)

</comment><comment><USER4> 451 implies an error on the client side, when the client has done nothing wrong. To an extent, neither has the server, so this probably better falls into the 300 category.

451 is OK for propaganda purposes, but will people outside of North America and the UK understand the context?

<comment><USER5> I don't think the protocol cares that much about who made the error. It's more about whether the client should retry the same unmodified request again or not. Using a 4xx series error code indicates that it shouldn't, using a 5xx series code indicates that it should.

Of course one can argue that censorship is only temporary and that actually it would make sense for clients to keep trying..

And yes people here in Finland understand the context.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> _Thanks also to Ray Bradbury._

How very, very appropriate. I suspect Mr. Bradbury would approve, and this will stand a nice tribute to his influence.

</comment><comment><USER7> Aside from the "statement" it makes, I think it is useful to identify responses that a resource provider might like to make but is not permitted to make (i.e. censorship).

Given the prevalence (editorial: "enormity") of censorship problems -- both current and pending -- being able to distinguish between them and other failures provides actionable information on a useful scale and frequency.

The particular response code proposed does make an elegantly concise and culturally cognizant statement -- something that RFC's are not entirely unknown for. The proposal is both practical and well-put, IMHO.</comment>


Apple Frees Up HomeKit to Kickstart Development - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/aarontilley/2017/06/07/apple-homekit-wwdc-2017-update <comment><AUTHOR> We've been developing a HomeKit product for the last year and had to beef up the hardware in order to be able to integrate the crypto-requirements. The cost also increased ~2.5x because we had to go with a Marvell chip.

This is definitely a welcome change.</comment>


Ruby and Python: pivot points - <AUTHOR> http://allthingsprogress.com/posts/ruby-and-python-pivot-points

<comment><USER2> _More importantly (and annoyingly), if I define a top-level method with def—let's call those top-level def methods (TLDMs)—Ruby won't let me pass it as a block to any other method. (TLDMs actually belong to an object, so strictly speaking, this makes sense. It's still annoying.) In Python, we can pass lambdas and TLDMs like they're identical.

...

This is a problem because Python treats methods and functions differently. You can pass functions to other functions. But you can't pass instance methods._

In Ruby, you can pass "TLDMs" by passing the symbol corresponding to their name, and calling send() on the symbol to call the method. Likewise, you can pass the object and the symbol in order to pass a method around.

 _Ruby lacks list comprehensions_

Ruby _does_ have the select method, which is semantically equivalent. List comprehensions are syntactic sugar for select (and I'll freely admit that Ruby can have a pretty bitter syntax at times, so maybe the sugar is justified).

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't think so, select is just a filter. List comprehensions map and select at the same time.

Regarding TLDMs, how do you propose mapping a TLDM over an array? For example:

      def transform(x)
        # implementation ...
      end

      list = [1, 2, 3]

      # doesn't work ...
      list.map &transform

_Edit_ : &method(:transform) is way too verbose compared with Python's solution

<comment><USER3> You wouldn't use a named Ruby method for something like this. You'd typically use a Proc or block.

        [1,2,3].map{ |x| x * 2 }

or if you wanted to reuse the block for other things

        transform = lambda { |x| x * 2 }
        [1,2,3].map(&transform)

<comment><AUTHOR> Exactly, but there should be an easier syntax that declaring a lambda for each algorithm I want to map over.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> _I can stringify a list by saying map(str, numbers), because str() happens to be a function that I can map with. But I can't capitalize a list in that way, because capitalize() is a method._

Yes, you can:

        >>> map(str.capitalize, ['alpha', 'beta', 'gamma'])
        ['Alpha', 'Beta', 'Gamma']

<comment><USER5> Or, if you have a list that might be of mixed types that happen to have capitalize methods:

        >>> import operator
        >>> map(operator.methodcaller("capitalize"), your_list)

<comment><USER6> Hot damn, I had no idea bout that module.....

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The whole point of having join() as a method on the string is that it is meant to handle any kind of iterator. You can join a list, a generator, or the custom iterator of your choice. In any of those cases, it looks the same and is implemented only once.

If join() was not a string method then it would have to belong in some mixin that you slap onto your iterators, and that increases code complexity.

Also, you can do things like map(operator.methodcaller("capitalize"), iterator_of_strings), but that is probably bad style.

And in Ruby you can do your_object.method("foo") to turn your method into a lambda.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sounds to me like join would work better as a function ;)

<comment><USER8> Except that it only makes sense in the context of strings, so it makes perfect sense to make it a string method.

<comment><AUTHOR> It seems to me like join makes sense in any context where you have multiple elements that you want joined. With strings, you happen to have a separator. But you might also want to join several lists into one flattened list. (Edit: I know there are ways to do this. The point is that join could be unified around this concept.)

Even if you disagree, the line between methods and functions in Python really isn't standardized.

<comment><USER7> You can join several lists into a flattened list as well:

reduce(operator.add, list_of_lists)

You can not say sum(), sadly, because it forces a restriction that you only sum numbers.

<comment><USER9> It's not pretty, but you can do it:

      >>> sum([['a', 'b', 'c'], ['d', 'e', 'f']], [])
      ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f']

This makes use of the optional start argument and list add operator. However, Python's docs suggest using itertools.chain instead:

<http://docs.python.org/library/functions.html#sum>

      >>> import itertools
      >>> [l for l in itertools.chain(*[['a', 'b', 'c'], ['d', 'e', 'f']])]
      ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f']

(Of course you lose the benefit of a generator by using a list comprehension, but this is just an example.)

<comment><USER10> I may be missing something, but why isn't skipping your list comprehension maintaining the benefit of using a generator?

       >>> from itertools import chain
       >>> chain(*[['a', 'b', 'c'], ['d', 'e', 'f']])

<comment><USER9> It is, but I don't get to show you the result of the chain that way. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> _In Ruby, things are more complicated. I need an ampersand to pass a function and brackets to call it:_

Proc calling is built directly into the language via the _yield_ keyword and it's by far the most common way to call Procs.

 _More importantly (and annoyingly), if I define a top-level method with def—let's call those top-level def methods (TLDMs)—Ruby won't let me pass it as a block to any other method._

First, you can indeed pass a method as an argument using _& method(:method_name)_. Secondly, it's rare to pass around named methods in Ruby (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1141245>) because Procs/blocks are flexible enough to make it almost always unnecessary. See also: [http://yehudakatz.com/2010/02/21/ruby-is-not-a-callable- orie...](http://yehudakatz.com/2010/02/21/ruby-is-not-a-callable-oriented- language/)

</comment><comment><USER11> Hooks? You mean method overriding.

Hook as a term is more used in a callback context.

</comment><comment><USER12> With regards to the join and capitalize examples, once you consider the existence of the string module, the current way actually does make more sense.

Capitalizing things only makes sense on a string. Having a builtin function that could capitalize any input doesn't work, so it's better to explicitly make it clear that it's a string related function. If, for some reason, you're allergic to list comprehensions, you could always do map(lambda s: s.capitalize(), strlist).

Similarly, the string module has a join function, whose definition is: return sep.join(words). The standard ''.join() is unfortunate and unobvious to the newcomer, but it's idiomatic, and there probably are unusual cases where calling a non-method join doesn't work.

<comment><AUTHOR>
      You could always do map(lambda s: s.capitalize(), strlist)

That I could, and in fact, I do give an example like that in the accompanying analysis article [1]. However, it's not simple as Ruby. This is a comparison, after all.

The two essays I've written are essentially describing what is _natural_ in each language, not what is strictly possible.

[1] <http://allthingsprogress.com/posts/the-ugliness-of-python></comment></comment>


Antibody Tests Point to Lower Death Rate for the Coronavirus Than First Thought - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/05/28/863944333/antibody-tests-point-to-lower-death-rate-for-the-coronavirus-than-first-thought <comment><USER3> This headline doesn't seem to match the body of the article:

> "The current best estimates for the infection fatality risk are between 0.5% > and 1%," says Caitlin Rivers, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Center > for Health Security.

> That's in contrast with death rates of 5% or more based on calculations that > included only people who got sick enough to be diagnosed with tests that > detect the presence of virus in a person's body.

> And the revised estimates support an early prediction by Dr. Anthony Fauci, > director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a > leading member of the White House coronavirus task force. In an editorial > published in late March in The New England Journal of Medicine, Fauci and > colleagues wrote that the case fatality rate for COVID-19 "may be > considerably less than 1%."

Unless "First Thought" simply refers to people who are unfamiliar with how figures such as CFR are calculated. I've been seeing the 1% number repeated by scientific figures for months.

Here is a Medium article from a month ago saying the same [https://medium.com/@gidmk/what-is-the-infection-fatality- rat...](https://medium.com/@gidmk/what-is-the-infection-fatality-rate-of- covid-19-7f58f7c90410)

> From the 13 studies — including 4 models, 4 observational studies, and 5 > pre-prints of one kind or another — there was an overall estimate of 0.75% > infection-fatality rate, with the 95% confidence interval ranging from 0.49% > to 1.01%.

<comment><USER4> Here is a WHO report from February saying the same thing:

> Modeling is a helpful tool to try to account for missed cases, such as those > that are mild cases potentially missed in current surveillance activities, > and the time lag between onset and death. Using an estimated number of total > infections, the Infection Fatality Ratio can be calculated. This represents > the fraction of all infections (both diagnosed and undiagnosed) that result > in death. Based on these available analyses, current IFR estimates range > from 0.3% to 1%. Without population-based serologic studies, it is not yet > possible to know what proportion of the population has been infected with > COVID-19.

[https://www.who.int/docs/default- source/coronaviruse/situati...](https://www.who.int/docs/default- source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200219-sitrep-30-covid-19.pdf)

<comment><USER5> It is a report dated 19th February! Also note that this estimate is based exclusively on the Chinese data(!) and that it practically confirms that the Chinese data were usable for the estimates even as there were doubts spread by the media and politicians. Specifically in the same report it is written (1):

"Using an estimated number of total infections, the Infection Fatality Ratio can be calculated. This represents the fraction of all infections (both diagnosed and undiagnosed) that result in death. Based on these available analyses, current IFR estimates range from 0.3% to 1%."

And then:

"Without population-based serologic studies, it is not yet possible to know what proportion of the population has been infected with COVID-19."

So even without the population-based _antibody_ (that is what "serologic" means) data, and only using the Chinese data "as of 11 February" available to the WHO the estimate was quite good. The range depends of course also on the age structure of the population -- the countries with much more young people would have closer to the lower number, the others closer to the higher.

1) Edit: the parent post quoted the same segment later too

<comment><USER6> Another consideration is whether or not the Chinese data has been reliable at later dates. The Chinese government did eject foreign journalists in March

[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-51938035](https://www.bbc.com/news/world- asia-51938035)

There have been some doubts regarding the accuracy of later numbers:

[https://fortune.com/2020/04/24/china-coronavirus-data- real-l...](https://fortune.com/2020/04/24/china-coronavirus-data-real-lancet- study/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The estimate of the death rate has been 0.5% since Feb.

By quoting 5%, the author of the story is conflating case fatality rates (percentage of diagnosed people) with death rates (percentage of infected people).

The only story here is that a surprising fraction of the media and policy makers are completely incapable understanding basic statistics.

</comment><comment><USER8> "CDC warns antibody testing still too inaccurate to use for coronavirus- related policy decisions"

[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cdc-warns-that-half-of- coronavi...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cdc-warns-that-half-of-coronavirus- antibody-test-results-are-wrong-2020-05-27/)

</comment><comment><USER9> That seems roughly consistent with what surveys have shown in other countries. But it still suggests that if the virus had been allowed to spread uncontained, death tolls would be several times what they are now.

<comment><USER10> > But it still suggests that if the virus had been allowed to spread > uncontained

In the US, it is spreading uncontained, because we don't test and trace in any meaningful way. The question is when do we confront that reality and stop pretending otherwise?

It appears people's acceptance of "flattening the curve" for ventilators has morphed into waiting for a vaccine, which normally takes 18 months.

As I've said before, the US needs to test and trace just nursing homes/hospitals and stop the lockdown otherwise, since the mortality rate for younger people is near zero. The US economy is not setup for tens of millions of long-term unemployed people.

In the case od Newsom's reopening slides, I'd like to see dates attached to each slide instead of non-specific "when adequate testing is available", which may never be true in the US. (By omitting dates, Newsom preserves his White House run at the expense of California residents.)

<comment><USER11> There we go again. In NYC, 19 out of 100,000 people aged 18-45 died. (1)

There are roughly 110M people in that age group in the U.S. so that would mean 21000 deaths if the virus would spread as widely throughout the U.S. as it has in NYC (which is estimated to be around 25% of the population).

21000 deaths is not "near zero", nor is the population aged over 45 primarily found in nursing homes.

1) [https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page](https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page)

<comment><USER10> > 21000 deaths is not "near zero"

I'm not sure what your contrived narrative is, but actually it is near zero, far less than several other causes of death. (The annual mortality rate is over 1,000 per 100,000, so 19 per 100,000 is a round-off error.)

"He noted that between January and April in 2018, more than 234,000 people in the United States died of heart disease and nearly 199,000 died of cancer. So far during the coronavirus pandemic, there have been about 16,700 Covid-19 deaths in the United States, according to the latest data from Johns Hopkins University."

[https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/10/health/coronavirus-not- leadin...](https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/10/health/coronavirus-not-leading- cause-of-death-us-trnd/index.html)

Even auto deaths are higher at 37,461 in 2016:

"For 2016 specifically, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) data shows 37,461 people were killed in 34,436 motor vehicle crashes, an average of 102 per day."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year)

There is nothing the US can do to get to zero deaths from corona, so a more pragmatic public health policy is needed than "lock 300 million people down for years."

<comment><USER11> No, the annual death rate for the age group 18-45 is not 1000, it's around 150. That is, even in the group of adults least affected by Covid-19, it would be near the top of the list for causes of death. In the most affected group (75+), the casualty rate is nearly 100 times higher.

It would be around the murder rate in Cincinnati (if all victims were 18-45 and the infection rate was equal to NYC)

I don't have a narrative - I don't pretend to know what the best course of action is.

But I am pointing out some of the glaring factual errors repeatedly made by people who are dismissive of the severity of this disease.

<comment><USER7> I suspect you are quoting case fatality rates instead of death rates.

In particular, the whole-population rate is <= 0.5%. (International agencies and other governments say 0.5%, the CDC says (1-.3)*.4%).

That includes asymptomatic and undiagnosed people. Case fatality rates only include diagnosed cases. Clearly, if you are diagnosed with the virus, you are more likely to die from it than an asymptomatic person, or a person with minor symptoms that doesn't bother to call a doctor.

It is true that, at 100% infection rate, it would be the leading cause of death this year. The thing is, it's a one time hit to life expectancies, so it's not really comparable to the other risks.

That means it can be the number one cause of death, even though 99.5% of the people that catch it will recover and die of something else.

<comment><USER11> > I suspect you are quoting case fatality rates instead of death rates

No. There were 652 confirmed deaths and 129 probably deaths in NYC in the 18-44 age group. If there are 3 million people in that age group in NYC (my estimate, look up if you want the exact number) that gives a confirmed death rate of 21.7 per 100k and confirmed + probable death rate of 27 per 100k. Close enough.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Of course, this assumes that the testing data is accurate and indications are it may not be. Politico ran something today suggesting quite a few states had inflated the number of tests done. Also not clear is whether they are unique tests (ie, multiple tests of the same person only count once)

<comment><USER13> I went to look up the accuracy for _antibody_ tests specifically (as opposed to the other test which we've all heard bad things about generally), and I found this [0].

Apparently the antibody tests suck wrt accuracy.

[0] - [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cdc-warns-that-half-of- coronavi...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cdc-warns-that-half-of-coronavirus- antibody-test-results-are-wrong-2020-05-27/)

<comment><USER5> > Apparently the antibody tests suck wrt accuracy.

Here's what I have posted here exactly a month ago, referring to the article from Guardian from April 4th:

\--

The " _false positives_ " are "especially significant with these antibody tests, so _with the low numbers of positives it 's extremely important to evaluate if the claimed values are more than noise artifacts of the tests themselves._ It is also important to be aware of the scenarios for which the use of the apparent test results is not reasonable.

Moreover, here's what happened in the UK a few weeks ago:

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/09/uk- government-...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/09/uk-government- urged-to-abandon-poor-finger-prick-antibody-tests-coronavirus)

"None of 3.5m home tests ordered have so far been accurate enough to detect coronavirus immunity"

UK got 3.5 million(!) unusable antibody tests.

[https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1449](https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1449)

"John Newton, Public Health England's director of health improvement, said:

"A number of companies were offering us these quick antibody tests, and we were hoping that they'd be fit for purpose, but when they got to test, they all worked but were just not good enough to rely on.

"The judgment was made [that] it's worth taking the time to develop a better antibody test before rolling it out, and that is what the current plan is."

"Newton told the committee that the tests trialled so far had lacked sufficient sensitivity to identify people who had been infected. "We set a clear target for tests to achieve, and none of them frankly were close.""

\--

Since then, Roche actually made an antibody test which according to them, in laboratory conditions, doesn't have false positives. I haven't seen the independently done confirmation, but personally, I wouldn't use anything else.

There are still a lot of bad antibody tests in circulation.

Also, the estimate that the death rate is close to 1% was known since... seems like forever in this times: on Diamond Princess ship there were a lot of old people and the death rate was under 2% so adjusting to the population structure (where there are more younger people than on the ship) it was obvious even then:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_on_D...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_on_Diamond_Princess)

But it was also obvious that it's something like 10 times more deadly than flu.

What was also known is that once the health system is overwhelmed the death rate would be much more than 1%, and that is also what was observed in Italy. And that is the reason for having the goal of "flattening the curve": not allowing to have more cases than the whole system could handle.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Here's the cdc estimates used for modelling.

[https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning- scena...](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning- scenarios.html)

Their best guess scenario is 35% asymptomatic. Of the symptomatic the rate is 0.05% for those under 50. All ages is 0.4%.

<comment><USER15> It's important to note that the 0.4% number is the CDC's best estimate of _symptomatic_ case fatality rate. The actual infection fatality rate appears to be somewhat lower.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I've seen a lot of people on social media tout a 0.5-1% death rate as if that's inconsequentially low, which is baffling to me. 0.5% of the US population is 1.6 million people. Even if you make a lot of optimistic assumptions - a slow enough transmission rate to continue providing a normal standard of medical care, herd immunity at ~60% infected, etc, the number of deaths is still extremely high.

Unless this is revised _substantially_ downward as we get more data, there is no clear return to normalcy without a vaccine.

<comment><USER17> It's not _inconsequentially_ low. However, n the individual level, it's about the same risk of death as you face over a normal year. It's worth quite a bit of effort and sacrifice to avoid multiplying that individual risk by the entire population, but a lot of people talk like it's a megaplague they need to avoid catching at all costs.

By all means, everyone should try and find ways to thrive inside, and wear a mask when they go out. I see people propose that in-person social activity should just be forbidden or strongly discouraged until a vaccine comes - <USER2> would be a severe and harmful overreaction.

<comment><USER5> > But on the individual level, it's about the same risk of death as you face > over a normal year.

It's surely not. Even the "normal" averages _include_ people who have big problems. If you are an individual who is not in the group of people with big problems, and if the virus can make you sick, your risk gets up significantly, as soon as you risk being infected. Because, for example, you can know that you personally aren't in the risk group of people tending to commit suicide.

The currently known estimate of "people who get the virus and have no recognizable symptoms during all phases of infection" is just around 20% across all the age groups. Knowing that younger than 45 aren't being only 20% of population, it doesn't sound so trivial.

The same (that one can know that catching virus increases risk) is for some of the people with big problems, even if they are young: it is known that some of those (who have some big problems) are hit much stronger by the virus, e.g. those with diabetes: without the virus they can safely expect to live for decades more, with the virus, they can immediately expect much less. And no, not only overweight people have diabetes.

And the above analysis is only for young people. But being old enough (and that is even for those being above 45) and catching the virus increases the risks of permanent health damage or death many times, according to all statistics we have.

Finally, no age group can expect to have "no problems" as soon as the health system collapses, and that is why the strict measures were introduced in most of the world -- it is a reasonable goal to avoid that much.

<comment><USER17> Sorry, I may have been unclear. I'm not saying the risk adds up to zero somehow; it's the risk you face over a normal year, _in addition to_ the actual risk of living through 2020 which you'll still face. In other words, if the virus spread to everyone in the US this year, we'd expect to see 2 normal years worth of deaths this year.

The health system does need to be prevented from collapsing, but that can be achieved with measures much less severe than "no socializing". Strict lockdowns may have been necessary before, but they're not necessary now, which is why they're being rolled back pretty much across the globe.

<comment><USER5> > In other words, if the virus spread to everyone in the US this year, we'd > expect to see 2 normal years worth of deaths this year.

No again, as I've argued, you just can't use averages across the whole countries to estimate individual increase of risk so simple as you suggest, as your statement was

" _on the individual level, it 's about the same risk of death as you face over a normal year_."

Everybody knows his own risk, and it's surely not "2 normal years" for most of the people. I've given the examples for somebody who is young but not suicidal, for somebody who is young, fit and with diabetes, for somebody who is fit but older etc. What you argue is plainly wrong calculation:

According to your logic, if the average number of children per grown up person in my country is 1.2 I should personally have 1.2 child. It doesn't work that way. In reality, one person knows that he will never have children, another that she will have 2 etc.

Edit: responding to the reply below this writing: "What I see people saying" .. "That every single person in the country should live a life of isolation for the next year to minimize the chances they get the coronavirus." \-- who is claiming that and where actually? And even if you "see that" somewhere (not on HN I'd guess) it doesn't change the fact that you claimed an "individual risk" of "2 years" for practically everybody, which is, as I believed I've proven up to now, obviously wrong.

<comment><USER17> I'm not presenting this as a one-size-fits-all prescription for estimating individual risk. There are certainly some people who are more risk averse or more likely to die than average, and they'll surely want to take more precautions than the average Joe.

What I see people saying is that the average Joe, even the 35 year old peak of his health Joe, is at extreme risk. That every single person in the country should live a life of isolation for the next year to minimize the chances they get the coronavirus. I don't think there's any plausible risk weighting where that's true.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Broke in Berlin – The city risks repeating history with its housing proposals - <AUTHOR> https://www.city-journal.org/berlin-housing-crisis <comment><USER2> Seems to be trend with a lot of the major cities. Renting shouldn't be the answer to overpriced-AF housing. Where I'm from, it's not uncommon to pay around or over 1/2 of one's salary for rent for a 1-room studio. How can people on non-IT salaries survive, I have literally 0 idea, and that's extremely scary to me.

</comment><comment><USER3> > A city that used to be cheap, when compared with other metropolises, is now > prohibitively expensive.

It's really not. Even within Germany, Berlin is a cheap city to live in. Rent is (still far, I'd say) below the other major cities. Restaurants, non-chain grocery stores are generally cheaper. Berlin just used to be _crazy_ cheap, and now it's just cheap.

<comment><USER4> How much does a 1 bedroom go for in say Kreusberg ?

<comment><USER5> 50 sqrtmtr flat in Prenzlauer Berg can go for like €1,200 a month withou utilities with a 3 month deposit, unfurnished. Some in Kreuzberg can be up to like €900 a month for the same size, if you're lucky.

I know of people that pay €500 a month for a 25 sqrtmtr room

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > East Germany was a potent example of what happens when expropriation and > rent control are made the basis of housing policy; and yet, only 30 years > later, it is quite likely to be repeated. A return to housing allocation by > political criteria, such as loyalty or connections to a party hack, will > become the order of the day.

I suppose it's time for another generation to learn the glory of socialism.

<comment><USER7> Socialism is glorious, unlike the autocratic state capitalism of the GDR.</comment></comment>


DIY Ventilators? Not Unless There's a Zombie Apocalypse - <AUTHOR> https://www.designworldonline.com/diy-ventilators-not-unless-theres-a-zombie-apocalypse/ <comment><USER2> The part about the DIY ventilator being just as likely to kill the patient as the virus is what really makes the entire idea somewhat suspect.

What would actually work would be to force medical companies to (temporarily?) give up any patents they have in ventilators, or going all the way and forcing them to open-source their designs, so that anyone can see what we need, how we need to build it, and who would be able to do it, and when. But let's talk about DIY ventilators instead, eh?</comment>


You may never see Studio Ghibli's movies on streaming services - <AUTHOR> https://www.polygon.com/2019/10/15/20828843/studio-ghibli-movies-miyazaki-streaming-netflix-disney-plus <comment><USER2> The argument given makes ZERO sense.

> _For now, the physical media releases and touring Ghibli Fest screenings > remain the only ways for fans to see these films. "Studio Ghibli does not > make their films available digitally, whether for download or streaming, > anywhere in the world," a GKids representative told Polygon over email. > "They continue to believe that presentation is vital and particularly > appreciate opportunities for audiences to experience the films together in a > theatrical setting."_

Huh? Physical media releases are digital and not watched in a theatrical setting.

There's zero difference in watching a DVD or Blu-Ray vs. streaming on your screen.

<comment><USER3> >There's zero difference in watching a DVD or Blu-Ray vs. streaming on your screen.

God bless whatever first world country with top-tier ISP you live in. Even purchased content I get from iTunes, which I naively thought was downloaded to my Apple TV before I watched it, suffers artifacts from streaming.

I have non-fiber Gigabit in The Capital of Silicon Valley.

<comment><USER4> That could very possibly be the video encoding used by Apple or the 3rd party that might doing their bitrate specific video encoding. There are some incredible anime specific codec's out there that do a great job and I would want them run instead of a standard encoder you might use for non-anime movies. There's a reason why dvd ripped and compressed anime looks so good.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> One of my favorite gifts from my wife was a Studio Ghibli 6 disc collection (it looked like this one: [https://www.amazon.com/Miyazaki-Studio-Collection- English-La...](https://www.amazon.com/Miyazaki-Studio-Collection-English- Language/dp/B00G0LGW50))

She's not a big anime fan, which I think is part of the reason I liked it so much. We worked our way through them and she liked them enough to go out on a limb and we bought "The Wind Rises" and "When Marnie was There".

I recall seeing Spirited Away and Kiki's delivery service in the 90's and so it was fun to find out there was more from that creator.

<comment><USER6> _spirited away_ (amazing on the big screen!) is playing in select theaters at the end of this month: [https://www.ghiblifest.com/](https://www.ghiblifest.com/)

the subtitled version is more emotionally genuine, imho.

<comment><USER7> If you don't understand the language, the subtitled version gives you more of a "blank canvas" to project emotions onto. You don't understand the words, just the tone of voice. If you understand the language, you realize that the timing and choice of emphasis is not always appropriate to the emotion, so it spoils the effect. As I got more proficient at various languages I often realized that the original version with subtitles is not as good as I thought.

So the subtitles version often seems more genuine unless you speak the language. The Disney dub is quite good, Disney are world experts at voice casting, direction, and localization.

<comment><USER8> Wholeheartedly disagree. I've been watching only english-subtitled entertainment for a good while for two reasons:

1) english dubs generally suck, imho

2) there's always some emotion lost in translation/dubbing

And I'm not a native english speaker either; the more I know the native language, the less dubs make sense.

> So the subtitles version often seems more genuine unless you speak the > language

I honestly can't fathom how could something like this even be possible. Understanding the language helped me understand when certain tones are used. Unless you're speaking strictly of Ghibli's shows, I can't really get what you mean.

<comment><USER9> > 1) english dubs generally suck, imho

Long gone are the days of 4Kids unnecessary censorship of Yu-gi-oh and One Piece.

There was a time when good English dubs were few-and-far between. Maybe Cowboy Bebop and "The Slayers" were probably the only good 90s dubs.

But modern anime is much better about dubbing quality. Madoka Magika was a pleasure in both English and Japanese for me, and many find the My Hero Academia dub / sub to be fine quality as well.

Even some "difficult dubs", like Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumia, ended up being quite good because Kyon's voice actor was superb. (Crispin Freeman). One or two "star" voice actors can really carry a dub and elevate the experience to a new level.

\-----

I don't understand much Japanese personally. But it seems like Japanese voice- actors over-rely upon "vocal tics", like a character drawing out a particular sound or having a catch-phrase.

Ex: "Dattebayo" from Naruto, "Arimasu" from Shana, "Nyan" from many, many cat characters (Hellsing Ultimate, Stein's; Gate, Log Horizon), "Desu", etc. etc.

English dubs typically remove the vocal tics, and rely upon more fundamental voice acting to differentiate the characters. I think it helps me get drawn into the characters more.

Ex: English Dub audience didn't like Naruto's "Believe it" as a translation to Dattebayo. The dubbing community just outright rejects vocal tics. So yeah, its a different experience, but its more "realistic" IMO.

\-----

My experience with Disney's Studio Ghibli dubs has been extremely good. Disney is a top-notch studio and hires big-names like Billy Crystal (Calcifer) or Mark Hamill (Mayor from Nausicaa)

<comment><USER10> >I don't understand much Japanese personally. But it seems like Japanese voice-actors over-rely upon "vocal tics", like a character drawing out a particular sound or having a catch-phrase. >Ex: "Dattebayo" from Naruto, "Arimasu" from Shana, "Nyan" from many, many cat characters (Hellsing Ultimate, Stein's; Gate, Log Horizon), "Desu", etc. etc.

Arimasu and Desu aren't vocal-tics... It's just differing levels of politeness or formality. A character always using them can signify a lot of things like haughtiness, noblesse oblige (misplaced or not), deference, a failure to integrate with/judge the nature of their relationship with one's peers. It really depends on the situation.

stuff like "dattebayo" and "nyan" is sort of a humorous spin on the whole concept of explicitly encoding these things into grammar. They don't generally add these into the dubs because it wouldn't make any sense as English doesn't really have this sort of thing to the extent Japanese does. Honestly I have no idea how you would translate "dattebayo" because it is a corruption of Japanese to begin with to show Naruto as having trouble fitting in, being mischievous, childlike, while also having a level of ambition wildly out of place with his position of practically village leper.

<comment><USER9> > Arimasu and Desu aren't vocal-tics... It's just differing levels of > politeness or formality. A character always using them can signify a lot of > things like haughtiness, noblesse oblige (misplaced or not), deference, a > failure to integrate with/judge the nature of their relationship with one's > peers. It really depends on the situation.

But even then, Arimasu and Desu are abused to "catchphrase" levels by Wilhelmina (Shakugan no Shana) and Suiseiseki (Rozen Maiden). For example: ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlk6RcSLrpw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlk6RcSLrpw))

If you wanted me to point out a particular "Vocal Tic", then I'll choose Deidara's "Hmph" that is added to a huge number of his lines ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FU1LF- NnlvY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FU1LF-NnlvY))

\</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment>----

What I'm saying is: the original Japanese seems to lean extremely heavily on the use of catch-phrases and/or vocal tics. A lot of anime-watching (even in full Subs) almost feels like Donald-Duck or Loony Tunes level of vocal tics and/or catch-phrases.

I mean sure, we all love "I'm a Doctor not a X" (McCoy from Star Trek). Or Homer's "Doh". But its an issue of how often they say it IMO that kind of draws me out of Japanese Subtitles sometimes. There's a level of "campiness" whenever a character leans on a catch-phrase.

In the American Dub, the use of catch-phrases is almost always toned down. So there's less "campiness" and I take the result somewhat more seriously.

</comment><comment><USER11> With all due respect and affection, Miyazaki-san (and/or the people now in charge at Ghibli) is just being a stubborn old mule here. There is no practical difference between homevideo and streaming, and homevideo copies of Ghibli films are everywhere (whether official or otherwise). They have been on TV multiple times in Japan and elsewhere.

Maybe it's a way to push reluctant distributors to continue these mini- festivals they have been touring for a few years. Maybe they are trying to raise the price for when an agreement is inevitably found. Maybe they are waiting for the streaming wars to be over so they can talk to one distributor rather than five. Whatever it may be, I am sceptical that it springs from some deep reasoning about the way people consume this type of media.

<comment><USER12> > There is no practical difference between homevideo and streaming, and > homevideo copies of Ghibli films are everywhere (whether official or > otherwise).

There very much is.

Ghibli is preserving the "value" of the film by not allowing it to be made into a commodity. He wants people to want to decide to watch the films and have them in physical possession, rather than decide to pull it up amongst the hundreds of thousands of other options at their fingertips. "I don't want to do it because the films would be treated as cheap commodities." [1]

Their approach to merchandising might shed a little bit of light into why is doing this.

> "With regards to merchandise, we resolved not to make more than 10 billion > yen. If we surpassed that number, we would gather all the associating > companies and berate the person in charge in front of the whole group. > Really. One time, everyone got on our case about it, saying, 'You've got to > sell more.' Someone from one particular company even said, 'We could raise > the sales to 200 billion yen just by ourselves.' It's not a joke. If they > did that, then Ghibli's characters would die instantly. I want Ghibli's > characters to have a long life.

They see more to their characters and IPs than dollar signs, and they're taking active steps to preserve it. Which is why the collectors editions of their films (Spirited Away coming Nov 12) are finely tuned and have well thought out art books. The feeling and memories they're creating are more than just the runtime.

[1] [https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/interest/2019-04-13/ghibli-...](https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/interest/2019-04-13/ghibli- co-founder-toshio-suzuki-discusses-why-studio-did-not-seek-growth/.145563)

<comment><USER13> And the thing of it is, he's got a pretty good point. Just look at what happened to music as its distribution format became more ephemeral. 40 years ago, record albums were among many peoples' most treasured possessions. Now music is just a slurry that gets piped to us 24/7, songs from different artists all mixed together into a tasteless, formless stream. We lost the emotional connection when we lost having an artifact to hang it on.

<comment><USER12> Which is why I think the vinyl resurgence is much more complicated than "hipsters being hipsters". We, as humans, like tangible things.

<comment><USER14> Personally, listening to vinyl is like reading a novel. There's a tangible "ritual" and the experience is inherently focusing and somewhat intimate... intentionally enjoying time immersed in the work of a single artist/group.

I'm no hipster - still all about Spotify and social media, but those are just for passing time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Recently took my son to see his first movie in the theater: My Neighbor Totoro. It was an amazing experience for us all.

While I'm glad we got to see it in the theater, I think the lack of Ghibli movies on streaming services is what will finally get me to buy a BluRay player and setup Plex. It's a popular approach among a lot of parents I know as who wants to discover their child's favorite film just got dropped by the streaming service you subscribe to?

<comment><USER16> Why would you need a bluray player to setup Plex?

<comment><USER15> Buy discs, rip to plex

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Yes it will. In fifteen years when Miyazaki is gone, they'll end up having to stream the content in order to have revenue.

There is no heir to Miyazaki at Ghibli. In my opinion, the closest director to Miyazaki I know of is Mamoru Hosoda, and he's at another studio. Ironically, he was supposed to direct Howl's Moving Castle but they decided his direction wasn't Miyazaki enough and so they split over creative differences. I think this is why Miyazaki keeps coming back from retirement.

The one guy who should have sat in that chair was run off. The other guy who should have been eligible was Miyazaki's son, but their relationship is strained. Clearly his skill was in animation, not parenting. His son has a very different style. More different I think than Hosada's.

So either there's going to be a merger at some point, or their revenue will shift more and more to their back catalog. That's a different kind of management team, and it seems like those sorts have absolutely no problem taking money for distribution rights.

</comment><comment><USER18> I would like to point out that since the movies are not available on any major streaming service, there is also no actor pursuing the take-down of high quality copies on private trackers etc..

Seems like a good deal to me.

</comment><comment><USER19> Miyazaki films, and the fact that my 2.5 year old daughter has never seen one, is my one and only regret for not having an optical drive anywhere in my house. Everything else I just haven't needed or don't care about, but I want my daughter to experience those movies.

But there is simply no way she will sit still in a movie theater for 2 hours.

<comment><USER20> At 2.5, your daughter is probably too young to get any of those films anyway. You have, like, 5-8 years before she'll be fully able to appreciate them.

<comment><USER21> My Neighbor Totoro would be great at 2.5

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I saw Spirited Away on DVD, after digging up an old DVD player in a junk pile. I loved the first half, but didn't enjoy the second half where it started skipping and eventually stopped entirely -- the pauses and stutters set a very different tone than the languid animation, and I had hoped for more resolution for the characters.

It's hard to know how to review the experience. I was annoyed to go through all of the special logistics to watch half a film. But then, Miyazaki says in the article that the point of life is not to be happy, so maybe I had the intended experience and failed to appreciate it?

</comment><comment><USER23> I love these films and noticed their conspicuous absence from purchase from streaming services. Then I found a whole bin of Hayao Miyazaki films for $5 each at Walmart.

</comment><comment><USER23> By the way, if you loved Howl's Moving Castle, take a listen to the original novel on Audible. [https://www.audible.com/pd/Howls-Moving-Castle- Audiobook/B00...](https://www.audible.com/pd/Howls-Moving-Castle- Audiobook/B002V5BB5U)

An absolutely lovely performance and charming story...I may actually like it better than the film, though the film has a special place in my heart.

<comment><USER24> That's funny, I love the movie but hate the book.

I guess it all depends on whether you enjoy the book's explanation for the world and specifically, Howl. To me it was too distracting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Reminds me of Prince not allowing the videos of his music and concerts (the prized bootlegs) not to be on YouTube depriving newer fans from appreciating his musical genius.

Yes it is the right of an artist to decide how his work will be presented but why such silly restrictions , why bother making stuff for public consumption at all if people can't get enjoyment from it ???.

Fortunately his estate is far more liberal in allowing his material to be enjoyed.

</comment><comment><USER26> Although it is not exactly streaming, you can see them on-demand in tv (Movistar+ in Spain has many of them available now). So, it is not true that you have to either watch them on theater or buy a copy.

</comment><comment><USER27> I don't mind this at all. Ghibli films are magical and memorable, and putting them in with the rest of the dross that passes for streaming kids shows these days does them a disservice.

</comment><comment><USER28> What I'd like to see are the 4K HDR Bluray discs.

AFAIK these are available in Japan. It's really just a matter of adding the appropriate audio/subs for for the western audience.

<comment><USER29> Not sure what HDR will add to an older animated film but 4k would be nice.

<comment><USER30> They might of created it with a wider color space for theatrical film release vs the color space that gets released on home VHS / DVD. Film has a higher dynamic range than digital sensors today still.

<comment><USER28> > _Film has a higher dynamic range than digital sensors today still._

No, not really.

Digital sensors surpassed film a long time ago in terms of DR. Film has 12-13 stops while it's pretty common these days in pro digital gear to have 15 stops of DR. Roma (the movie) was totally shot on digital because it has better DR than film.

As for resolution any modern pro camera (+8K) has more detail than 35mm or even 70mm film and much lower noise levels.

I'm not denying that film has its charm, but aesthetics are very subjective.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> > "Studio Ghibli does not make their films available digitally

This is false. Terrestrial broadcast is now digital and I see their movies appear on free-to-air TV quite often where I live.

</comment><comment><USER32> Piracy wins again.

</comment><comment><USER33> Can't stream but you can probably find them for free on your local library. That's how I saw some of them :)

</comment><comment><USER34> This may actually be a good thing.

</comment><comment><USER35> Tool caved in, so will they.</comment>


Confessions Of Patch Salesperson: "It's Been A Disaster" - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/confessions-of-patch-salesperson-we-sell-garbage-2011-6#ixzz1Om3mUW51 <comment><USER2> AOL is a joke of a company. Watching them pivot and pivot with no real sense of vision is like watching a headless chicken running around. It's great fun, but the fact is that death is coming very soon and nothing will change that. AOL might last another few years off old people using dialup, but they're done as a viable internet company.</comment>


If Companies Aren't Buying Their Own Stock, Who Is? - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/if-companies-arent-buying-their-own-stock-who-is-11586079000 <comment><USER2> No paywall: [https://archive.is/yQQ52](https://archive.is/yQQ52)</comment>


Mozilla SSL Configuration Generator - <AUTHOR> https://ssl-config.mozilla.org/ <comment><USER2> This is what used to be located at [http://mozilla.github.io/server-side- tls/ssl-config-generato...](http://mozilla.github.io/server-side-tls/ssl- config-generator/)

But it also looks like it has been extended a bit, adding more servers.

Regardless, it's still awesome! Thanks very much Mozilla!!

</comment><comment><USER3> This is based on the recently-discussed[1] (and recently-updated) guidelines from the Mozilla wiki[2].

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20311834](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20311834)

[2] [https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Server_Side_TLS](https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Server_Side_TLS)

<comment><USER4> Good ways to test your site :

[http://internet.nl](http://internet.nl)

[https://observatory.mozilla.org](https://observatory.mozilla.org)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Don't know if this can be useful to anyone, but I had started summarizing things about TLS here: [https://thecryptobible.co/protocols/tls.html](https://thecryptobible.co/protocols/tls.html)

</comment><comment><USER6> This is great! Every Ubuntu LTS I reinstall Nextcloud (on Nginx, php7 and Mysql, that snap is just not doing it for me, I never found how to import my current install). And every 2 years I wonder what to do. I even used the same config for 4 years but of course the world is changing fast. Thanx Mozilla!

</comment><comment><USER7> There is also: [https://cipherli.st/](https://cipherli.st/)

</comment><comment><USER4> Hey mozilla please secure your websites :

your own advice : [https://observatory.mozilla.org/analyze/ssl- config.mozilla.o...](https://observatory.mozilla.org/analyze/ssl- config.mozilla.org)

Modern advice from a Government related website: [http://internet.nl/site/ssl- config.mozilla.org/557182/](http://internet.nl/site/ssl- config.mozilla.org/557182/)

(maybe dont host security related advice like this on github)

I look forward to you updating to your own standards...

<comment><USER8> Not an excuse, but this site is hosted on GitHub.</comment></comment>


More Americans have died in car crashes since 2000 than in both World Wars - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/more-people-died-in-car-crashes-this-century-than-in-both-world-wars/2019/07/21/0ecc0006-3f54-11e9-9361-301ffb5bd5e6_story.html <comment><USER2> This is an annoyingly contrived headline and article.

First of all, the "World Wars" were centered around a European /Asian conflict. In both cases America entered the wars several years after they had started, and fought away from home. I'm obviously not disrespecting the "535,000 American military personnel who died in World War I and World War II" but rather pointing out that, arguably, it's a contrived yard stick to measure against as it _sounds_ like more of a monumental figure than it perhaps should.

More importantly, since the year 2000 Americans have driven ~60 trillion miles!!! To put that in perspective, the size of our solar system is ~7.5 billion miles, or _8000 times smaller_ that 60 trillion. Alpha Centauri is "only" 25 trillion miles away. 60 trillion miles is ~10 light years...

Given that, I'm not sure 624,000 deaths, which is about 1 death per 100 million miles, is necessarily a lot.

\---

[0] [https://www.bts.gov/content/us-vehicle- miles](https://www.bts.gov/content/us-vehicle-miles)

<comment><USER3> >More importantly, since the year 2000 Americans have driven ~60 trillion miles!!!

..so what? That's still over _half a million_ people dead.

Here, let me put it in a slightly different light:

Critical lack of infrastructure (including public transportation) and horrific zoning that causes ever-increasing amounts of urban sprawl has forced Americans drive an astounding _60 trillion miles_ since year 2000, killing over _half a million_ of them.

From what I know, most of these miles were not driven by choice: people don't _choose_ to work 100 miles away from where they live; and most of these miles are commute miles.

Our infrastructure (or lack thereof) is killing us by making us drive more than anywhere else on Earth[1].

(The verbatim title of that article is: "Americans drive more than anyone else in the world, and are dying for it" \- and _that_ is what the problem is).

[1][https://www.thecarcrashdetective.com/americans-drive-more- dy...](https://www.thecarcrashdetective.com/americans-drive-more-dying/)

<comment><USER4> >..so what? That's still over half a million people dead.

..so what? Everyone dies.

The whole reason traffic deaths or war deaths or any other figure that gets worried about is a concern isn't that people die at all. It's that they died earlier than they otherwise would have. They missed out on life they would have otherwise got to live. So talking about what the living get from that increased chance of early death is clearly relevant to the discussion.

<comment><USER5> I think you have a valid point--new technology like roads and cars will always come with some risk. Whether or not we use the technology depends on how comfortable we are with the risk.

However, I think there is a lot of evidence (including death statistics) that cars are not worth the risk, compared to alternatives like trains, biking, and walking. Cars and infrastructure to support cars is detrimental to our health, economy, and society in ways that will take decades to correct.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Somehow we continue to consider this normal, and not to do anything substantive about it: [https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/07/29/was-the- automo...](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/07/29/was-the-automotive- era-a-terrible-mistake)

<comment><USER6> The Interstate system was basically a fluke; we spent so much money on it and were willing to, and we will probably never spend so much money again. And unfortunately we blew it on the Interstates.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> A large proportion of these were due to alcohol.

[http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6089353/ns/health- addictions/t/alc...](http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6089353/ns/health- addictions/t/alcohol-linked-us-deaths-year/)

Alcohol is probably the leading cause of preventable death.

<comment><USER8> I don't understand why the US doesn't have the equivalent of "daiko service". In Japan they have taxi/Uber services where basically 2 drivers in a small car come pick you AND YOUR CAR up. You ride in your car as a passenger while one guy drives your car, and other guy follows in the taxi. They drop you off at your home with your vehicle.

Keeps DUIs manageable (but still not unheard of). Japan also has an essentially zero-tolerance policy for alcohol consumption by drivers. The legal limit is 0.03 BAC, which is the lowest level current devices can detect.

<comment><USER6> I don't know that Americans have thar much trust in strangers. Sounds like a great way to get your car stolen.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> In India same number comes to about 3 million.

</comment><comment><USER10> Some sort of ADAS - Advanced Driver Assist can't get here fast enough:

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_driver- assistance_s...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_driver- assistance_systems)

Obviously full-self driving is better but that's going to be much harder.</comment>


Normalization is from the devil - <AUTHOR> http://ayende.com/Blog/archive/2010/09/06/normalization-is-from-the-devil.aspx

<comment><USER2> _If you think about it, normalization in RDBMS had such a major role because storage was expensive_

Umm, not really. Two words: referential integrity.

</comment><comment><USER3> The devil you know is better than the devil you don't.

Every un-normalized database I've inherited has been a colossal mess and practically unusable -- especially if there are important relations. A de- normalized database is a thoughtful process which I rarely see a developer do -- they just want to get programming and don't think about long-term issues.

</comment><comment><USER4> The particular scenario in the article is one in which denormalizing would be not only more efficient, but more correct as well. As the author points out, an invoice should always reflect the order at the time that it was created, not including any subsequent changes in pricing. However, this is strictly a matter of correctness! In order to denormalize, it should either be demonstrably more correct (in which case it is not technically denormalization at all), or a significant performance bottleneck where the cost of maintaining two copies is overshadowed by the savings. Doing so in the name of performance without any proof that there's savings to be had is folly.

</comment><comment><USER5> Normalization minimizes the chance of update anomalies. Removing inconsistencies doesn't sound very devlish.

</comment><comment><USER6> Why was the line between Customers and Orders removed? Adding CustomerID to Orders just does the same thing.

All they've done is remove the connection between Products and OrderLines, which is partially rational in the real world: what if you want to give a discount? A partial refund? What if your products change prices at times? If you don't include the cost on the OrderLine, you've gotta handle version issues for every single instance.

As to the product _name_... why would it change? A new company took over the product? I'll bet it has a different cost, new packaging, and a new description. Is it really the same product? And, by disconnecting them, they've now lost _any_ ability to do comparative analysis, recommendations, num-sold... anything meaningful aside from _displaying_ the order.

If your only goal is _display_ , just save the rendered webpage you presented them. It has as much meaning, and will _always_ look the same. If it's _doing_ anything with your data, normalize away.

</comment><comment><USER7> Something like this will work (ActiveRecord): Customer.find(:all, :include => {:orders => {:order_lines => :product}})

Pretty trivial, and loads all the needed records in a single query.

<comment><USER8> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure ActiveRecord will issue a separate query for each of those :include clauses.

<comment><USER7> [http://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveRecord/Associations...](http://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveRecord/Associations/ClassMethods.html)

> This will load all comments with a single query. This reduces the total > number of queries to 3. More generally the number of queries will be 1 plus > the number of associations named (except if some of the associations are > polymorphic belongs_to - see below).

Good call. Still, the difference between 1 and 3 queries is nothing compared to 3 and 100s (n+1 problem).

I wonder what AR can't turn that into a single query.

<comment><USER8> Oh you're right about that. What may not be entirely obvious though is that oftentimes 1 query can be _far_ slower than 3 queries. In a lot of cases, that one query would have to do joins against multiple tables– I've personally seen speedups of 20x or more by just decomposing a single complex query into a few smaller and more focused queries.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Always normalize a relational database. Denormalize caches.

</comment><comment><USER10> Normalization has nothing to do with storage or performance, it has everything to do with modelling the problem correctly. The point about a product's name changing or a person's name changing is valid, but the solution there is to keep revisions in the DB when it's important.</comment>