U.S. Army: "How has serving impacted you?" - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/USArmy/status/1131704927963766785 <comment><USER2> Once I realized that the United States has to involve itself in armed conflicts on a regular basis, it was eye opening.

The United States spends more money on the military than any other country. You have to take the military out to stretch its legs every decade or so. If not to prepare for war, but to keep feeding the military expenditure process.

President Eisenhower's farewell address concerning the military industrial complex nailed the course for the United States since concerning conflicts.

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

<comment><USER3> The U.S. also spends more money on education and healthcare than any other country. How is that at all surprising? The U.S. spends 3.1% of GDP on the military, more than the EU average, but less than Russia. Given the state of the world, where we've made an express commitment to protect the EU from Russia, that should not be surprising.

Comparing military spending as one big lump $600 billion for the U.S. versus $225 billion for the EU versus $60 billion for Russia ignores several really important things.

First, a dollar buys you much more in Russia than in the U.S.[1] Adjusted for purchasing power, Russia's defense budget is more equivalent to $180 billion: [https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2019/05/03/ru...](https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2019/05/03/russian- defense-spending-is-much-larger-and-more-sustainable-than-it-seems). (The same is actually true for Europe too. Europe's PPP GDP is 20% higher than its nominal GDP, making the EU 28 defense budget more like $270 billion U.S.)

Second, it's not unreasonable for the U.S. to want to not merely achieve parity, but have a decisive advantage. Having a decisive technological edge costs you exponentially more money. The 747 cost about $7.5 billion (in today's money) to develop. The 787 cost $32 billion. The more advanced technology cost a lot more to develop even in inflation-adjusted dollars. The same is true for all sorts of high-tech industrial equipment. The cost of a new fab tripled from 1998 to 2010: [https://www.technologyreview.com/s/418576/the-high-cost- of-u...](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/418576/the-high-cost-of-upholding- moores-law).

Third, going back to Eisenhower, the cost to society of having a military scales with population. We can afford to spend $600 billion on the military more than Russia can afford to spend $60 billion. That's why it makes sense to look at it as a percentage of GDP--how much of our economic output are we devoting to the military, versus other things?

3% of GDP is higher than Europe now, but about the same as what France was spending as recently as the early 1990s: [https://tradingeconomics.com/france/military-expenditure- per...](https://tradingeconomics.com/france/military-expenditure-percent-of- gdp-wb-data.html). Were we talking about how French military expenditures were a mark of crazy imperialism back then?

[1] To give a concrete example, sources report that Russian subway lines cost 10-15 billion rubles per kilometer: [https://www.metro-report.com/news/single- view/view/the-winne...](https://www.metro-report.com/news/single- view/view/the-winners-and-losers-of-russian-metros.html). That's $150-230 million by exchange rate. In the US, subway lines in SF and LA have ranged from $375-562 million per km. In New York, the Second Avenue subway was $1.6 billion per mile. You'd never compare New York's or SF's subway budget with Russia's without accounting for that.

<comment><USER4> Well said, I'll refer back to this.

Also, the U.S. underpins the existing economic system. That costs

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> That twitter thread is a complete disaster. The thread asks how has serving in the US Army impacted you, and instead they get a bunch of attention seeking people who have never served.

This is a perfect example of why social media increases depression and isolation.

<comment><USER6> I'm sure the original tweet didn't intend it, but effectively it did ask everyone how it impacted them, direct or indirect.

> instead they get a bunch of attention seeking people who have never served

That's a bit harsh. Seems many of the people writing in that thread have relatives that did serve, but now are unable to tell their own story, for one reason or another.

I'm glad people are telling their stories about it, but you're probably right as well that social media might not be the best area to drum that up, as it's hard to have real conversations about whatever subject.

<comment><USER7> I think you are highlighting a more fundamental issue with social media: it's impossible to separate signal from noise.

On one hand, OP is almost certainly right about attention seeking, and I'd go as far as to expect that many of the stories are outright fabricated. There is a well known (and growing) phenomena of military imposters that falsely claim service [1], and the secondhand stories here are even harder to verify and present a clear motivation for falsehood.

On the other hand, there is also plenty of evidence that growing PTSD rates [2], and overall worse outcomes [3] for service members, is a real phenomenon. The true stories here that deserve analysis will have to compete with other stories that angle towards particular or personal ends.

End result: every viewer sees plenty in this thread to confirm their own expectations.

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/aug/21/usa.internatio...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/aug/21/usa.internationaleducationnews) [2] [https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwij...](https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwij8dre_7biAhVnk- AKHcOBADsQzPwBegQIARAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk%2Fhome- news%2Fptsd-post-traumatic-stress-disorder-armed-forces-increases-study- research-a8573091.html) [3] [https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwic...](https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwictpiBgLfiAhUSm- AKHVMjAK4QzPwBegQIARAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcnews.com%2Fbetter%2Fmoney%2Fsurvey- military-families-carry-more-debt-have-fewer-assets- civilians-n390046&psig=AOvVaw3UTAxX7ou5eRlDtjX08fPw&ust=1558884653047495)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I hope no new generation will grow up without realizing how horrible war is.

<comment><USER3> You know what's more horrible than war? Not being able to wage war. I'm from a country (Bangladesh) that fought a war, in which about half a million people died, to free itself from Pakistan, which was treating us like second-class citizens. In doing so, we were able to separate ourselves and plot our own course. And lucky for us--as theocracy has overtaken Pakistan, Bangladesh went from being significantly poorer than Pakistan (40% lower GDP per capita) to catching up and on a path to overtake. Not to mention, being a (relatively) freer society. War is a fundamental tool in the exercise of self determination.

Most people who talk about how "horrible war is" have never been in a context where killing or being killed is preferable to the status quo.

<comment><USER9> I always wonder why did they go ahead with the idea of being a part of Pakistan in the first place, especially when their ties to the language was stronger and older than ties to a religion/politics. Was autonomy out of question ?

<comment><USER3> At the time, East Bengal was almost completely agrarian, and highly dependent on the industrial centers in West Bengal (which went to India), and Pakistan.

<comment><USER9> I see, that does make sense. Best wishes for Bangladesh want to visit sometime.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Plenty of countries manage to conspript pretty much everyone at a certain age. Train them and let them home without having a special problem with them. Now what is the US army doing during training/stateside service?

<comment><USER11> I think it is two things. The first is that everyone goes into the military for four years or something like that (Ex: Israel), so it is a shared cultural experience that everyone understands. Second, while some of those soldiers see conflict, the scale is much less than something like Vietnam where entire graduating highschool classes of boys were wiped out and the war wasn't popular and it wasn't a defending our country in the normal sense, but a proactive war to help curb Soviet expansion. Afghanistan and Iraq have Veterans in a similar (if less extreme) circumstances. The war is a geopolitical policing act and extension of US foreign policy at this point more than an actual defend the nation type situation. I've never served, but to go through all that and then have issues and have to jump through hoops at the VA would be crushing.

<comment><USER5> > four years or something like that (Ex: Israel)

Israeli conscription is mandatory for adult citizens on or about their 18th birthday with a service obligation of 3 years for males and 2 years for females, but you can defer service until after completion of undergraduate education for 6 years as an officer.

<comment><USER11> Thanks for clarifying! I knew I wasn't very far off.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> If violent conflict or the threat of such is one of the unspoken means of creating artificial demand that props up parts of ones economy this should not come as a surprise.

'Soldiers' are low level resources to be turned over into a different kind of wealth. Sooner the realization dawns the better for those who are left behind with the shorter end of the stick, with or without some shiny pieces of metal.

<comment><USER12> When thinking about the benefits of the military it is appropriate to ponder the broken window fallacy [0]. Economically speaking, building a rocket and blowing up a foreigner is strictly worse than paying everyone in the economic chain the same amount of money and using the raw physical resources of the rocket to do something else.

So for military action to be rational the troops need to be securing access to foreign wealth/raw resources, or dealing with a somewhat imminent threat from people who want to break and steal stuff from the military's sponsor.

The opportunity cost of the military is huge. Artificial violent conflict/threat thereof doesn't prop up anything on its own, the military doesn't generate wealth in and of itself.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window)

<comment><USER3> > So for military action to be rational the troops need to be securing access > to foreign wealth/raw resources, or dealing with a somewhat imminent threat > from people who want to break and steal stuff from the military's sponsor.

That's not a complete list. For example, one of the key functions of the U.S. Navy for a long time was suppressing piracy, which hindered overseas trade. It's basically a policing function--keeping things stable to enable commerce to happen. The function of the U.S. military today can be seen as an outgrowth of that.

We don't care about terrorism because we want their resources or because we think they'll take our resources. It's because terrorism is a threat to a world order that is very beneficial for us. The cumulative economic cost of 9/11 globally was estimated at up to $2 trillion: [https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-world- after-911-part-...](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-world- after-911-part-i).

<comment><USER9> Then why are you calling it 'policing' when you seem to be quite aware that it is imperialism by violence. I dont think the distinction is subtle.

<comment><USER3> Calling U.S. military efforts "imperialism" is a rhetorical technique that does more to obfuscate than illuminate. Policing is more accurate than imperialism. Imperialism historically refers to directly taking control over other countries, often for purposes of diverting resources from the vassal states to the empire. What the U.S. does is materially different. We didn't go into Iraq and make it a province of the U.S., shipping oil back to the U.S. (Note that I was against the Iraq war. I think it was a waste of U.S. money. But calling it "imperialism" is lazy rhetoric.)

<comment><USER9> That seems an overly narrow definition that conflates the 'thing' with the means of achieving the 'thing'. The British empire was softer than most that came before it or where its contemporaries (Belgium say). It would not have been very hard to define 'imperialism' in a way to exclude the British but apply to the others. US is not an empire in the same mould as that of the British but essence remains the same.

As for policing goes the subjects signed up for it even if that wasnt individually.

<comment><USER13> > No, you're the one conflating the two. The end result is different. For > imperialism, the result is a country under the political control of a > different country, or giving up its resources to another country. The end > result with U.S. policy is that maybe you end up with a different (often > more democratic) regime. The means is similar: foreign military excursions > and direct interventions into other countries.

The end result with U.S. policy is that you end up with a different regime that's more likely to trade with and have friendly relations with the U.S. There's definitely an economic reason for U.S. intervention

<comment><USER3> Historically, the goal has not been to ensure that you have a regime that's more likely to trade with the U.S., but to ensure that your regime doesn't interfere with neighbors who are trading with the U.S.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I served in the Air Force, not the Army.

My service is what paid for college, and led to a satisfying life. I had a large family, and without the USAF I'm not sure I would've been able to afford school. It also gave me time to mature between high school and college.

It worked very well for me.

</comment><comment><USER15> not US, but EU country before military changed to fully professional (now it may be different):

1\. I value my personal freedom much more than before serving being wheel in this whole mechanism

2\. I became expert in faking/pretending to work

3\. I had problem to say sentence without swear word, but this disappeared after few weeks/months when you need to be conscious about it

4\. it took also few weeks to so picking up phone or even home telephone with Private XY receiving

5\. and I lost any ideals about military, it's (was) bunch of drunks, every single office you came open bottle

6\. I enjoyed using catch 22 logic as clerk when reasoning about some issues, that book really accurately describe military

</comment><comment><USER16> The United States is perfectly willing to have a program that pays unskilled high school graduates with no family resources a good salary, houses them, sends them to college, and gives them physical and mental training—as long as there's an elevated chance of the youth in this program being killed or injured. My church recently had a young homeless guy come by and join the community for a bit before deciding that his only chance in life to get out of his situation was joining the army. I don't know if we'll see him again.

We have the money for all sorts of "socialist" programs like free college and a safety net for youth. But how, politically, do we make the decision to decouple it from inflicting violence on those youth?

<comment><USER17> The US makes living difficult for the poor so that they think joining the military is a good choice. If homes were affordable, if college was affordable, if healthcare was affordable, nobody would want to join.

We force poor people to join so that we'll have a military. We have wars to justify having a large military. We have a large military so that we'll purchase a lot of military equipment. We purchase a lot of military equipment to fuel the economy in specific congressional districts. We prop up those districts so that the people there have jobs and will reelect their representatives. Even the politicians who seem to support the "socialist" programs have no intention of following through with their promises.

<comment><USER9> Not just poor people there are those who are trying to obtain citizenship. Poverty draft and selective service is real

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> From Twitter's rules: "You also may not affiliate with organizations that — whether by their own statements or activity both on and off the platform — use or promote violence against civilians to further their causes."

<comment><USER3> Twitter's rule is poorly worded. Violence is one of the most basic interactions between organisms on the planet. Not only between societies (so that an Uber driver earning $30,000 can be in the top 1% globally), but within societies (the threat of violence is what makes everything from paying taxes to policing work).

What Twitter really means to address in its rule isn't "violence" but rather "violence outside the accepted rules for when violence can be used." But fuzzy thinking has caused it to bury the concept in a nonsensical universalism.

<comment><USER18> I actually agree that @USArmy shouldn't be banned from Twitter--I have nothing but respect for those who serve. But I also think that a literal, objective interpretation of Twitter's rules would result in a ban. Really this just shows how subjective Twitter's enforcement of the rules is.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Hoy – Share short messages with people near you - <AUTHOR> https://hoy.sh <comment><USER2> What if nobody is near me? What is your user acquisition strategy, do you expect that random people will just join and start talking? What is the minimal distance to be "near"?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hello HN,

This is the next version of location based messaging app Ahoy. Renamed as Hoy. Below is the list of new changes added to the app. Feel free to share your thoughts on the product.

Changelog: \- Optional "Dark Mode". (as every other app). \- Permalink for each posts. So sharing in other websites becomes possible. \- Ability to Tweet a message. \- New Name, new domain & new colors, new UI :) \- An experimental list UI. (The whole app is designed as one whole list)

</comment><comment><USER3> I got "Position acquisition timed out" on two different android phones, running FF with uBlock. Works in chrome on android, and Firefox on desktop.

Fun idea! :)

</comment><comment><USER4> For some reason on FF desktop, even after allowing location, it says location was denied. Works on Chrome.</comment>


Developers are busy with workarounds for serious bugs in Intel's Core 2 (2007) - <AUTHOR> https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=118296441702631&w=2 <comment><AUTHOR> "As I[1] said before, hiding in this list are 20-30 bugs that cannot be worked around by operating systems, and will be potentially exploitable. I would bet a lot of money that at least 2-3 of them are."

...

"At this time[2], I cannot recommend purchase of any machines based on the Intel Core 2 until these issues are dealt with (which I suspect will take more than a year). Intel must be come more transparent."

[1] Theo

[2] 2007

<comment> forgot-my-pw > I cannot recommend purchase of any machines based on the Intel Core 2

Does this also apply to Core 2 successors: i3, i5, i7, M?

<comment><USER2> Yes, all of those later i-series processors are based on improvements to the original core cpus.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> I don't know enough about low level C, operating systems, or CPUs to know if what Theo was saying is directly related to the flaws recently published but if so, holy crap.

<comment><USER3> See [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16074531](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16074531) .

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> mods: correct date for headline is 2007 ...

<comment><USER4> Thanks! Updated.</comment></comment>


Finding that perfect match - <AUTHOR>

I am looking for a non-technical co-founder to start a company with. I have created something I believe to be innovative and have a prototype ready to go. Unfortunately, I am also currently living in NYC- -and have already been burned a couple of times by NYC salesmen-types on business ventures in the past, and am also out of favor with the NYC VCs as well, due to my having been arrested on a possession of weed charge 5 years ago while I was in a car with 5 other people in the deep South—and then thrown into solitary confinement for a week due to a clerical error by my probation officer a few years back as well.
I consider these experiences to be character building but the VCs in NYC  were so appalled by my mistakes and indignity that I was basically forced out of the company I founded.  I am  in the process of moving to California in the hopes of finding some more like-minded people to be around. However, I don't actually know anyone out there and am really just assuming this on the basis of common stereotype.
The questions I had were: do VCs on the West Coast tend to be more forgiving about these sorts of non-violent brushes with the law  than other places (like NYC)? Or would partnering with someone who is a bit more clean-cut be a wise move regardless of my location? Will I likely run into the same issues I ran into in NYC in California regardless? If it is the case that VCs in California are as touchy about these sorts of things as those in NYC, where would you recommend finding someone charming/straight-edge enough to balance out my past indiscretions and unintentional affect?  Any advice would be greatly appreciated! <comment><USER2> Why does any NYC VC care about a drug charge (unless it was a felony... in which case, your story doesn't really add up)? You seem to have a lot of excuses for why things haven't worked out and none of them include yourself as a cause... Just something to think about.

<comment><AUTHOR> im absolutely the cause, and fair enough. wasn't trying to get into the whole story and I probably did provide an overly favorable context for my overly- personalized question. I did not mention that I was begrudgingly the CEO despite the fact that my partner was a good 10 years older than me and had a lot of experience in the space, whereas I had just graduated college, was a relatively unproven commodity to the VCs, and had an unresolved legal matter lingering over me, as well. I certainly made a ton of mistakes throughout the venture. It was not my intention to question or make excuses for that. I am sorry my question came across that way to you. I might just need a change in scenery!</comment></comment>


When Will I Use Math? - <AUTHOR> http://www.whenwilliusemath.com/

<comment><USER2> Very interesting. I occassionally get questions asking for advice about what to take in school (from nieces and nephews and college students), and I always say I wish I had more math. It teaches people how to think and develop your brains. Its more than just about getting a job.</comment>


Electrostatics: Good for Robot Grippers, and Lots More - <AUTHOR> http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/robotics-hardware/electrostatic-robot-grippers

<comment><USER2> I've had a lot of fun with electrostatics, but never thought to use it on a robotic gripper before. That's awesome!

Here's a video of some stuff stuck to my walls. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3knDxQpPRo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3knDxQpPRo)

I was playing around with a high voltage ion generator, and was able to stick things to my walls. I was thinking of using it for helping to hang posters so they can be re-positioned prior to using more permanent methods.

I was even able to hang a phone book on the wall once by sticking pages down one by one.</comment>


Ask HN: How to deal with a founder that won't leave his job (maybe)? - <AUTHOR> We're 3 founders with an initial cap table of a) 40% - b) 30% - c) 30%. Founder c is working as a researcher and initially dedicates 15h per week to the project with the idea to go fulltime in the future. Founders a and b are working fulltime since day 1. 6 months in and he didn't decide what to do yet. We're preparing a funding round and we want to fix this before talking to investors. How would you deal with it? Founders a and b think this proposal is fair:

    -Scenario 1. Founder c starts fulltime now and keeps his initial 30%.

    -Scenario 2. Founder c leaves the company and he keeps 3%.

    -Scenario 3. The situation continues the same but founder c shares will start decreasing now (month 6) until we reach month 18 to a minimum of 5%. For example, if he joins at month 10 he'd keep around 20%, at month 14 10%, at month 18 5%...
 Founder c thinks this is unfair.
Some considerations:

    -Founder c is very good and we want him in.

    -Founder c has not take any salary from our company during this time and he'd continue working without salary in scenario 3.

    -All founders put the same small amount of money at the beginning.

    -Founders a and c have been working on the project for a long time as a side project (more than a year). Founder b joins the project later when the first pre-seed round is being cooked (hopefully this explains the initial shares)

    -This is not a fight, we're close friends and we're discussing this issue in a friendly way to get the best outcome for everyone and the company.
 We know we shouldn't have gotten into this situation in the first place. We learned the lesson, but this is the situation right now and we'd like to get constructive answers. Thanks. <comment><USER2> I was in a similar situation once. Both of my co-founders needed to continue working their full-time jobs, leaving me to spend 70+ hours a week coding alone. We couldn't come to an agreement about what the equity distribution should be, so I left the company, and that was the end of things. Sadly, nobody wants to see 90% of their equity disappear overnight. They'd often rather keep 30% of nothing.

You left out something important: What does Founder C think is fair? If you haven't yet, you should ask him his opinion, and get him to draw up a plan. Maybe it will be totally reasonable.

I'd enumerate the potential ramifications, and use that as a rubric to score every potential solution that anyone suggests. You've got to consider A's feelings, B's feelings, C's feelings, your company's chances of success, your chances of raising money, etc. Come up with the rubric together, brainstorm solutions together, and score them together. Don't leave out C while you're discussing things.

There are plenty of potential solutions. One is to buy C out of the company. He's contributed lots of time and funding so far, so he deserves compensation.

Also, all three of you need to be on a vesting schedule. I believe the standard is 4 years to vest with a 1 year cliff. Chances are that a good investor will want to see that kind of arrangement, so maybe you should evaluate solutions with that constraint in mind. For example, maybe C can keep 30% but won't start vesting until he joins the company full-time. Or maybe he will vest 4x slower than the two of you until he joins full-time.

</comment><comment><USER3> You might check out the book/concept called Slicing Pie by Mike Moyer. It addresses situations like this.

The quick summary is to allow equity ownership to change based on work done for the company that is not paid out in salary.

Start with an agreed upon value of the company(example $100K). Everyone has an hourly pay rate.

So if you all do 10 hours and don't get paid your ownership percentage stays the same. But if 1 person does 100 hours of work and doesn't take salary and the other people do 20 hours and no one gets paid actual money then the overal value of the company goes up by 140 hours time pay rate. And your ownership percentage changes based on how many hours you contribute.

</comment><comment><USER4> If you have not read it yet, pick up a copy of *Getting to Yes." It is research based and a quick read.

After reading it, try to determine some of the parameters that really matter here. What are the sticking points? Then do some brainstorming.

After you brainstorm, then try to come to an agreement.

</comment><comment><USER5> Do not count hours but contribution. Some peoples 15h contribution might be equally (or more) valuable than other peoples 40h+.</comment>


How I built the IMDb message boards, in 2001 - <AUTHOR> https://www.beatworm.co.uk/blog/internet/imdb-boards-no-more <comment><USER2> _I once spent an evening in a darkened restaurant patio overwhelmed to tears as a kind man explained to me his young daughter, hospital-bound and dying of cancer, had used the Harry Potter IMDb boards as her main social life in her last year, and how much that had meant to him and her._

For those of us who have fought an existential struggle throughout our careers with the random pointlessness of many of the things we get paid well to build, I think we can take a great measure of hope from this part of the story.

Thank you for writing this long post, Colin, and thank you for the IMDb message boards.

<comment><USER3> Providing topical community services can be extremely rewarding but at the same time extremely tiring. I run a website dedicated to something technical from the nineties. There is a bunch of attention-whoring weirdos but the 2-3 people per year telling you how much the community and your interaction matters to them makes all up for it.

To me forums are still the best thing about the internet. Forums with simple threads, post count based user titles, avatars, nicknames and strict topics. You can be yourself in many different ways, one "persona" per topical forum. No one would know who you are or care about your sex, race or political orientation. anc84 is me here for example, nothing matters but the content of my posts.

<comment><USER4> >nothing matters but the content of my posts

But the permanence of those posts can bite you in the ass. Over time your post history will grow and if it's accessible to others (and they care enough to dig through it) they can potentially use what you said 6 months, a year, ten years ago against you. If you happen to let slip your real identity, all of that history is now linked to the "real life you" and if you said anything under the false expectation of anonymity you're screwed.

This is one of the reasons I don't think I could ever go into politics. A savvy opponent would only need to do a few google searches, research my online history, find some stupid shit I said when I was 17 years old on LiveJournal or whatever, and there goes my campaign.

<comment><USER5> I don't get why you would have to worry, unless you are some kind of psychopath or sociopath and it can be seen from these posts? We all say/write stupid things when we are 17, why would it affect your career in any way? Look it other way, would you really judge a politician based on what they said on some website when they were 17?

<comment><USER4> I was a teenager in the early to mid-2000's, so of course I was playing video games and throwing around slurs and insults and what have you -- words I've grown out of saying "for the lulz", of course, because I know they can hurt people and I honestly don't get anything out of saying them. But if you look hard enough there's a record of that online, linked to my real life identity, and in the court of public opinion that record would overrule any actual beliefs or policy positions I have as an adult. "This guy says he stands for gay rights, but look at how much he casually used the f-word as an insult on this Counter Strike forum."

This isn't something previous generations have had to experience in politics or in the workforce and it'll only get more ugly with time. The kids today who are in their teens are churning out exponentially more troubling data than I ever did. Just imagine what kind of political mudslinging fodder that will provide in 20 years.

<comment><USER6> This holds me back from seeking public office as well...

Reminds me of this NDP politician in Calgary that had some photo of her surface in which she was holding a joint and giving the flag the finger. It's completely irrelevant (and could have been a joke for all we know), but I'm sure the fact that it surfaced stung her like a thousand bees.

I believe at some point in time we will have stop caring about these sorts of things because eventually everyone will be affected to some degree, but that time is not now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> As an old timer that was around pre original dot com boom, this made me smile. It was a simpler, horrible and fantastic time - in hindsight.

</comment><comment><USER8> I enjoyed reading this. These retrospection articles always make me think that somehow life as a dev was somewhat better back in the day. Perhaps it's just old age bring on cynicism, but I feel like I enjoyed development more a decade ago.

<comment><USER9> I'm not sure about better, but it was certainly a very different set of disciplines

<comment><USER10> And was the pay better back then than it is now? Just curious

<comment><USER11> Software salaries have always been good, usually a bit better than middle middle class. For contrast, I've worked as an auto mechanic. Good, middle- class living that. Left that for software, made a bit more money doing software.

After a bit, but still before the dot-bomb, I went to work for Microsoft. Salary was shit, but the stock options were still enticing back then. All the dot-bombs were paying better, so MSFT upped the salaries. Based on performance reviews, I was apparently a pretty good employee, so the mileage of many might vary. But after one review I got a 35% salary bump that year in an effort to keep MSFT competitive.

One more comparison: my responsibilities aren't much greater than they were back in the day, but I'd say I live a more comfortable lifestyle now than I did then.

tl;dr: it's super-hard to make direct comparisons, but I'd say salaries are better now than back-in-the-day.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Thanks for taking the time to write this! Thoroughly enjoyed reading it. It's been some time since I've even thought of mod_perl... A graph of whimsy: [http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/man.201701/apache...](http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/man.201701/apachemods.html?mod=cGVybA==)

</comment><comment><USER13> That was great to read.

As soon as he said mod_perl I knew where things were headed. Having used both mod_perl and PHP (and ColdFusion - anyone remember that?), perl was just a nightmare to use well for this.

Then when he talked about the custom templates written in perl? That's why PHP was invented, because at its core it is a template language. (i.e. the pages are HTML, with code inside them, rather than code, and HTML is treated as a string.)

I suspect that if the forums had been written in PHP they would not be getting shut down right now.

And yes, I know that people love to hate on PHP (including the author who said he disliked PHP because he didn't use it). But sometimes the tools you choose make a huge difference.

It was a great writeup though, really brought back memories.

<comment><USER14> I thought it was odd that he says the cool kids were using Perl. I taught myself Perl from a book in the late 90s and couldn't find any kind of welcoming community on the internet, while PHP was the complete opposite. Since it was made for the web it flourished there; PHP even had user comments on its own documentation!

<comment><USER15> Yup, PHP back then had one of _the best_ documentation pages out there. It's hard to explain how big a deal it was(esp before the days of stack overflow).

<comment><USER16> Absolutely! I honestly think that if PHP didn't have those incredibly accessible documentation pages, it would never have taken off in the way it did. It was StackOverflow before there was StackOverflow.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> What a nice read, thank you very much for sharing!

</comment><comment><USER18> If everyone is so concerned about these boards going away, why doesnt someone just export the entire database and re-import it into some open source forum software so people can just continue to comment there.

I dont think this is trivial, but it could be done with some effort.

<comment><USER19> but who will pay for the bandwidth?

<comment><USER18> how much could a bill like this possibly be per month ?

if people are so interested in keeping the forums, you could try to ask for donations ?

<comment><USER19> I would guess it's expensive enough to get cut, right? People could donate, sure. It would still need dedicated resources. It's a popular enough service to need high concurrency and reasonably high availability - at least for peak usage, like when the new trailer for the next great trilogy drops.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The threaded replies model was stupid. If a post had 20 replies, I have to click 20 times. Each click to show one reply. Many of the replies were moronic. I ended up just reading the main posts only.

I used many threaded discussion software. The one IMDb used was the most annoying. I have never seen it used on any other site. I guessed it must have been developed in-house and wondered why they never enhanced it.

<comment><USER21> I guess you never noticed the "nest" link to change the view...

[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0261392/board/nest/132924312?p=1](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0261392/board/nest/132924312?p=1)

<comment><USER20> I didn't after all these years! They should have made it the default. I mean who prefers to click more than they need to!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Reading this really brought me back -- to my earliest days as a developer and to the many hours I'd spent on the IMDb boards! Thank you!

</comment><comment><USER23> Nice read, although I have to say, 2001 I took my first job as a web developer, writing Java apps that would run on Tomcat. Back then Java was a revelation after fumbling with perl - the experience that code would actually work the first time it was run was amazing... (these days I am tired of Java, though).

</comment><comment><USER24> Fascinating and well written. Thank-you.</comment>


Google Fiber agrees to acquire Webpass - <AUTHOR> https://webpass.net/blog/google-fiber-agrees-to-acquire-webpass <comment><USER2> Huge fan of Webpass. 1 Gbps of IPv4/6 with great customer service for $55 a month. It can't be beat, if it's available to you.

I hope this is a win for the Webpass employees, in the short and long term. Thanks for all the bits!

<comment><USER3> Is that a good deal in the US ?

Wow, in France for $40 we got:

\- 12Gbps (100G Fiber at no additional cost in supported area)

\- Free landline call to a 100 countries and free cell calls to France

\- HD TV

\- and a media center with recording capabilities, a blue ray player, public FTP and network harddrive

\- for 3 more $, you get a cell phone line with 2 hours of communication and unlimited text, or for $20 unlimited calls and 4G.

And people are still complaining...

<comment><USER4> 100G fiber? I had no idea France was running 4x EDR Infiniband to their citizens' homes.

<comment><USER5> I demand only the finest quality 16QAM low FEC coherent single wavelength 100 Gbps interface for my condo, doesn't everyone have an ASR9010 with $50,000 100GbE linecard in their closet???

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Dear Google: If you fuck up Webpass, you're dead to me.

p.s. I'm watching you: [http://i.imgur.com/rS9LGZ6.png](http://i.imgur.com/rS9LGZ6.png)

<comment><USER7> What tool are you using there?

<comment><USER6> Just a little cron job shell script that dumps the results from a command-line speedtest.net client into Librato Metrics.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Wow, unexpected. I used Webpass when I was in SF and was very happy with the quality of their service, so them getting more capital to expand is a great development.

<comment><USER9> Yep, WebPass was by far and away the best ISP I've ever had. They actually emailed me in advance about planned service interruptions! Wow!!!

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Interesting.. I've been very happy with Webpass for the past 8 or 9 years (though my building's crappy wiring can "only" support 100Mbit).

A Webpass engineer I spoke to last week mentioned they're rolling out fiber to the building to provide redundancy for the wireless mesh. Surprised me as I could count on my fingers the number of outages webpass has had since I started using them. Perhaps it'll replace the wireless portion in the longer term.

<comment><USER5> It might look like a mesh on a topology diagram but believe me, it has nothing in common with wireless "mesh" networking... I don't have insight into the exact configuration of webpass' routers but they're undoubtedly using fairly ordinary BGP and OSPF between nodes. The wireless links are exclusively high capacity point-to-point trunks.

<comment><USER11> It is not "mesh wireless" gear, but it is a mesh at the routing layer (ECMP). My old building had PtP wireless to multiple other buildings.

Edit: I always speculated the difference between 100Mbps and 200Mbps on-net buildings was if that particular location was multihomed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Former Webpass employee here. Was one of the first software eng. hires. This is a great example of a bootstrapped business focused on customer experience that built up with no outside funding (that I know of). Congrats Charles & team.

<comment><USER13> Great work. I was a customer at 673 W Brannan in SF back in '07\. Best residential internet ever.

<comment><USER14> I'm at 673 for the last few years, it's still great!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I use Webpass. Get 600mbps on my wifi AC router. It's amazing and I'm super happy with it. Hoping with google fiber speed gets even faster.

<comment><USER16> How much are you paying ?

<comment><USER17> I paid $550 for a year up front. It's ~$55 per month on a monthly plan.

<comment><USER18> Damn. I pay windstream about $65/month for 10mbit down/768kbps up. (They're the only wired provider where I live, and they know it.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> While I worry about large carriers absorbing small ones, this could be an excellent big step in real competition for bay area internet access.

</comment><comment><USER20> If you listen, you can hear the sound San Francisco rental managers rejoicing they can advertise they have Google Fiber.

</comment><comment><USER21> I have webpass with 1gb for 550 a year. I've had it for 7 years or so.

The bummer is- it's actually cheaper than Google charges in other cities- hopefully the price does not go up.

<comment><USER22> Webpass does not serve houses or smaller and/or older apartment buildings. This substantially lowers their install costs per customer relative to business models, like Fiber, that serve almost everyone n an area.

<comment><USER23> It's a brilliant business model: expand slowly based on demand only to dwelling units dense enough to be economically viable.

<comment><USER24> It definitely is and a bunch of small companies are doing an amazing job of it (Seattle has three such companies, for example).

It is also one big reason why I really want municipal fiber. There are a lot more "houses or smaller and/or older apartment buildings" than there are new condo or high-end apartment buildings. It would be nice to have some competition in those dwellings alongside the cable company, usually with caps, and (maybe) the telephone company, usually DSL with very slow speeds.

<comment><USER23> Municipal fiber wouldn't be "competition" in any meaningful sense of the term. The Chatanooga rollout cost about $5,000 per subscriber and was heavily supported by cross-subsidies from electricity ratepayers. I'd support municipal fiber as a complete government monopoly in places that have shown themselves capable of operating public infrastructure (e.g. NYC). But billing it as "competition" is disingenuous. You can't meaningfully "compete" with an entity that gets non-market revenue.

<comment><USER25> I have Verizon FiOS. Installation of it was subsidized by targeted tax breaks, use of government owned right of ways, and laws which substantially limited their liability for property damaged done during installation. I'm also pretty sure Verizon used funds gained from their other services to pay for the installation.

<comment><USER23> In most places FiOS deployment involves huge taxes, such as franchise fees and forced build-out into neighborhoods that will be unprofitable. (Tax breaks, to the extent they exist, are often carrots for the latter). Also, in many (most?) places Verizon pays the utility pole or conduit owner (usually the power company) for access to those rights of way. In Virginia, for example, you'll get a line-item on your bill for the right-of-way fee.

<comment><USER26> In most places telephone deployment involved huge taxes and forced build-out into counties that would be unprofitable. Also, the telephone company paid non-discriminatory fees to the pole/conduit owner.

This was often paid for / subsidized by the Universal Service Fund, because telephone service was seen as something absolutely necessary for modern life. Back in 1934.

ISPs, unfortunately, are not able to be subsidized by the Universal Service Fund. AFAIK.

<comment><USER23> Note that the Universal Service Fund is funded by a tax on telecommunications service. So a big company like Bell Atlantic (Verizon's predecessor) never received a net subsidy--the government just forced it to take money from some of its subscribers to offer below-cost service to other subscribers.

That said, the USF is a big step up from the "forced build-out" into unprofitable areas, which is what used to happen with telephone, and still happens with broadband. It highly distorts the market. E.g. if build-out requirements were imposed on Webpass, it'd basically ban their business model.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> This is exciting news! In Chicago, I'm currently living in a high rise where the fastest plan I can get is 24 Mbps for around $80/mo. My high rise has an exclusivity contract with AT&T U-Verse. I've spoken with AT&T reps and they can't offer any higher speeds. I also talked to property management and they said there's nothing they can do for me. They are locked into an exclusivity contract with AT&T for the wires in the building.

Does anyone have experience dealing with properties who claim to have exclusivity contracts? I talked to people at Webpass, and they've stated it is available in my area. They'd come in and set everything up free of charge. I don't see the downside for my building to allow Webpass to come in. I do know the FCC has regulations about exclusivity contracts with video providers, but I couldn't find any documents on things like internet. It seems like my only option is to find a place that does not have exclusivity contracts with providers.

<comment><USER28> > I can get is 24 Mbps for around $80/mo

Bucharest internet pricing is 10$ / 1gbps, so that would come at about 320x price ratio, and still 5x cheaper than Google Fiber.

Funny thing, the ISP I am getting this from set the price for 100mbps and 300mbps the same, 7$/month. As if a 200mbps difference is trivial.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Hopefully this will speed up Fiber's rollout in San Francisco. I remember Google's announcement regarding Fiber in SF a few months back. This acquisition is a no-brainer for both companies!

</comment><comment><USER30> God, I hope the support doesn't end up like most other Google product's support. I have webpass and my heart dropped. My project fi experience has been bad enough already.

<comment><USER31> I work on Google Fiber. We have pretty good customer support; call us 24/7, someone in the US will help you with pretty much anything you want that's Fiber-related (WiFi too slow? TV remote not working? That sort of thing.)

<comment><USER32> I just hope the commitment to good service that Google Fiber has started with isn't trashed by foolish executives.

The state of customer dis-service in the USA is so strong that it seems pretty likely any company that has good service for awhile will shift resources into bigger paychecks for executives and fewer resources for customer support. I hope Google Fiber avoids this situation. Some companies do but not very many: Trader Joe's, Costco...

<comment><USER31> I think good customer service is pretty much essential to running a service like Fiber, because there is no code that I can write that's going to smooth over the fact that we killed your lawn while running the fiber through your yard. It happens :/

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I was a happy Webpass customer for about 3 years before moving to an area not served by them. I would be curious to see if they are folded into Fiber or if they are kept as a separate brand. As it currently stands Webpass has much stricter limits on who they are willing to serve. Last time I checked they required that all customers lived in multi unit buildings that were built within the last 20 years. I imagine this was meant to keep their installation costs low while hopefully benefiting from economies of scale. That makes sense for a new niche ISP, but Google has the resources and motivation to abandon those restrictions.

<comment><USER34> Has Google Fiber sold fixed wireless under the Fiber brand before? I think they would have to keep a separate brand at least until they can get all of the many Webpass fixed wireless subscribers switched over to fiber.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I hope this reduces the cost of their business offerings. I love the service, and the home offering is the deal of the century, but $500/month for 50Mb/sec symmetric or $250/month for 20Mb/sec symmetric is hard to swallow for our business (or any other).

They offer faster service (gigabit and probably more) but what startup can pay 10k/month for their business internet?

What's worse is monkeybrains and webpass should seemingly compete on price for business offerings but it seems like they actually collude. Their pricing for businesses is exactly the same.

<comment><USER36> I'm curious, why is it that business plans are so much more expensive than residential ones?

<comment><USER37> Price discrimination. Businesses tend to be more able to pay than home users.

<comment><USER38> if by discrimination you mean guarantees versus best-efforts. business class services, speaking generally, are less or not at all over subscribed while providing contractual guarantees to service performance and problem resolution.

residential is best effort. they'll do their best to keep it up and give you the speeds you pay for, but if it doesn't work out that way sometimes, well, they're sorry about that.

<comment><USER32> Price discrimination is an economic concept - charging different prices for very similar products or services to get the value that each customer is willing to pay. That is often difficult and what normally happens is each customer is charged the same price.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I'm pumped. I live in a Webpass market so hopefully Comcast starts doing their damn job now that it's a Google market.

</comment><comment><USER40> So will Webpass be faster now?

<comment><USER41> My webpass is already 1 Gbps symmetric. If yours is less, it's a per-building upgrade (so maybe with additional capital they'd do that in more places) and may not be feasible.

Disclosure: I work at Google (but not on Fiber).

<comment><USER42> Coming from australia and not familiar at all with Webpass... is the latency low? ie. could people use this for gaming internet connections?

<comment><USER43> As someone who used to live in Sydney and now in SF with Webpass... I can tell you that Webpass would be what a proper NBN rollout would look like. It's kind of amazing. It only costs $60/month and you just get an ethernet drop.

No login, no metering, no shaping.

Example latency:

      admin@RT-AC5300-E6A0:/tmp/home/root# ping -c 5 220.127.116.11
      PING 220.127.116.11 (220.127.116.11): 56 data bytes
      64 bytes from 220.127.116.11: seq=0 ttl=55 time=3.526 ms
      64 bytes from 126.96.36.199: seq=1 ttl=55 time=3.559 ms
      64 bytes from 22.214.171.124: seq=2 ttl=55 time=3.547 ms
      64 bytes from 22.214.171.124: seq=3 ttl=55 time=3.518 ms
      64 bytes from 188.8.131.52: seq=4 ttl=55 time=3.584 ms

      --- 22.214.171.124 ping statistics ---
      5 packets transmitted, 5 packets received, 0% packet loss
      round-trip min/avg/max = 3.518/3.546/3.584 ms

<comment><USER44> Someone will probably roll something like this out in the metro areas and it will eat the NBN

<comment><USER43> Webpass only serves multiple dwelling units AFAIK.

You can already order microwave and fixed fiber links in Sydney CBD, Pyrmont, etc but they cost a lot more than $60/m.

The NBN was a solid idea. Execution is always kind of the issue though.

<comment><USER45> > was

:( such a sad truth.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Webpass has only been doing fiber for 10 months [0], as far as I know the bulk of their customers in SF are on fixed wireless. I'm discouraged by this announcement - now it seems there's zero chance of widespread Google Fiber in SF.

[0] [https://webpass.net/blog/fiber-is-here](https://webpass.net/blog/fiber- is-here)

<comment><USER46> I'm surprised by your downvotes. While "zero chance" might be a bit dramatic, it seems like this warrants discussion. Does this mean that Google thinks P2P wireless is the way to cover urban areas? Will it disincentivize them from persevering through a city-wide fiber installation because P2P wireless is "good enough"? Or is it a good opening play for fiber in SF because Webpass was already navigating the zoning/regulation/rights and just needed capital to succeed? I'd be very interested to hear others' perspectives on this.

Disclosure edit: I'm a current Webpass P2P wireless customer. I was literally about to switch away from Webpass to another P2P wireless solution (we have a site evaluation next Monday) because Webpass has been unreliable for us lately. I'm really curious what, if anything, this means for Webpass and Google Fiber in SF.

<comment><USER23> I don't really get this phobia of fixed wireless. The technology is improving by leaps and bounds--while the technology for digging up city streets isn't.

<comment><USER47> The city hasn't been doing a great job of dropping in fiber either. Maybe in SoMA, but up here in the hills I had my street repaved and there was no plans to put in fiber or upgrade sewer while it was being dug up (I checked with DPW). Fixed wireless is the future in SF, even with SF's dig once policy ([http://sfgov.org/dt/dig-once](http://sfgov.org/dt/dig-once)).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> For those interested, you can get an idea of Webpass' network (with downloadable KMZ) by searching for their 70/80 GHz link registrations here: [http://www.micronetcommunications.com/LinkRegistration/Query...](http://www.micronetcommunications.com/LinkRegistration/Query.aspx)

Search on Licensee Name Webpass

</comment><comment><USER49> I'm a Webpass customer. Pretty amazing service. Although lately they have been suffering from some slow speeds at peak times. I think its just growing pains due to large increases in their customer base. I believe it will be back to high speed soon.

speedtests put me at around 100Mbps consistently when its "fast" and about 20-30 Mbps when its slow.

</comment><comment><USER50> I hope it's not a sign that Google is slowing down fiber rollout and plans to switch to "new hot" wireless, but rather they'll push both.

</comment><comment><USER51> does anyone know the eta for los angeles?</comment>


Ask HN: How did HN start? - <AUTHOR>

Hi, I was wondering how Hacker News really started? How did it get initial traction? Are there any early users (besides PG) that are still active to this day? Sincerely <comment><USER2> [http://ycombinator.com/announcingnews.html](http://ycombinator.com/announcingnews.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!

<comment><AUTHOR> Also, did you code this by yourself? How much time did it take?

<comment><USER2> Originally. The first version took about a week IIRC.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks :) Unrelated - is there any way to get some sort of indication when someone replies to a comment of mine? Sometimes I see others' replies to one of mine too late, and so we cannot develop the conversation any further because they don't know I replied back.

<comment><USER3> I'm thankful that we don't have that feature. After a day or two, any argument you get into on HN is likely to die because no feature of the site jams replies to old comments in your face.

<comment><USER4> Having discussion about the topic which I chose to participate in is clearly good for me, otherwise I would not participate in it.

Is it good for HN in general to see such in-depth discussions? That's less obvious, but I actually prefer to have such option myself (meaning that I'd like to be able to see longer discussions between other HN users). Again, I don't have to read these discussions.

What am I missing here?

<comment><USER3> That 'pg decided the feature you're looking for is more trouble than its worth.

<comment><USER4> I know that PG decided it. But it looks like you are supporting that decision and I don't understand why.

<comment><USER5> The other part of his sentence is important too. "It is more trouble than it's worth". As in, the amount of damage it will cause to the site due to ongoing conflicts outweighs the benefit you will receive from automatically getting notified on replies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I don't know if this is how they got their name, but "Y Combinators" pre-date the company by many years, and are how (some) functional languages implement recursion/looping: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed- point_combinator#Y_combin...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed- point_combinator#Y_combinator)</comment>


FASTR Ensures That Publicly Funded Research Belongs to the Public - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/fastr-ensures-publicly-funded-research-belongs-public <comment><USER2> This is half of a great idea.

After working for Steve Jobs I came to realize that almost all our innovative technology was developed at various Universities, and we just hired the guys (for peanuts) to continue developing it for integration with the final product. So Steve really was the ultimate Robber Baron.

At the same time, that research would probably have never been productized if Steve hadn't been there to fund the continued development of the research, and if Steve hadn't assembled the team required to be a successful company.

So just stopping the theft of our publicly funded research solves only half the problem - and would simply create more "dead-end" research which is never productized.</comment>


Simple Password Encrypted Files w/ GnuPG - <AUTHOR> http://runtime-era.blogspot.com/2012/08/simple-password-encrypted-files-w-gnupg.html

<comment><USER2> A plug: If you're worried about "lead pipe" attacks, I've set up a simple service for remote-activated duress codes at <http://unduress.com>. I'm not sure anyone actually uses it, but it passes the tests I've written and it seems to work in practice...

It uses GPG for symmetric encryption as per TFA.

<comment><USER3> from you page: ... No. Mourn for your data ...

I like that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've been using GPG to password-protect files for a long time. It's so easy that I'm surprised more people don't use it.

(Non-security-researcher suggestion follows, take with a grain of salt): Note that the default encryption algo used with the -c option is usually CAST5. Though there haven't been any successful attacks against it yet, in today's world of the NSA storing communications indefinitely you might want to consider using AES256 instead of CAST5 to (semi) future-proof your encrypted files. You can do that by adding the following line to ~/.gnupg/gpg.conf:

        personal-cipher-preferences aes256 3des

If I'm misguided in that suggestion please do let me know!

<comment><USER5> I'm likely denser than you. I find gpg so obtuse that one of the first things I built at Elation was a python app that wraps it. We keep passwords in structured text files which are encrypted using gpg, then the python file wraps all the gpg bits, keeps the stuff organized, and lets us do things like tab-complete the username we're pulling a password from, and copies the password to our clipboard so that we don't have to ever see the passwords, much less all of them.

In fact, we're interesting in open-sourcing it since it's really rough around the edges. If anyone is interested in working on it with us, hit me up and maybe we can toss it up on github and make it more nice together.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Take this one step further with transparent editing of encrypted files in vim:

<http://vim.wikia.com/wiki/Edit_gpg_encrypted_files>

If you structure the file, say, passswords, appropriately, or even very loosely (one record per line), you can write a bash script or function to query the file. More useful if you've got a pgp-agent running. Say:

       qpass () { gpg -d ~/passwords.asc | grep $1; }

... and when you want to know your HN password, you query it with 'qpass ycomb'

<comment><USER2> Alternatively you can use something like EncFS.

<http://www.arg0.net/encfsintro>

To me it fits better with "The UNIX Way" - works with all the other tools and so on. Doing it in vim is probably more portable, though :/

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Great idea. I have a little Python wrapper around that, which also copies the password to your buffer (so you never actually see it), and password generation.

<https://github.com/grahamking/kip>

</comment><comment><USER8> That's nice for your personal files -- is there something similarly simple with an escrow option?

I.e. Bob encrypted a bunch of critical files and left the company. While I don't want someone that hacks into the server to be able to decrypt them (so the key must be kept in a separate location, like Bob's head) I do want to make sure I can decrypt the files under those special circumstances, but they have to be stored in a way that makes them hard to get.

</comment><comment><USER9> Note that GPG is not FIPS 140 compliant, so if you encrypting for compliance purposes, GPG may not be considered encryption by your governing policy.

<comment><USER10> If you need to be FIPS 140 compliant, you probably don't need a blog post to show you how to password protect files with GPG.

As a technical solution for encrypting data, GPG is peachy.

<comment><USER9> I agree that GPG is awesome.

When the VA had a laptop theft that resulted in a large identity breach, many government entities freaked and implemented policies that they didn't understand. Think schools, local government, etc.

In these situations, you may find yourself in trouble when auditors catch a security issue violating your own policy, because dog licensure data isn't properly encrypted.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I like this _fat free_ guide to encrypting my files.

</comment><comment><USER12> I enjoy how easy it is to have good encryption these days. I still lean too heavily on TrueCrypt when I need a cross-platform portable encrypted device, but when I'm in only-linux land I have all sorts of awesome choices as well</comment>


Genetic evidence for natural selection in humans in the contemporary USA - <AUTHOR> http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/05/05/037929 <comment><USER2> I'm sorry was this an April Fool joke?

By definition a 'phenotype' is the expressed traits of a genotype. As far as I know there is no known gene or set of genes which express the 'phenotype' of 'Educational Attainment'.

I looked at the paper and the author provides no methods to replicate his study. For example, there is no discussion as to the SNP markers he was tracking to associate the 'phenotype' of EA.

What the author is implying here is that there is a gene for 'educational attainment' that is becoming more common in the population in general due to selection pressure.

I'm sorry but this is total hogwash. Anyone that correlates educational attainment to genetics is following a 'chopstick' gene.

Imagine that you correlate the ability to use chopsticks to genetic markers. What you'll find is that people with black hair and brown eyes have a much greater ability to use chopsticks then people with blond hair and blue eyes. You could even produce some pretty convincing graphs about this. However, as we all know the usage of chopsticks is cultural not genetic. There is nothing to prevent blond haired, blue eye people from using chopsticks genetically.

In fact you can correlate any two things that have no relationship to each other and find a correlation. For instance, the sun coming up in the morning and traffic congestion. They correlate, but have no causal relationship. i.e the sun does not cause traffic.

<comment><USER3> >My results imply that natural selection has been slowly favoring lower EA in both females and males

lower educational attainment, not higher

see: GWAS of 126,559 Individuals Identifies Genetic Variants Associated with Educational Attainment (one of the authors is Beauchamp) [http://science.sciencemag.org/content/340/6139/1467](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/340/6139/1467)

>Three independent single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are genome-wide significant (rs9320913, rs11584700, rs4851266), and all three replicate. Estimated effects sizes are small (coefficient of determination R2 ≈ 0.02%), approximately 1 month of schooling per allele. A linear polygenic score from all measured SNPs accounts for ≈2% of the variance in both educational attainment and cognitive function

<comment><USER4> So ... less educated people are getting more kids? (or the inverse: more educated people are getting less kids)

<comment><USER5> Yeah, this should be the case just based on the logistics involved. Higher education typically takes place during the years when a woman is able to have children. And to go a step further: generally people obtain higher education for a purpose: to further a career. So, then, after schooling is over, there will be a career to make, further reducing the number of years available for a woman to have children.

So this should be the case based on practical matters alone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's just funny that it is still called "natural selection" even when the environment that selects individuals is created by nothing but ourselves. I think it'd be much more accurate to call it "social selection" because for humans the environment is not nature, but society.

With that in your mind, those of you who are clever might wonder: what is the fundamental difference between "social selection" and eugenics, which many consider morally wrong? My answer is: they are essentially the same thing. It's because if we define eugenics as society deciding who to reproduce and who not to, that's exactly what is happening now.

<comment><USER7> There is a fundamental difference. Natural Selection works on an individual basis, everyone tries to maximize the amount of his or her DNA in the world. In eugenics (and to a lesser degree in social selection) someone else (or the group) decides that his or her DNA should not be inheritet. Basically capitalism vs. communism.

<comment><USER8> In sexual selection there is also someone else (i.e. the group of females in a peacock population) that decide whose DNA should not be inherited. And sexual selection is considered a part of natural selection. So your argument does not hold.

Wikipedia: _Sexual selection is a mode of natural selection where members of one biological sex choose mates of the other sex to mate with_

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

I could even argue the same thing for natural selection itself. When a predator kills an animal, he decides that the DNA of that animal should not be spread further in the future.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> CTRL-F "Idiocracy"

But seriously, can it really be said that this is related to natural selection rather than some other pressure? I guess it kind of depends on the definition, as one could argue that any result within a given environment is causal to that given environment. However, while I do anecdotally see that more highly educated people have less children (and also the opposite, which the author writes of), I still think that people generally try to select for the smartest and most capable people within their social sphere. In other words, I think people are still selecti mates which are smarter, but due to socioeconomic factors unrelated to breeding, the less educated end up having more children.

</comment><comment><USER10> Another anecedotal (and probably wrong) idea related to this is the explanation of prevalence of ADHD in US relative to EU, for example.

The genetic selection idea goes something like this -- individuals who ended up migrating here, self selected for being bolder, ready to take on more risk, being less content staying in one place. On one side that is a postive trait, but on the other side manifests as ADHD.

There is a study from 2003 showing that it is not true and that it is due to how diagnosis is handled:

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1525089/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1525089/)

Other places claim a strong genetic factor is there:

"ADHD often runs in families. Researchers have found that much of the risk of having ADHD has to do with genes"

[http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/attention- defici...](http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/attention-deficit- hyperactivity-disorder-easy-to-read/index.shtml)

<comment><USER11> Anecdotally, I have heard French people say that it is practically impossible to get a adult psychiatric diagnosis of ADD in France, regardless of how clear and debilitating your symptoms are. It may be that the apparent low rates in the EU are actually systemic diagnostic failures.

(Similarly, I have read that in [I think] Japan, it is actually illegal to _begin_ a course of ADD medication after 18--if you were diagnosed as a child, you're fine, but if your parents never took you to a psych, you're screwed forever. Even in the US I've had a general-practice doctor tell me that they thought ADD just went away after a certain age. There's a lot of denial about adult ADD.)

<comment><USER12> ADHD has been in my field of practice for quite a long time. It's true that many countries have greater restrictions on treatment, and medications available in the US are not approved elsewhere. Cultural biases against recognizing the condition are common, but is greater in some countries than others.

In this respect the US has been way ahead of most other places in terms of recognizing ADHD in adults and treating the condition. Even in the US, it still remains highly under-diagnosed and -treated, as its estimated only about 20% of cases ever come to clinical attention, and only a small proportion of those cases get proper and persistent treatment.

Over the last decade or so the stigma against diagnosis and treatment of adult ADHD has diminished, but remains a huge barrier for care of people with the difficulty. It's not a minor condition, in fact research shows ADHD has poor outcomes in all domains of functioning. IOW ADHD is frequently associated with lifetime disability which is usually reduced with appropriate treatment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Economists dabbling in other fields have a uniformly appalling track record, but who knows, maybe this one is the exception.

<comment><USER14> No this isn't. He should have spent 1.5 more months thinking about his experimental design. He doesn't even try to make the distinction between causality and coincidence. We could achieve the same conclusions by talking about socio-economic changes rather than genotype-to-phenotype.

For a guy who was has is name in the big GWAS published in Science, he obviously didn't understand what his co-authors did or wrote. Sorry for the rant, I can't stand people who are getting a free-ride on a paper, and he just proved that is one of them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Isn't it fairly known that less educated people have more children?

<comment><USER16> Yes. Education and economic prosperity have reduced population growth rates in many places. Too much, perhaps, in some places.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I don't understand. Why has educational attainment gone up and age at menarche gone down if there is selection pressure in the other direction?

<comment><USER18> How is educational attainment a genetic trait? Intelligence is partially hereditary, but isn't educational attainment a behavior?

<comment><USER19> People who are highly educated like to feel like they are members of a higher species.

<comment><USER18> I didn't mean to come off as being arrogant. I'm referring to the nature vs. nurture debate. Intelligence is determined by both nature and nurture, and not solely one or the other.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> So, [http://time.com/4327424/idiocracy/](http://time.com/4327424/idiocracy/), basically.

I know who _I'm_ voting for: [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CV0dnFtWEAAwj_k.jpg](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CV0dnFtWEAAwj_k.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER21> Side comment: the author is using first person in his paper, which is slightly odd. I know he is the only author, but would it be more suitable to use some other form?

<comment><USER22> I often find it more distracting when people avoid the first person than when they use it. If it makes sense, why not use it?

<comment><USER23> To be clear, "we" is first person, plural. I take it your comment and gp to mean "I" by "first person" and not "we".

Anyway, it's standard in scientific writing to use "we" instead of "I". [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We#The_author.27s_.22we.22](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We#The_author.27s_.22we.22)

<comment><USER24> It is also a very subtle way to make it sound more credible, because it gives the reader a sense that multiple people did the work.

<comment><USER15> On the other hand it can also some kind of proof of honesty and transparency. "Hey, I did that work alone, which is slightly odd, but hey at least I'm not hiding this fact."

I agree with haddr above. People should not be ashamed of using "I" instead of "we" when it's relevant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Further reading:

\- "Assortative mating and differential fertility by phenotype and genotype across the 20th century" [http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/05/25/1523592113.full](http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/05/25/1523592113.full) , Conley et al 2016 (education/intelligence polygenic score is dropping 0.0029 SDs per year: [http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2016/05/25/1523592113.DCSu...](http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2016/05/25/1523592113.DCSupplemental/pnas.1523592113.sapp.pdf) )

\- "Constructing genomic maps of positive selection in humans: Where do we go from here?", Akey 2009 [http://genome.cshlp.org/content/19/5/711.long](http://genome.cshlp.org/content/19/5/711.long)

\- "Measuring selection in contemporary human populations", Stearns et al 2010 [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Douglas_Ewbank/publicat...](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Douglas_Ewbank/publication/45462159_Measuring_selection_in_contemporary_human_populations/links/0c960516c1c8b5ef7d000000.pdf)

\- "Exceptional Evolutionary Divergence of Human Muscle and Brain Metabolomes Parallels Human Cognitive and Physical Uniqueness", Bozek et al 2014 [http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/jour...](http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001871)

\- "The phenotypic legacy of admixture between modern humans and Neandertals" [http://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2016-simonti.pdf](http://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2016-simonti.pdf), Simonti et al 2016

\- "The Genetic Cost of Neanderthal Introgression" [http://www.genetics.org/content/203/2/881](http://www.genetics.org/content/203/2/881) Harris & Nielsen 2016

\- "Genome-wide patterns of selection in 230 ancient Eurasians" [http://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2015-mathieson.pdf](http://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2015-mathieson.pdf), Mathieson et al 2015

\- "Eight thousand years of human] natural selection in Europe" [http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/03/13/016477.full.pdf](http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/03/13/016477.full.pdf), Mathieson et al 2015 (Khan [http://www.unz.com/gnxp/selection-in-europeans- but-it-still-...](http://www.unz.com/gnxp/selection-in-europeans-but-it-still- sweeps/) ; see also EDAR [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectodysplasin_A_receptor#Deriv...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectodysplasin_A_receptor#Derived_EDAR_allele)

\- "Detection of human adaptation during the past 2,000 years" [http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/05/07/052084.full.pdf](http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/05/07/052084.full.pdf), Field et al 2016 (commentary [https://plus.google.com/103530621949492999968/posts/3DmLLdDf...](https://plus.google.com/103530621949492999968/posts/3DmLLdDfR61)

\- "Population structure of UK Biobank and ancient Eurasians reveals adaptation at genes influencing blood pressure" [http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/05/27/055855](http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/05/27/055855), Galinsky et al 2016

\- "Greenlandic Inuit show genetic signatures of diet and climate adaptation", Fumagalli et al 2015 [http://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2015-fumagalli.pdf](http://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2015-fumagalli.pdf)

\- "Genetic Adaptation to Levels of Dietary Selenium in Recent Human History", White et al 2015 [http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/32/6/1507.full](http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/32/6/1507.full) ; see also "Human Adaptation to Arsenic-Rich Environments" [http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/32/6/1544.full](http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/32/6/1544.full) Schlebusch et al 2015

\- "Evidence for evolution in response to natural selection in a contemporary human population", Milot et al 2011 [http://www.pnas.org/content/108/41/17040.long](http://www.pnas.org/content/108/41/17040.long)

\- "Quantitative Genetics in the Postmodern Family of the Donor Sibling Registry" [https://www.donorsiblingregistry.com/sites/default/files/fil...](https://www.donorsiblingregistry.com/sites/default/files/files/dissertation%281%29.pdf), Lee 2013

\- "What women want in their sperm donor: a study of more than 1000 women's sperm donor selections", Whyte et al 2016 [http://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2016-whyte.pdf](http://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2016-whyte.pdf)

\- "Why Are Some People So Smart? The Answer Could Spawn a Generation of Superbabies" [http://www.wired.com/2013/07/genetics-of- iq/](http://www.wired.com/2013/07/genetics-of-iq/)

\- "The Rhythm of the Tide: When I heard data from an island had proven humans are still evolving, I had to visit" [http://nautil.us/issue/29/scaling/the- rhythm-of-the-tide-rp](http://nautil.us/issue/29/scaling/the-rhythm-of-the- tide-rp)

\- "The Indicted and the Wealthy: Surnames, Reproductive Success, Genetic Selection and Social Class in Pre-Industrial England", Clark 2009 [http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/Farewell%20to%20A...](http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/Farewell%20to%20Alms/Clark%20-Surnames.pdf)

\- "Older fathers' children have lower evolutionary fitness across four centuries and in four populations" [http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/03/08/042788](http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/03/08/042788), Arslan et al 2016 (from "The cost of inbreeding in terms of health" [http://www.unz.com/gnxp/the-cost-of-inbreeding-in-terms- of-h...](http://www.unz.com/gnxp/the-cost-of-inbreeding-in-terms-of-health/) )

\- "Childhood Autism and Assortative Mating" [http://economics.uchicago.edu/workshops/Golden%20Hays%20Chil...](http://economics.uchicago.edu/workshops/Golden%20Hays%20Childhood%20Autism.pdf), Golden 2012

\- "Heritability, Autism, & Fear of Breeding" [http://www.unz.com/gnxp/heritability-autism-fear-of- breeding...](http://www.unz.com/gnxp/heritability-autism-fear-of-breeding/)

\- "Estimating the Inbreeding Depression on Cognitive Behavior: A Population Based Study of Child Cohort" [http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone...](http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0109585) ; see also [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/07/genetic- diver...](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/07/genetic-diversity- and-intellectual-disability/)

\- "Mutation and Human Exceptionalism: Our Future Genetic Load" [http://www.genetics.org/content/202/3/869](http://www.genetics.org/content/202/3/869), Lynch 2016

\- "The Biodemography of Fertility: A Review and Future Research Frontiers" Mills & Tropf 2015 [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4577548/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4577548/)

\- Fertility and intelligence [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligence)

\- "Assortative Mating, Class, and Caste", Harpending & Cochran 2015 [http://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2015-harpending.pdf](http://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2015-harpending.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER25> I'll take another look when we have a few hundred samples of this size over the course of a thousand years or so.

</comment><comment><USER26> Here's an idea about natural selection, we had two world wars, during the wars the fit and healthy brave people went, the cowards hid and stayed at home.

The cowards survived to live another day, so cowardice and unfit individuals are selected for breeding, giving us the people of today.

<comment><USER27> By definition the people who survived are fit, not unfit.

<comment><USER28> They are "fit" as in "best adjusted to their environment" but not "fit" as in "good at sports", which I think is what parent comment meant :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> These days I see a lot of non-genetic evidence as well.

<comment><USER30> Especially in how rich people use their wealth and social influence to increase their wealth and social influence. And they give greater assistance to their offspring than their less-affluent cohorts are able to.

One example of this is the $1 million gift Bill Gates received on his 0th birthday.

<comment><USER31> Agreed to an extent. I think Bill Gates deserves some credit for his success. Just look to the number of failures in Silicon Valley with huge startup money and well-educated youth; it doesn't guarantee success.

I remember seeing an article in a NYC newspaper in the late 70s or early 80s that followed up on the first winners of Lotto in the State. The majority of them spent it on cars, fur coats, hookers, booze, drugs and other things, went into debt and didn't escape their former poverty. Some wound up in jail.

I grew up in poverty, and my father upon reading it remarked, 'Money is worthless to somebody who doesn't understand the value of a buck.' Very true in my experience, as I have aged and observed.

I couldn't find the original article from I believe the Daily News or Post, but here's one from the The Atlantic along the same lines: [http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/03/terribly...](http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/03/terribly- sad-true-stories-lotto-winners/329903/)

<comment><USER32> That's because when you grow up with money you either have so much that you can do all the usual things and you won't run out, or you already have an investment machine in place for you.

Lottery winners certainly don't have the latter, and often don't have the former either. They may think $1 million makes them rich, but it really doesn't.

Money is as much about training and education as anything else.

It's a lot easier to handle if you get that training and education than if you don't.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


An Alarming Discovery in an Astronaut's Bloodstream - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/11/astronaut-blood-clot/602380/ <comment><USER2> I wonder how this new information will impact future plans in sending people to Mars since it's so far away.</comment>


Why is Social Media in Germany: 5 Years Behind - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/social_media_in_germany_5_years_behind_-_still_lot_to_learn.php <comment><USER2> because all the people hang out on english speaking sites, like me on HN...</comment>


Upload attachments to GitHub in CLI - <AUTHOR> The easiest way to get public URL to your files.
Every time I need a public and free URL to host my images, I always open an issue on GitHub and drag some files into the textarea, then I finally got some public URLs.
Just like another CLI tool nba-go I built three weeks before. Watching NBA and getting a free URL are both so annoying to me. Therefore, I built this simple CLI tool to do all of those uploading stuff automatically.
Hope you guys like it.
GitHub repo:
https://github.com/xxhomey19/github-uploader <comment><USER2> Linkified version: [https://github.com/xxhomey19/github- uploader](https://github.com/xxhomey19/github-uploader).

So I think this is pretty cool, because I do this same thing all the time to upload images in a pinch, especially for images/files to be used within a readme.

Instead of using a fake account, hardcoding the password, and using a headless browser to do your bidding—why not just use the API endpoint GitHub is actually using to upload the files? Then you could let users use their own GitHub tokens.</comment>


E3 Live Stream by Justin.tv Draws 1.6 Million Viewers - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2009/06/01/e3-live-stream/

<comment><USER2> This is a totally honest question:

How come Justin.tv can stream live video to 1.6 million viewers successfully but Twitter often has growth problems/outages when it comes to handling/routing 140-char messages?

Am I comparing apples to oranges?

<comment><USER3> Justin.tv is a bandwidth problem. This is "easily" solvable using a CDN.

Twitter is a database problem. I am not a DBA (but I play one at work!), but I believe this is "easily" solvable using sharding. As far as I know, twitter doesn't do this and nobody really knows why.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you recuperate? - <AUTHOR>

After long days of working on your startup, weekend coding binges etc., what do you do to get that energy back?<p>Meditating ? Hit the gym ? I'd appreciate any recommendations! <comment><USER3> For me it's rucking. I live close the Ottawa River. So taking a backpack filled with bricks, a water bladder and just walking along the river - <USER2> past the Canadian parliament on the left and viewing Quebec on the right – is a very calming experience, despite the weight.

</comment><comment><USER4> Exercise, meditation, reading, video games, and phone/facetime with non-local friends. As much as I love losing myself in code, I remind myself the main reason I made my business was so that I could do it on my terms, and that means recognizing burn out faster - leaves me less stressed and enjoying my non working days even more.

</comment><comment><USER5> Normally, sleep works for me. :)

</comment><comment><USER6> sleep. exercise. jog. swim in the ocean. cook. spend time with friends.</comment>


SCP Movies28 days left - <AUTHOR> https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/scp-movies-episode-3/x/12600944#/ <comment><AUTHOR> Contributors can be in titles or in movie scenes. Please see campaign page!</comment>


What It's Like To Drop 150,000 Feet Straight Down [video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2013/07/29/206654723/what-its-like-to-drop-150-000-feet-straight-down?ft=1

<comment><USER2> That made me feel a little sick. But very cool.

<comment><USER3> Enjoy: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2A_h2AjJaMw](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2A_h2AjJaMw)

<comment><USER4> Insane. Great, but insane.

They say they skip safety lines because its easier and faster. Wonder how often someone falls off while doing his work though.

<comment><USER5> It's apparently been better recently, but in the mid-2000s tower climbing was the most dangerous occupation in the US. In 2004 there were 10 deaths, w/ a death rate of 115.2/100K: [http://www.wirelessestimator.com/t_content.cfm?pagename=Clim...](http://www.wirelessestimator.com/t_content.cfm?pagename=Climber%20Fatalities)

Interestingly this seems to vary greatly. In 2008 there were 7 tower deaths in 5 weeks: [http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/7-Tower-Deaths- In-5-Weeks...](http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/7-Tower-Deaths- In-5-Weeks-94803)

Also, apparently the job in the US is significantly more dangerous than elsewhere. While between 2003-2008 there were 70 US tower climber deaths vs only 10 international deaths in that same period: [http://www.wirelessestimator.com/t_content.cfm?pagename=Inte...](http://www.wirelessestimator.com/t_content.cfm?pagename=International%20Tower%20Climber%20Deaths)

Oh, and here's how much it pays: [http://work.chron.com/transmission-tower- climber-paid-5300.h...](http://work.chron.com/transmission-tower-climber- paid-5300.html)

"Data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 2011 show that radio, cellular and tower equipment installers and repairs made a mean annual wage of $44,250. This group includes transmission tower climbers. The lowest-paid 10 percent earned less than $26,200 per year and $12.60 per hour, while the highest-paid 10 percent earned $67,660 or more per year and $32.53 or more per hour. The national average was $21.27 per hour."

Some interesting recent (2012) writeups:

Daily Kos: The Killing Towers of the US Telecom Industry [http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/04/1097174/-The- Killin...](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/04/1097174/-The-Killing- Towers-of-the-US-Telecom-Industry)

ProPublica: In Race For Better Cell Service, Men Who Climb Towers Pay With Their Lives [http://www.propublica.org/article/cell-tower- fatalities](http://www.propublica.org/article/cell-tower-fatalities)

<comment><USER6> Thanks for the write-up - I was just about to check how much they make seeing as how I wouldn't do it for any amount of money. That seems incredibly low for one of/the most dangerous jobs in the US

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This reminds me of the MSL landing last year. The way this video was done makes landing on the Earth seem nearly alien. Like this is what it would look like to someone who's never visited here before.

</comment><comment><USER8> Simply amazing.</comment>