Sortix: small self-hosting OS aiming to be a clean, modern Posix implementation - <AUTHOR> https://sortix.org/ <comment><USER2> (Sorry, mini-rant incoming...)

Before I get all negative, I'll say that this looks very good for education[1], but I'm really curious about why the word "modern" was used.

POSIX is ancient, is overspecified in very important areas (which, thankfully, many/most implementations ignore/work around), is underspecified in very important areas, holds us to a C-based API/ABI, doesn't even have sane "atomic" file operation semantics, etc. etc.

POSIX is not something to aspire to, IMO. We tolerate it because we have to, AFAICT.

(Rant over. I can only apologize, I just sometimes get a little angry that we're held back technologically because of this nonsense.)

[1] Even given the limitations, which are _very_ clearly acknowledged. Kudos to the project people for that!

<comment><USER3> > _holds us to a C-based API /ABI_

This shows a bit of a misunderstanding about what POSIX is. It isn't about operating systems, it (IEEE 1003.1) is about source-code compatibility for 2 languages: C99, and Shell. POSIX doesn't say anything about an ABI, and there's nothing holding the system as a whole to a C-based API. It's specifying C compatibility, of course it's talking about a C API! If you want a different language API, POSIX (1003.1) isn't relevant to you. Totally non- UNIXy systems like z/OS are POSIX certified, because they have source-code compatibility with C99 and Shell programs written against POSIX; that doesn't mean it is held to a C-based API.

<comment><USER2> > POSIX doesn't say anything about an ABI, and there's nothing holding the > system as a whole to a C-based API. It's specifying C compatibility, of > course it's talking about a C API! If you want a different language API, > POSIX (1003.1) isn't relevant to you.

(Double-replied because I wanted to separate this bit out.)

Effectively, it seems you're saying: "Ok, you don't want to implement a C API"[1], well, jolly good luck to you, then. The premise of this whole conversation was that POSIX was a dominating force, and now you're saying you don't have to participate...?

[1] A C API, obviously, requires an _extreme_ amount of either 1) being C, or 2) being compatible enough with C that it doesn't matter either way, or 3) giving up entirely on the POSIX ecosystem. So... how is that _not_ being absurdly badly influenced by POSIX?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> One cool thing I like about Sortix is how it handles threading. TLS is set up by the kernel, so errno can be a thread local variable.

<comment><USER5> I think errno is thread local in most modern unix variants.

<comment><USER6> Author here. POSIX requires errno to be thread local, but with few requirements. Commonly libc's #define errno (*__get_errno_location()). Why? It's because the thread local storage isn't online very early on. The libc literally has to open its own program executable and locate the the thread local storage and mmap a copy of it for each thread. Thread level storage comes online late in Linux, which bloats statically linked executables with code to parse their own executable.

In Sortix, I just have the kernel set up the TLS for statically linked executables and just declare errno as:

__thread int errno;

That means errno is online from the very first instruction in _start in statically linked executables, without the need to parse the program file in early libc. There's no error conditions between _start and main. This is the kind of implementation quality I want to have in Sortix and part of why I develop Sortix.

<comment><USER5> Ah, that's very neat. Thanks for explaining.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Looks pretty cool as an educational exercise. Therefore, if the author's reading: how would you distinguish this from MINIX?

<comment><USER4> Not the author, but the thing that got me interested in the project was some posts the author made on OSDev[0] about trying to minimize the amount of interdependencies in the libc code. A lot of the kernel is written in C++[1] which is a little rare (Haiku, and what else?). They also have a cleaned up zlib that I have used and think is quite nice[2]. Also I almost forgot about os-test[3] which tests POSIX compatibility.

[0][https://wiki.osdev.org/User:Sortie/Sortix_Thread_Local_Stora...](https://wiki.osdev.org/User:Sortie/Sortix_Thread_Local_Storage)

[1][https://gitlab.com/sortix/sortix/tree/master/kernel](https://gitlab.com/sortix/sortix/tree/master/kernel)

[2][https://sortix.org/libz/](https://sortix.org/libz/)

[3] [https://sortix.org/os-test/](https://sortix.org/os-test/)

<comment><USER8> Linus Torvalds had (in)famous commentary on the use of C++ within kernel design.

[http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/c++/linus](http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/c++/linus)

I wonder if things have changed in the decade since he penned that.

<comment><USER9> Well, the newer comment basically amounts to "Real programmers know to use C, so we keep the uncultured plebes out." Which isn't really any argument against using C++, but is rather the kind of attitude that should be expunged from system developers.

There are reasons to avoid using C++:

* The main benefit of C++ is that it has a standard library that's somewhat usable. Except you can't use standard libraries anyways in kernel code.

* Templates, particularly as they intersect with name lookup, are difficult semantics both to the compiler and the user. Until a decade ago, using templates meant more or less playing roulette as to which compilers could handle it correctly.

* RTTI and exceptions are broken features. It has more or less been accepted that these features are optional in C++.

* The famous saying goes "there's a safe subset to C++, but no one agrees what that subset is." That's still more or less true today.

The main advantage of C++ is that it gets you RAII (which makes dealing with errors much easier, since you're less liable to have issues like gotofail), and you can use templates to build safer ADTs. These are strong benefits in that it's a lot harder to make mistakes as a developer, but there is a strong tendency in this corner of systems developer to assume that stupid mistakes are a fault of the programmer and not the language, and so such benefits are considered flaws because it means letting in stupid people.

<comment><USER10> > "Real programmers know to use C, so we keep the uncultured plebes out." ... > is rather the kind of attitude that should be expunged from system > developers.

I have to disagree in this case. I think the rationale here is that a working, productive mastery of C suggests a developer of a certain caliber. For many projects you would be right, it would be good to encourage the more junior developers to join the project. But, for the Linux kernel, for the core of one of the most widely-deployed pieces of software on the planet, the foundation of countless systems, many of which are performing critical functions, I, frankly, think it's good to filter the dev team for properly competent devs at every possible juncture. If rejecting C++ keeps the noobs out, that's a good thing.

<comment><USER11> _> I think the rationale here is that a working, productive mastery of C suggests a developer of a certain caliber._

Possibly, but that's still pretty silly. Like...I am a cautious programmer by nature. I can write C. I understand the language and its semantics at a fairly intuitive level. I am still cognizant that a moment's inattention means that I am _going_ to screw up in ways that I literally can't with a language that has a scope guard (to say nothing of typing that isn't based on how wide the data structure is, that sort of thing). Not using a language more featureful than C --even to the point of literally banning every feature from the language that isn't a nonvirtual dtor--doesn't "keep the noobs out". It does, however, create classes of bugs. If anything, a "noob" is less likely to realize the danger they're in when fearlessly[0] writing code!

Recognition of my own limits is most of why I don't write C, and if I absolutely must interop with C (passing through to Ruby or whatever) I write the thinnest, dumbest layer I can between it and C++. (These days, I'm trying to go towards Rust for these tasks, but I know C++ much better.) C just does not make you the hard man that many C devotees think it does, that's all.

[0] - This is mostly a compliment and only a little tongue-in-cheek. Novices being willing to write code that I have to think about analytically to feel safe when writing it can, in the general case, often work well enough/long enough to get by.

<comment><USER12> I can agree that C is a poor language (as opposed to "rich"). It's a pretty thin layer over machine code, and its means of abstraction, and means of static checking that these abstractions hold, are very weak. It was designed around 1970 to work on hardware from 1960s.

The problem is that in early 1990s, when Linux started, no viable alternatives existed. Pascal required a standard library; Modula-2 did not, but it was late to the scene. C++ was poorly supported, and even more full of hidden traps than C. Ada was theoretically a good choice, but accessible compilers did not exist.

C had widespread use, 20 years of history, many compilers, including a free (GPL'd) GCC, wide platform support. Because the language is so compact and simple, these compilers were mostly reliable, there are no complex features that are tricky to implement.

Hence the choice.

Now we have a much wider choice, we have Rust, we have ATS-lang, we have good- quality C++ compilers, we have various tools to synthesize verified C code from higher-level code, etc. We can hope than in 10-15 years we could see e.g. a viable OS kernel written in Rust.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I've been poking at something similar lately, and if you're mostly running on VMs, I would suggest taking a look at the virtio interfaces. they are high performance, asynch, and relatively easy to implement.

<comment><USER6> Yep. I already have an issue about virtio filed at <[https://gitlab.com/sortix/sortix/issues/473>](https://gitlab.com/sortix/sortix/issues/473>). Not too high priority to implement but something I'd love to get to. Feel free to post additional hints there if you have additional tips for when I get around to doing it.

<comment><USER13> I started a note on your gitlab issue, but saw you already had an mmio reference linked. i did the pci version and it looks about the same complexity.

aside from a reference, being able to instrument the device side on qemu makes debugging drivers a total cakewalk. so do that. best of luck with your project. i wish more people went through the exercise. even though a mature OS after decades of maintenance might exceed 1M lines, you really dont need anywhere close to that to get what you need done. you learn alot, and can make your own model

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Is sortix kernel compliant with multiboot specification?

If not, is it possible to use syslinux or another bootloader instead of grub?

<comment><USER15> Not the author, but the kernel is Multiboot compliant. See: [https://sortix.org/man/man7/installation.7.html](https://sortix.org/man/man7/installation.7.html) 'If you wish to dual boot, you need an existing operating system with a multiboot compliant bootloader such as GRUB.'

<comment><USER14> Thank you. Further down in that page:

"Bootloader

The kernel(7) is a multiboot compatible binary that can be loaded by any _multiboot specification compatible_ bootloader such as GRUB. You need to use such a bootloader to boot the operating system. You will be offered the _choice_ of installing GRUB as the bootloader."

Allowing the user to choose their own bootloader makes this particular small project a rare find, IMO.

I use another multiboot specification compatible bootloader that I prefer over grub.

I also like how he offers both 32 and 64bit.

I guess this project has been posted to HN before. Perhaps at that time it still did not yet have networking.

<comment><USER6> Author here. Yep, I don't want to force a particular bootloader on anyone. The bootloader is a piece of software owned by the system administrator, not necessarily by any of the several operating systems installed side by side. If I force a bootloader on the user, that makes dual boot configuration harder, and it's important to allow that. I happen to follow GRUB's multiboot specification, which has the advantage that a lot of bootloaders implement it. It's not perfect though and I'll probably invent and adopt my own bootloader protocol in the future, but the sysadmin's choice of bootloader continues to be important on my mind.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Xv6 is the classic reroll of the UNIX 6th edition sources for the x86 architecture.

What does Sortix offer that is lacking in Xv6?

[https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/6.828/2014/xv6.html](https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/6.828/2014/xv6.html)

<comment><USER16> TCP/IP support

<comment><USER6> Author here. Yep, though the network stack hasn't yet been merged to the master branch (but that's next and it'll be in the next stable release).</comment></comment></comment>


Eval() Isn't Quite Pure Evil - <AUTHOR> http://blog.grayproductions.net/articles/eval_isnt_quite_pure_evil <comment><USER2> I agree with the objection mentioned in the OP's comments: eval() as described turns code into strings. As Alan Perlis said:

"The string is a stark data structure and everywhere it is passed there is much duplication of process. It is a perfect vehicle for hiding information."

(You're tired of the canonical link, so here's a much more fun one: <http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/perlisisms.el>)

Strings hide information, and string representations of programming languages hide the most important things about programs (with the _possible_ exception of programming languages designed to manipulate strings, like SNOBOL).

OTOH I like using ParseTree to convert Ruby programs into s-expressions and to Ruby2Ruby convert those s-expressions into strings before evaluating them. It's overkill at the moment, but somehow it seems to point towards something much, much better than strings:

        %w[B C D].each do |name|
          eval(
            Ruby2Ruby.new.process(
              s(:module,
                name.to_sym,
                s(:scope,
                  s(:defn,
                    :call,
                    s(:args),
                    s(:scope,
                      s(:block,
                        s(:call,
                          nil,
                          :puts,
                          s(:arglist, s(:str, name))
                        ),
                        s(:zsuper))
                      )
                  )
                )
              )
            )
          )
        end

It's ugly, but at least it _tries_ to represent the structure of the Ruby code.

<comment><USER3> That is so far from anything I would ever want to see on a slide (unless it's just meant to poke fun at such code), I don't even know where to begin.

When you program, do you think of it as an exercise in bending your mind to the whim of the computer, or the other way around? I, for one, would rather make the computer understand what I'm thinking.

If I'm thinking "hey, I want to evaluate this bit a bunch of times with different names", why can't I just say that? Isn't Ruby supposed to be the "English With Some Bits Of Punctuation" language? Assuming I've met any security concerns, and I'm not doing anything incredibly complicated (which, honestly, wouldn't pass code review with or without eval), what's wrong with writing the code the way I want?

Looking at the author's received "fix", I don't understand it. I'm not a big fancy Ruby expert, but I've been through the poignant guide, I've written some medium-sized stuff with it, I've used most of the syntax constructs, and I think I get the idioms. The original makes sense; it's clear to me. We do three string format operations, and eval each one, thus defining a module each time. Great.

The "fix" confuses me: "what's Module.new (I thought you just did 'module Name; stuff; end')?", "what's define_method (it looks like def, but why doesn't it just say def)?", "what's Object.const_set, and why don't I see 'name' until then?". With some reasonable inference, these aren't tough questions, but there remains one: "what the hell is the control flow diagram for this?". There are three anonymous functions defined in here, and I have no idea when the inner ones execute, or worse, are defined or compiled. I thought I understood Ruby's control flow, and I could make a guess at this, but there's no way I'd bet money on the result.

So what if eval turns code into strings? Code _is_ strings! Do you think files are made of parse trees? eval doesn't hide information, it adds another level of abstraction (and there's an old saying about solving problems in computer science somewhere in there). Syntax highlighters, test coverage reports, static analyzers, and cyclomatic complexity calculators (really?) should all be able to handle it. Why? Because the feature is there, and it makes my life easier sometimes, and in those times, I want to use it.

So, umm, there! That's what I think about eval.

<comment><USER2> "Code is strings" in exactly the same sense that "Speech is vibration of molecules."

The problem with eval-ing strings is that it doesn't _scale_. It's great for building three identical modules "B," "C," and "D," but the moment you want to do something interesting, it breaks down. The complexity of manipulating programs as strings grows far more rapidly than the complexity of things you want to do.

For example, String#to_proc adds some syntactic sugar to Ruby like implied parameters so you can write things like: some_array.map(&'+ 1'):

[http://github.com/raganwald/homoiconic/blob/master/2008-11-2...](http://github.com/raganwald/homoiconic/blob/master/2008-11-28/you_cant_be_serious.md#readme)

The implementation is hideous:

[http://github.com/raganwald/homoiconic/blob/master/2008-11-2...](http://github.com/raganwald/homoiconic/blob/master/2008-11-28/string_to_proc.rb)

That's because it's trying to manipulate and eval strings that represent program syntax where it should be parsing the strings and manipulating data structures that represent program structure.

<comment><USER3> I'm not saying eval does scale, I'm just saying it's not evil. Of course, if I want to actually manipulate the parse tree, I should parse the string first. But if I don't need that kind of power, there's no sense in contorting my code to fit into the awkward metaprogramming constraints of <language>.

<comment><USER2> I (also) never said it was evil, I said it doesn't scale. But that being said, I have seen many tools start out being used just as you say, benignly, in places where they offer convenience for simple cases. Open classes a/k/a monkey patching falls in this category for me: a tool that works well for certain straightforward cases. However, programmers seem to have a reach that exceeds their grasp of the limitations of their tools, and over time people push the tools right out of their sweet spot and into trouble.

That's not the tool or technique's fault, of course. If people want to amend core classes with hundreds of kitchen-sink convenience methods or eval much more complex string manipulations... You might easily say that is the fault of the programmer for making a poor choice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The problem with eval is the principle of least power. He almost figured it out when he said it was too much tool for the job, but then he went on to useless metrics.

<comment><USER5> As far as I can tell, the principle of least power[1] applies to descriptive languages (HTML, RDF, etc.) that are meant to store information. A program by comparison is meant to store instructions. I'm unsure about the argument you're making. Can you elaborate a bit?

[1] For those that had to look it up like I had to: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_Least_Power>

<comment><USER4> I recommend treating it as a spectrum instead of boolean. Eval is considered harmful for a similar reason as to why GOTO is: it makes code harder to prove and to manipulate. Markup and data on one end of the spectrum can be endlessly manipulated, analyzed, and worked with. As we move up the power spectrum, we get to regular languages, stack languages, and finally Turing-completeness. Within Turing-completeness, though, there are still varying levels of how hard something is to work with. Yes, the halting problem means that you can't for any behavior determine whether an arbitrary program exhibits that behavior, but there are still subsets about which you can reason.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'd figure that eval is in the same class as goto and for example Pythons vast dynamicness and metaprogramming abilities. Let's call this class the class of extremely powerful programming constructs.

A GOOD programmer can use such an extremely powerful programming construct and write good, readable code with it which just makes you go 'wow, this is ... just clean, and I get what it does in a second', which is nicer than any code one might produce without using these tools, even though everyone knows that this class of control constructs can create a horrible mess.

However, a BAD programmer can take this class of extremely powerful programming constructs, and create a horrible mess which requires more time to understand than a rewrite would take (more than once, probably).

And now, the third fact you need to add into the mix is: Bad programmers usually don't think they are bad programmers. The realization 'I am actually a pretty bad programmer' is one major step on the path to being a good programmer, as absurd as it sounds. Thus, a good programmer will usually not use this class of extremely power programming constructs, because he knows that he will probably produce a mess with them (and probably miss some really nice solutions), while a bad programmer will probably use them happily, thinking he produces clean and nice code (but he is not).

And this is the reason why gotos, evals and mind-bending meta-programming is not always bad, and not always evil, but we must not admit this, because otherwise, everyone will start using it :)

(yes, I am aware that this is some sort of black/white-imaging and the solution is somewhere in the middle for everyone, but it shows the point much nicer)

</comment><comment><USER7> Well, conference slides and large-scale applications are two different things. The advantage of the MOP manipulation is that it's composable. If you want to add another function to the module, you just call a method. If you want to make the process configurable, you take a callback as an argument and call it as you are building the module. It's just programming.

eval, on the other hand, is limited to whatever string the programmer types in. This may be shorter for a conference slide, but probably more painful in Real Software.

</comment><comment><USER8> Is it just me or does the closure version read more clearly?

<comment><USER9> It seems the purpose was to show three module definitions and then and then talk about them - in which case both the eval and meta versions are complete gibberish since they have absolutely nothing to do with his expository goals. Both basically amount to 'let me show you some cute Ruby code that would generate the code that I could have just shown you on three slides. Instead of showing you three slides, though, I'd like you to become a Ruby interpreter for a few moments'. This seems almost purposefully obtuse.

As to eval itself, it's obviously not 'evil'. But nontrivial use can make code unreadable:

      doSomeStuff()
      eval(someVar)
      doOtherStuff()

this can be read as

      doSomeStuff()
      doPrettyMuchAnythingConceivable()
      doOtherStuff()

This neatly removes any ability to effectively reason about the code.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The practical problem with eval() is that people overuse it. This led me to once find a wonderful little code fragment written by a codeveloper that, when boiled down, was:

      eval(":" + symbol.to_s)

which converted a symbol to a ... symbol.

</comment><comment><USER11> The standard Ruby interpreter never releases memory to system once it allocates it. Ever. This is expected behavior.

One of the founders of Twitter mentioned seeing an Engine Yard guy copy a 500 meg file from one machine to another. That instance of the interpreter allocated 500 megs and wouldn't let it go till it is killed.

All this is the result of Ruby having to support Eval().

I love Ruby. I don't program in it anymore and I think that's tragic. I can see how Lisp is great just in the since that in a homoiconic language, eval is OK.

But Ruby is nice and so much more intuitive, productive and beautiful and _welcoming_ than those homoiconic langs.

Perhaps this is why _why vanished... The Marcel Proust of the 21st century needs to write a tragic .... _user's manual_ on the subject.

<comment><USER12> Sorry, maybe i'm just not thinking clearly this late at night. Why in the world is supporting eval related to hanging on to 500 megs of unused memory?

Ruby is neat and all, but is there really anything in ruby that's not dressed up smalltalk? Squeak doesn't randomly hang on to 500m, afaik.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> The only thing missing from eval() is a keyboard shock to the programmer who tries to put a GOTO inside of it.

<comment><AUTHOR> It does... except that the shock is lazy and is only felt by the next person trying to understand it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Yeah, it's not evil ( <http://boston.conman.org/2009/08/30.1> ). Nope, not in the slightest ( <http://boston.conman.org/2009/09/07.1> ).

<comment><USER15> I think you have missed "quite" from the title, and this bit from the article:

 _I hear two complaints most often when this talk comes up. The first is that eval() is dangerous. That usually means that we could take in some malicious code from a user and pass it into eval() where it would destroy our hard drive, or worse. Only, I'm not doing that. I made the variables here and user input is not involved. I think we're safe this time._</comment></comment>


App for Learning Foreign Languages - <AUTHOR> Hey! What mobile/web applications do you use for learning foreign words and phrases? <comment><USER2> DuoLingo [0] seems good for many languages and is totally free.

Alternatively one might try Drops [1], which also is nice, but you only have 5 minutes a day of free practice. You'd need a subscription to exercise more every day. Drops might offer some different languages compared to DuoLingo. For example I haven't been able to learn Thai on DuoLingo, but on Drops Thai lessons are available.

\---

[0]: [https://www.duolingo.com](https://www.duolingo.com)

[1]: [https://languagedrops.com](https://languagedrops.com)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! I will try DuoLingo :)</comment></comment>


A key to democratizing urban solutions is building better models - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/sidewalk-talk/a-key-to-democratizing-urban-solutions-is-building-better-models-7ecc9eea7908 <comment><AUTHOR> I'm part of the Model team at Sidewalk Labs. Happy to answer questions</comment>


Jesus Christ was also misunderstood, Masayoshi Son tells investors - <AUTHOR> https://www.ft.com/content/d01fe70a-598f-4e6f-becc-2a002d6187b8 <comment><AUTHOR> > Mr Son, who has in the past quoted Yoda from the Star Wars films and urged > investors to "listen to the Force", also suggested the Beatles had not been > popular when they first started.</comment>


Delivering Octicons with SVG - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/blog/2112-delivering-octicons-with-svg <comment><USER2> Does this cause the HTML sent over the wire to be bloated, i.e. the svg for the same icon could be repeated multiple times on the same page?

<comment><USER3> I expect that gzip would make the over the wire price for repeated icons insignificant.

<comment><USER4> Yes and no.

The repetitions would have to appear within 32KB of each other to be captured in the DEFLATE window [1] which, given that a lot of pages can be 100s of KBs of _uncompressed_ text, may make that impossible.

Additionally, the zlib (or whatever) compression settings would have to be set aggressively enough to identify those duplicates as the best run-lengths to encode. Since GitHub is generating a lot of this live and delivering with low TTFB, they may be using a less aggressive than necessary setting.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEFLATE#Duplicate_string_elimi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEFLATE#Duplicate_string_elimination)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> We Atom community developers have used a lot of Octicons due to the github heritage. I hope the Atom developers provide some easy conversion utility like github used internally.

</comment><comment><USER6> Icon fonts are awful. I'm glad GitHub made this change.

I see a bug in repository page: [http://i.imgur.com/GdyeFXK.png](http://i.imgur.com/GdyeFXK.png)

</comment><comment><USER7> > We can animate them

> We're not saying we should, but we could, though SVG animation does have > some practical applications—preloader animations, for example.

FYI SVG animation is deprecated in Chrome 45 and later. You'll want to use CSS animation instead.

See [https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/SVG/SVG_animati...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/SVG/SVG_animation_with_SMIL)

Main thing is now you can't animate SVG in 'before' or 'after' pseudoelements.

</comment><comment><USER8> Curious if they have any fallback for the very few browsers that can't render inline svg.

<comment><USER9> SVG support is nearly universal now: [http://caniuse.com/#feat=svg](http://caniuse.com/#feat=svg) \-- plus, the icons aren't necessary for the UI to function, so perhaps they've forgone the fallback.

<comment><USER10> I wonder, do more people use an old browser or disable web fonts? <IE8 could be a lot of people.

<comment><USER11> My content blocker disables them on my iPad

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Icons kind of suck when you can just use text which is smaller and more descriptive. This is definitely an improvement over using webfonts for custom icons though.</comment>


IT workers need a union - <AUTHOR> http://www.networkworld.com/forum/2001/0604faceoffyes.html

<comment><USER2> _Blain is president of WashTech, a Seattle affiliate of the Communications Workers of America._

A link to the opposing viewpoint is cited at the end of the article.

Personally, I prefer to retain all of my bargaining control, rather than delegating it to another entity.

Furthermore, I do not understand the "us-vs-them" attitude that is pervasive in the pro-union mentality. I have stock in my company: I _am_ them.

<comment><USER3> We're all on a site centered around the idea that we want to be _them_ , but that's simply not the case everywhere. Sure, you may own stock in your company and be great pals with 'em, but what about normal people who work for large organizations that pay them by the hour and screw them over?

<comment><USER4> Then why work for "them"? Are there really that many IT workers who work for large organization who pay by the hour and screw them over? Is this some kind of IT assembly line? At every company I've worked at that had an IT department, we were an extremely small percentage of the employees or management didn't want to dedicate resources to something that they didn't perceive was core to the business or the company's core competency (either because the IT group was really good and there was no need for more people, or because management didn't see the value in more technical bandwidth).

The last thing I want is to be considered a scab because I know what I'm worth and am willing to work for someone who recognizes that but doesn't recognize collective bargaining. It's not like technology positions require a huge capital investment, in things like factories or real estate (thus reducing worker mobility), and the workers are largely interchangeable cogs (we're not, no matter what management would wish). If a company wants to replace me with someone cheaper in order to save money, well, I'm not sure that's a place I want to work anyway. And if they can find someone just as good as me who is willing to takes less, well, that's just good business (meaning: I can't really fault them for doing the same thing I would) -- maybe then I'd need to sell myself better.

From the OP: _In some cases it works out that way. But in many cases, years of 60-hour weeks and taking classes on your own dime to keep up with technology leave you in the unemployment line, after being laid off with no notice._

I don't know many technology workers who are laid off without notice for reasons other than the company being in dire straights anyway. And this is often bad management (yuck!), or an unsustainable business (equally bad).

Companies I've worked that had "continuing education" options were usually along the lines of certifications, which were mainly about being able to charge more for my work to clients because I was certified -- after all, they're running a business here, not putting people through school. And even if you are paying for taking classes out of your own pocket, they only serves to INCREASE your marketability if you get laid off, so taking classes or learning on your own is in your own best interest anyway. Paying for it yourself means you aren't beholden to the company either.

Admittedly, the OP is talking about _contract_ work as the form of hourly work. How many people get hired for contract work that collective bargaining at a single company would make a difference? Contractors are usually in for temporary (time limited) work anyway, which is not "being fired" unexpectedly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Perhaps someone with more knowledge of them can speak to this, but I know in some circles there is a belief that unions tend to commoditize their workers, practice if not in theory.

I do not know if that is true, but I do know that I absolutely do not want my services to be a commodity. I work hard to try to get into the upper echelons of a highly differentiated field, and I would seek to either differentiate myself or change fields to a more differentiated one if it began to appear that my services could easily be commoditized.

</comment><comment><USER6> Unions are great when they are needed. The problem with unions is that once they are not needed anymore they don't go away.

<comment><AUTHOR> Corporations and governments are great when they are needed. The problem with corporations and governments is that once they are not needed anymore they don't go away.

<comment><USER7> Let's see if I understand the logic.

A is a bad idea. B shares the characteristics that make A a bad idea, therefore we should do B.

Wrong.

The fact that unions, govts and corps tend to go bad is not an argument for expanding any of them. It's an argument against expanding all three of them. The continued existings of broken {unions, corps, govts} is not an argument for creating new {unions, corps, govts}.

Interestingly enough, I've never had a corp tell me that I couldn't do biz with another corp, union, or govt. Unions, on the other hand, exist to keep me from doing biz with a corp.

Yes, govts are even more pervasive in their "you can't deal with" powers, but that's not much of an argument for unions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Local 1337 demands more red bull and pizza.

</comment><comment><USER9> Yeah... look how well that works for the US auto industry. Hey, maybe we could fail too & get a bailout!

<comment><AUTHOR> The US auto industry was badly mismanaged; SUV craze, killing off electric vehicles or assuming they had no future. The unions can't run the company for you, management has to do it. The unions made sure the employees got paid enough to do their work. Whether or not it was the _right_ work to do was up to management.

Also, banks and insurance companies got far larger loans than the US auto industry: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program#P...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program#Participants)

The unions wanted to keep the auto workers employed and that's kind of hard to do when the companies go to shit (mainly because of management). It may sound anti-free-market to you, but then you have to consider the bansk got larger loans. How is that a free market? Why not just let them all fail?

So yeah, I would say the union works pretty well for auto industry workers. Unions never sit well with management because their business is to cut costs and maximize profit, employee welfare be damned.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> No thanks.

<comment><AUTHOR> Why "no thanks"?

<comment><USER10> Because, as a relatively high achiever, A union will only serve to bring me down/prevent my advancment. I see no reason why I would want to encourage that.

<comment><AUTHOR> __Not all unions are like that. __

In the IT world, a union could only be used for collective agreements so that the contracts don't include unacceptable clauses. Some people are afraid to say something about a contract because they're afraid they won't be hired or they're afraid they'll get fired if they're an employee.

Start a union that doesn't bring down or limit someone's advancement.

<comment><USER7> > Not all unions are like that.

How about 3 examples that are more than 30 years old. (Unions tend to last as long as the host, which is a problem for the UAW.)

<comment><AUTHOR> I can't because I don't know enough about all the diff types of unions. In any case, that's irrelevant. What you're suggesting is that having an ideal and working towards it is a waste of time.

<comment><USER7> > I can't because I don't know enough about all the diff types of unions.

In other words, you don't know enough to support your position. There's nothing particularly wrong with that, but ....

> In any case, that's irrelevant. What you're suggesting is that having an > ideal and working towards it is a waste of time.

It's quite relevant. Unions have been tried many times and the end result has always had certain characteristics. If you're going to argue that this time will be different, you have to explain why and what you're going to do different.

And that's where background knowledge is required.

No, it's not enough to "believe" - Tinkerbelle logic doesn't work in the real world.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why so few enterprise start ups? - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/sequoia-capital-jim-goetz-on-enterprise-startups-2012-9

<comment><USER2> Ssssshhh... please don't spread the word about this. We[1] are working very hard on an enterprise startup, and we'd rather keep all the dosh to ourselves, thank you.

[1]: <http://www.fogbeam.com>

</comment><comment><USER3> They're hard to sell to. While this is a _bit_ of a generalism, you need someone (or many people) full-time working on relationships and getting in the door with enterprises. (Not strictly true but a common experience.)

</comment><comment><USER4> There are actually quite a few. The reason they don't attract the younger out of college startup crowd is that the unique problems the enterprise organizations face are not well known unless you work at a few of them. That's the big secret. Once you start working, it is harder to transition and leave. Sometimes you see lower level executive departures to commercialize a technology that a bigger corp will buy.

<comment><USER5> Fully agree. Either you get sucked into working in Enterprise and have your Entrepreneurial drive beat out of you, or you never work in Enterprise and thus cannot relate to their problems.

To an Entrepreneur, Enterprise just seems slow, dusty, old. They don't realize the power behind the check & balance systems in place and the challenges of maintaining such a large organization. When you've got 10 people in a boat, you can keep them all rowing the same way with a drum. When you've got 20,0000 people all in 10-20 different boats, one drum just ain't going to cut it anymore.</comment></comment>


Adobe announces Photoshop for mobile - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.adobe.com/photoshopdotcom/2013/02/photoshop-touch-is-now-available-in-a-version-specifically-built-for-phones.html

<comment><USER2> Is it me or is this a pointless app? Seems like they are just wasting development time :)

<comment><AUTHOR> You are not alone, same thoughts here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> If it's really functional and really $4.99, does this mean everyone is going to move their Photoshopping to their mobile devices? (Or, to an emulator?)</comment>


Ask HN: Whatever happened to "Offer HN"? - <AUTHOR> Like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6382405 <comment><USER2> There's still a couple per month, just labelled differently. MVP building, design or logo work. Some looking specifically to help FOSS projects.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17499461](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17499461)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17344419](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17344419)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17497020](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17497020)

<comment><AUTHOR> Cool. Thanks for the insight.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Funny. Was just about to do one!</comment>


What I learned from four years working at McDonalds - <AUTHOR> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kate-norquay/what-i-learned-four-years-working-at-mcdonalds_b_8682928.html?ir=Parents&ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000037 <comment><USER2> Working an hourly food service job is an experience I think a lot of people could benefit from having. I didn't work at mcDonalds (have some friends who did/still do) but I worked at a pizza chain instead because my consultant business was failing (teenagers can't run businesses well).

The experience taught me a lot about what it means to be employed and have a job. You experience the day to day grind some people will experience for the rest of their life. You work with people who work 40 hour weeks and walk 5 miles home to their low-income housing supporting a family of 4. You realize these are the people who will be directly affected by legislation that may allow them to continue to live, or die.

How can we vote on these people's livelihoods without experiencing their position? How can someone who graduated high school, got paid to go to college, and graduated into a comfy high paying desk job empathize? They do not know the struggle. They do not understand the life these people live.

I work a desk job now where I don't do anything hard in exchange for a decent pay. I'm able to visit my family during holidays because I don't have to worry about being scheduled. When I'm told to go meet with a client I don't have to worry about being hit in the face with breadsticks, or worse... I try to think about my food service job frequently and how blessed I am to not be doomed to continue it for the rest of my life.</comment>


How effective is basic account hygiene at preventing hijacking - <AUTHOR> https://security.googleblog.com/2019/05/new-research-how-effective-is-basic.html <comment><USER2> The actual title on the page is "New research: How effective is basic account hygiene at preventing hijacking".

Dropping words like "account" makes a significant change to the typical connotation that a reader might be expected to derive.</comment>


Show HN: All-in-one peer tutoring management for schools - <AUTHOR> https://tutorbook.app <comment><USER2> The page seems to be marketed for schools, but it's hard to find the features I would care about as a school. It looks like I'm unable to sign up as a supervisor without some verification code, so it's hard to explore and see what features might benefit me.

Inevitably, there will also be questions about how you are different than X, it would be nice to have a feature comparison up front, so I know why I would want to choose tutorbook over something like [https://www.joinknack.com/](https://www.joinknack.com/), [https://kudocollab.com/](https://kudocollab.com/), [http://www.tutorbuddies.com/](http://www.tutorbuddies.com/), etc.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> For those who don't want to create an account: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=futh125ovR8&list=PLEzY0VQMBw...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=futh125ovR8&list=PLEzY0VQMBwhlKtJR13s_u_3vxXa9JM- C_)</comment>


Prince died amid frantic plans for drug addiction treatment - <AUTHOR> http://www.startribune.com/addiction-doctor-was-to-have-seen-prince-just-before-his-death/378051471/ <comment><AUTHOR> All I can say is:

It hurt to read that article -- but at least we know now.</comment>


William Shatner Gets Booted From Google+ - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/18/illogical-william-shatner-gets-booted-from-google/

<comment><USER2> Fucks sake, it looks like TC will be using the Twitter method of reporting for G+. Report on any inconsequential bollocks just for the sake of having a G+ headline.

<comment><USER3> While I agree it's a bit light on content, it's certainly news that such a big name would be blocked without even knowing what he did.</comment></comment>


Being frugal is for the rich - <AUTHOR> https://theoutline.com/post/3840/frugalwoods-frugality-millennials <comment><USER2> The word missing from this discussion is "structural" \- there are deep structural changes to how the job market and economy now works that limit the economic prospects of millennials (as a group) in ways that can't readily be overcome with thriftiness and hard work.

Here's an excerpt of the article that really clarified this for me:

"Thirty years ago, she says, you could walk into any hotel in America and everyone in the building, from the cleaners to the security guards to the bartenders, was a direct hire, each worker on the same pay scale and enjoying the same benefits as everyone else. Today, they're almost all indirect hires, employees of random, anonymous contracting companies: Laundry Inc., Rent-A- Guard Inc., Watery Margarita Inc. In 2015, the Government Accountability Office estimated that 40 percent of American workers were employed under some sort of "contingent" arrangement like this—from barbers to midwives to nuclear waste inspectors to symphony cellists. Since the downturn, the industry that has added the most jobs is not tech or retail or nursing. It is "temporary help services"—all the small, no-brand contractors who recruit workers and rent them out to bigger companies."

from: [http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/poor- millenni...](http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/poor-millennials/)

<comment><USER3> Except they also had less. This is the ... I'm not sure of the right word, paradox? duality? ... anyway, the problem/benefit of globalisation, that it leads to cheaper stuff. We all have more today, even on less money. Thought experiment: ask yourself when it was better to be poor: 1950, or 2018. In 1950 you could... go to the library? In 2018, even the very poor likely have a mobile phone, the internet, a games console, and an near endless world of entertainment.

The problem is not with income as much as costs. The NIMBYism of a lot of places inflates the cost of the main expenses like rent - where most people's money goes - and the cost of getting around, as people are forced to live further away from jobs. That was the big finding from the minimum wage hike in Seattle, that poor people where forced to travel further for work, and it cost them more. Ironically, I think that is pretty much how all cities work since crime went away. The days of the poor occupying prime real estate near a city is pretty much over.

Even sans better employment opportunities, fixing the zoning laws in most cities would lead to better lives for many people. Sadly, this NIMBYism is really hard to fight against, and often the people it hurts fight hardest for it.

<comment><USER4> The plummeting costs of technology over time make it a poor barometer for measuring wealth.

Instead of mobile phones and TVs, look at bigger items like health care, housing, and education, all of which have gotten more expensive (in the case of education, astoundingly so) even as inflation-adjusted wages have decreased.

<comment><USER5> There's a simpler test here. If you weren't sure what color your skin would be, what income bracket you'd be born into, what level of health you'd have at birth, or even what country you'd be born in, would you rather be born in 2018 or 1950?

<comment><USER6> I don't think it's that simple. When I was 15 without a doubt I would have said today.

And now at 30 I'm pretty convinced that I would have liked 1950 better. Why ? Because the space and that I know that for 30+ years my life would consistently improve, maybe even 50+ or 60+, including an actual pension etc, even if I was born black. The basic standard would be different, but the constant improvement wouldn't. I mean I'd miss my PS4 and iPad, except of course I wouldn't, not really.

Maybe I'll change my mind again.

<comment><USER5> 71% of the world's population lives on less than $10/day. You won't be getting a pension if you happen to be born black in South Africa in 1950. The world is still experiencing constant improvement. Every day across the world some 130k people achieve basic food security for the first time in their lives. The UN estimates extreme poverty will be gone across the globe by 2030. Not to mention improvements in healthcare, human rights, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The title here seems very inflammatory. The article questions whether some actions (e.g. painting your own home instead of hiring someone to do it) are truly frugal. It goes on to say that the philosophy of frugality is a handmaiden for wealthy.

Maybe so, but why would we discourage good spending habits? For example, choosing to eat one or more meals out each day versus bulk cooking is an option available to most people. Likewise, choosing to spend $800 on rent with roommates versus $1,600 for a studio or one bedroom apartment.

I'm not seeing how millenials or members of the middle class benefit by uncritically opting for more expensive options. My read on frugal culture is spend however much money you want on whatever you want, but do so eyes-wide- open. Break free from all the advertising, inertia, and "keeping up with the joneses".

Frankly I think if more people adopted this style of thinking it would have serious ramifications for the rich and their businesses built on over consumption and debt.

<comment><USER8> I guess this is the real motive behind the article:

 _But here's the thing. Regardless of intent, these Millennials are telling an older generation of elite Americans — the very people whose policies and financial decisions kneecapped the economy — what they want to hear: that everything is more or less okay, and young people just need to be more thoughtful about their money. And that's a shitty idea to perpetuate. Because whatever happens in the years ahead, penny-pinching will likely remain a lifestyle enhancement for bourgeois Millennials who possess enough money to enjoy the dividends of being thrifty. For most of us, there are no dividends: just thrift._

It's not about the advice itself -- the advice all seems pretty reasonable -- it's about the place that advice has in the story we tell ourselves about young people. I myself practice many of these thrifty tips, but I cringe to think that the blog posts that people write about them will be used to justify continuing to build a world where they are more and more necessary.

<comment><USER9> > continuing to build a world where they are more and more necessary

My grandmother can still, to this day, recount living in an apartment with no furniture except a mattress, with my grandfather who was employed as an engineer in New York. It took, by her estimate, about two years to have enough furniture before she was willing to invite over any sorts of company.

Today you can furnish an apartment reasonably with about a months worth of wages. I know this because I helped take a friend who makes a bit over minimum wage to IKEA to get all their furniture for an apartment they moved into.

The myth of decline is that - a myth. The economy is better then it has been in decades, violence is at an all time low, and jobs are widely available in many areas of the country.

I have friends who complain about the economy "being destroyed", who max out credit cards to buy brand new cars and buy expensive home theaters. I have one friend who despite making six figures a year, took a predatory payday loan because she had spent her wages on expensive unused tools.

That's not to blame "millennials" anymore than to blame any other generation. Bad financial choices have existed since the dawn of human history, but in many cases today they are choices, not pre-supposed economic outcomes. We can help correct that by teaching good finance skills (budgeting, doing things yourself instead of hiring people, focusing on cheaper hobbies, etc).

<comment><USER10> Mass produced goods including furniture is cheaper nowadays but everything else is more expensive. This includes essential things like housing and healthcare.

Further the needs have also grown: without a car it's impossible for most people to have a job

<comment><USER9> > but everything else is more expensive

Yes and no. One thing to keep in mind is inflation, so we always need to compare prices to average incomes. A house is listed as being <10k in 1940, but the average yearly salary was also <2k, and the minimum wage was $0.30 per hour.

However, things have genuinely gotten more expensive in some cases usually due not to the economy, but due to safety. That's a good thing - we no longer have asbestos and lead paint, cars are safer, and working fire alarms are a thing. However, those things do cost money. You can no longer buy an all metal box that goes 80mph without seatbelts or airbags.

I find the car claim to be somewhat of a red herring. Yes, you need a car now whereas before a bicycle might of sufficed. However, a decent car can be had for two thousand dollars - not a pretty one, but a functional one. You might be able to go cheaper if you have any mechanical ability, but we'll assume the average person doesn't have that.

In addition now of course you need drivers insurance, and you probably need to take a drivers ed course before getting your license. Those things do add cost, but they also save lives.

<comment><USER11> Yes and no.

The median home value in 1940, adjusted for inflation to 2000, was $30,600 ($2,938 pre-adjustment).[1] The median income for a man was $9,948, using the same inflation factor of 10.406639 ($956, unadjusted).[2]

The median home sales price in 2015 was about $300,000[3] while median household income was $54,000.[4]

[1] [https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/valu...](https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/values.html)

[2] [https://www.npr.org/2012/04/02/149575704/the-1940-census-72-...](https://www.npr.org/2012/04/02/149575704/the-1940-census-72-year- old-secrets-revealed)

[3] [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MSPUS](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MSPUS)

[4] [https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2016/demo/p60-25...](https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2016/demo/p60-256.html)

<comment><USER12> You're ignoring that the percentage of people living in cities has gone up by 50% (56% -> 75%) from 1940 to 1990 (couldn't find later data).

The size of homes has also gotten much bigger.

So the $30,000 home in 1940 (in today's dollar) wouldn't look anything like a $300,000 home today.

I'd be more interested to learn what a townhouse in Manhattan cost in 1940 and 2010.

<comment><USER13> And you need to count in something else, the actual changes in living standards.

Nowadays the cost (for a new house) for "utilities" (water, electricity, heating, A/C, etc.) plants/hardware is a considerable factor, as a rough estimate 20-30% of the construction costs, and a large house in the 40's would probably have had one single bathroom/WC (if any[1]) for a 3 bedrooms home. <USER13>
[1] In rural parts it was not so unusual to have an external loo

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Here's the takeaway: the frugals/similar bloggers are bad because they, "are telling an older generation of elite Americans — the very people whose policies and financial decisions kneecapped the economy — what they want to hear: that everything is more or less okay, and young people just need to be more thoughtful about their money."

While it's debatable whether everything is "more or less okay", and -- to some degree -- there are definite systemic issues preventing people from being where they want to be financially, I guarantee you that adopting this attitude ("it's not my fault I can't get ahead, the system is messed up") is going to make you worse off financially vs believing/focusing on what you can control and your own agency.

For example, I do think there are some current millennials who sort of got unlucky with the student loan/college bubble and "were told" (or believed) that they could just borrow whatever they wanted to study whatever they wanted, and it'd all turn out OK. But I'm not sure people graduating high school now nec have that excuse. And if you are graduating high school and reading this, for gods sake, please take it upon yourself to think a bit about what you might like to do and take a long, hard look at what exactly borrowing the median 10's of k's of debt might get you before you do it.

<comment><USER15> What I missed was the part where their blog says "Millennials only! Everyone else is absolved of blame!".

To hear people tell it, large swaths of the American population has a retirement savings crisis, not just Millennials (who actually have time on their side to build wealth). Their advice is universally applicable, regardless of age or income.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> American salaries are difficult to make sense of from a European perspective. The referenced average salary of $36,000/year for millennials with only a high-school diploma would be a normal entry-level salary for a software engineer in most of Western Europe, and a very good salary for experienced engineers in Eastern Europe.

Tax burden is higher here as well, and while the cost of housing is exorbitant many parts of the US, so it is in cities like Dublin, London and Paris, but without the salary adjustments you see in San Francisco, New York, etc.

This makes it difficult to understand why frugality is impossible for an American making triple the average salary of an average Czech or Croatian.

<comment><USER17> We don't have adequate public transportation (so car + car insurance + car maintenance). And our cities were never really designed to be walk-able or bike-able.

While we have compulsory health insurance not dissimilar to the German system, most areas only have one or two providers (vs. 130 of Germany) whose prices have been going up like 30% every year. We still pay out of pocket for most medicine, dentistry, emergency (like ambulances), and psychological services.

Some utilities are ridiculously expensive. Like internet can be 80$ a month for basic 2 mbps.

A large number of people are employed as contractors these days (the gig economy), which adds a 15% tax (that the employer would pay for employees) for a social security service we will likely never see, so I'm not sure the tax burden is higher. Contractors also have to pay for _all_ their own health insurance (and our cutoff for public assistance for health insurance is like 12k, not the 50k Euro like in Germany)

Which brings me to: we have to pay for our own retirement, even if not contractors most companies don't assist with that anymore, especially for entry level jobs.

<comment><USER18> You forgot the housing/rental situation too. In my area, renting is 33% - 50% of _take home pay_ (after withholding taxes), without utilities or property tax.

<comment><USER3> That is the same everywhere - worse in places like London.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I get so tired of these narratives that paint anyone who isn't wealthy as just lazy, and I especially get tired of millennials like myself being derided as just not willing to give up enough in order to succeed.

You know what, it's true. If you took a robot and gave it a ground floor job, that robot could work that job 7 days a week, 9 hour shifts, without missing a beat. It would never get sick, it would never need time off, it would just keep working. And it could eat really cheaply, just electricity really, but even if it needed food it could make and eat it's own meals, cutting spending down to pennies per. And it could do this for YEARS and have no problem at all doing so, and buy a million dollar house after doing it for a few decades.

BUT, and say it with me: PEOPLE. AREN'T. ROBOTS. No people are, regardless of which generation they're from. We get sick. We get diseases. We have car accidents. We date. We sometimes have children unexpectedly. We occasionally even, yes, get drunk. We want to go out and party, because you know, we're social animals, and doing nothing but going to work, coming home, and cooking and eating alone is fucking SOUL CRUSHING, and was never ever expected from any other generation to not be.

We're messy, emotional, unstable little things. We make bad decisions. We'll stress about our bills and then go do drugs with friends because it's the only way we can scrape ourselves together _to go do it for another day._

The fact that so many politicians and so many pundits just "don't want to deal" with the messy emotional side of being a working student, or just a low- achiever, DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE MESSY EMOTIONAL SIDE IS NOT RELEVANT. To deny any of these things, to deny they exist, to deny they are absolutely warranted, and to deny that they should be allowed because again we are all people, messy little people, is to deny what makes us human, and therefore is to de-humanize the working poor.

<comment><USER14> The thing is, most humans are not doing those types of jobs for YEARS like robots. Humans can learn on the job and acquire skills and impress their boss and get raises and maybe become the boss and apply to other jobs or find something like better. That's why it's called "ground floor", because you can move up, and most people eventually do.

The % of people making minimum wage at any given time is a snapshot, and it covers people at all stages of their lives. Are there some people working their ass off and not making it a la an Upton Sinclaire book? Sure. But that's not most people. In fact, most people (1) making minimum wage are between the ages of 16-24 and aren't going to be making that forever. And even among those who aren't, most are well above the poverty line.

[1] [https://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/report/who-earns- the...](https://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/report/who-earns-the-minimum- wage-suburban-teenagers-not-single-parents)

<comment><USER19> If an employer expects you to be available at any time for any shift, regardless of the job, then you should be paid enough to live off of that paycheck. Full stop. Whether you're feeding cats, flipping burgers, tending wounds, or just answering a phone, we have entire lines of work now where despite the fact that you're expected to always be available and never turn down a shift, you get paid bare minimum wage, and never get enough hours for benefits. It's disgusting and immoral.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> While it's kind of unrelated to the overall point of the article, it includes the statement, " _According to the Federal Reserve, Millennials in their twenties carried an average debt of $22,135 last summer._ "

The linked Federal Reserve article[1] doesn't seem to directly support that statement, but does say that ~55-60% of 18-29-year-old's used or are using loans to finance their own education, but that, " _Among respondents who report that they currently owe student loan debt for their own education, the mean level of this debt is $30,156 and the median is $12,000._ " (Note: that doesn't include those who have already paid off their debt.)

</comment><comment><USER20> There have long been sort of similar advice gurus in this space. "How to survive without a salary" and "The Tightwad Gazette" come to mind.

Some things they seem to have in common:

1\. A married couple on the same page financially.

2\. Both worked and saved before having kids.

3\. Decided to move to the country to live more cheaply.

4\. Developed a source of income that was portable such that moving to the country didn't leave them stuck with some underpaid local job.

If you study history, part of the secret to the success of the parents of the Boomers is they were two income families during WW2 because of the men being off at war and the women taking factory jobs. Savings rates were as high as 50 percent due to basically war time rationing. So there wasn't anything to spend it on. With the guys off at war, babies were mostly not being conceived.

So, if you can marry the right person, get on the same page financially, both work full time at something better than slave wages while not yet having any children and socking away the dough, you, too, can have this American dream. The reality is very few people can check all those boxes and if anything goes wrong at any point, the entire thing can be derailed.

Please note, this sort of assumes that neither partner has serious health problems or any addictions or needs tons of therapy for some reason. It assumes nothing goes drastically wrong while you merrily work towards your dream, such as an unexpected pregnancy that could derail your plans even if you get an abortion.

No matter how bad your situation, there are a few takeaways worth noting. Celibacy, paying down debt and making sure you jibe well with anyone close to you are all excellent choices that tend to benefit the bottom line.

But, you know, much easier said than done.

</comment><comment><USER21> Over the past few weeks, a long-running thread has been building on the Mr. Money Mustache forums at [https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the- forum/what'...](https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the- forum/what's-up-with-the-frugalwoods/)

(Mr. Money Mustache isn't too different from the FrugalWoods. They never made quite so much money, but they did have good careers. Still, there's a similar message to be heard.)

I get that the high income and extravagant Vermont estate are a turn off for median-and-below earners, but that doesn't mean you have to have their income to benefit from their frugality. After all, MMM and FW have the time to write about frugality because of their financial independence. But they are able to live _the lives they want_ due to the choices they made with their money.

It isn't hard to find counter-examples. How often do you hear of people that make $300k/year, yet fail to accumulate wealth and achieve financial independence? How often do they continue to be held to wage slavery to support their chosen lifestyle?

Anyway, while you can't save money by not painting your kitchen, you can improve upon your self-sufficiency, and you can certainly become more mindful of your values and the choices you make with your money. It takes education (self or otherwise), and financial bloggers can serve as source of education. But you still have to learn how to filter and apply knowledge to your own situation. You can't pluck fruit from an orchard in your 600 sq. ft. apartment, but you can track your spending, and figure out where money is being spent on things that don't line up with your values and long-term goals.

The important thing is to figure out what you _can_ do to improve your situation. Complaining about people being more successful than you doesn't improve your situation. (I do get that income inequality is a whole other issue to address, but I think that muddies this specific message.)

Remember that you can probably find ways to be more frugal and mindful, and know that doing so alone will not get you a 66-acre homestead at the age of 30, but it can improve your life and get you to your goals faster.

<comment><USER22> beware of "frugal / FIRE bloggers" because they make their money blogging, and aren't financially independent (last time I checked, MMM was a working carpenter/contractor, while claiming he's "retired" because he "enjoys his work"), which is not an avenue open to their entire audience.

<comment><USER23> He is a carpenter because he saved enough money as a software engineer to do whatever the fuck he wanted and he wanted to build shit with his hands. Does financial independence somehow only count if you opt sit on your ass all day?

<comment><USER22> Having a job you like isn't "financial independence", it's having a job you like.

<comment><USER23> Financial Independence = Living Expenses < Stream of Income From Assets You Own

That's it.

What you choose to do with your time, whether that be work, or whatever, does not enter into that equation. If you think MMM is lying about being financially independent, then that's a different story. But that he chooses to work has no bearing on his financial independence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Living in Eastern Europe, I was able to witness the streamlined shift to a Western consumerist lifestyle in a mere 15 to 20 years. There was a saying in communist Bulgaria, "having money doesn't mean that there is anything you can spend it on". This encouraged people to save and have longer-term goals. Fast forward to today, everyday spending opportunities are beyond every corner, and people prove that they are successful in life with outward and vulgar consumerism which was probably a 70s thing in the West.

<comment><USER25> It's still very much a thing here. Curbing that habit is one of the things these bloggers talk a lot about, since doing that helps you save much more.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.

— Terry Pratchett, Men at Arms

<comment> concrete-faucet > The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they > managed to spend less money.

This really isn't as crazy as it may sound. When my spouse was working in BigLaw, we rarely paid anything for weekends out. A typical case was a "charity gala" at a downtown hotel. A law firm partners would buy the tickets for an entire table but would inevitably be working and couldn't go. Even if he could, he still needed 6 or 8 other people so his table didn't have empty seats, which would be very embarrassing. So the call would go around - who has time to attend a free party? Me, that's who. The bar would be stocked with top-shelf liquor only, food was provided and excellent. The catch? You have to know people to get invited. And you have to be able to show up in a perfectly- fitting tuxedo with only a few hours notice. So you buy one, and it needs to be pretty good because you're going to wear it 20-30 times a year. Amortized out, an Armani costs a fraction of a rental.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I was expecting the article to say how they've inherited a massive amount of money or how their parents paid for their education/first home/etc., which made them deciding to go frugal by achieving financial independence a hell of a lot easier. I didn't see any of that.

Furthermore, the author doesn't fully explain how these two were "rich" before pursuing their journey to frugality aside from purchasing a home in Cambridge (which was a smart decision and is definitely possible with a dual-income tech salary in the area, assuming they didn't have debt to begin with).

There are definitely people that are able to live extremely frugally with sizeable salaries and achieve large goals/financial independence in a considerably short amount of time. However, like building a beach body, the question is always "How much are you willing to sacrifice to get it?"

For many (myself included), the answer is "not enough."

<comment><USER11> A dual-income tech salary may well qualify as rich. The median household income in MA is about $75,000 (much higher than the national median). That's also about what the median software developer is paid. ([https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Software_Developer/...](https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Software_Developer/Salary/13e3c9be/Boston- MA))

<comment><USER27> That's fair. I agree that a dual-tech-income is a lot of money compared to the national average.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> This article keeps trying to make fun of the concept, claiming it's not real.

And yet, I know several people who have done exactly that (more quietly obviously). And several who tried and failed.

The difference? It's debt.

If you can avoid debt completely this really does work, but it takes a LOT of sacrifice on your part to get there.

It's basically a real life form of min-maxing in games. Minimize all pleasure and ease at the start of life, and never get into debt.

Then once you are past that part suddenly it's all easier.

</comment><comment><USER29> Count me in the 'skip the Starbucks and buy index funds' category.

Over time, it will make you much richer than you'd otherwise be. It really works.

</comment><comment><USER30> If you look up the dudes nonprofit income it's like 300k. These people are either liars or incredibly nieve

</comment><comment><USER31> So some people in a particular generational cohort write books and blogs about their financial independence, but this is bad because it trivializes the actual struggles of other people in their cohort who aren't financially independent? Oh, the horrors!

<comment><USER32> they're usually bullshit because they fail to emphasize outside income and support.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I started saving at about 6. My dad did the numbers to show me how much I could have by retirement. After inheriting a little from my grandparents and saving that too, and after saving as much of my income as possible, it paid off (literally).

<comment><USER34> You make it sound as if this were an entirely deliberate practice of self control on your part. :) Were there safeguards that protected you from yourself?

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Whoa, I just realized I've been retired for four years now! Words used to mean something. If retired is a full time job and self employment, no one told me. It's not bad but it's way overrated and certainly not happiness. My mom is retired. She can literally do nothing all day every day. These people are not retired, they're lying.

And referencing Warren Buffett's shit breakfast advise without considering the money needed to budget for the inevitable health disaster of eating a sugary breakfast at McDonald's every day is frankly ridiculous.

</comment><comment><USER36> Why can't I start scrolling on that website? I have to pull it with the scrollbar past some initial barrier... WHY?

</comment><comment><USER34> One's frugality is another's sustenance

</comment><comment><USER37> I realize that TFA is a critique of these silly people, but somehow reading the first two paragraphs seemed to be as much as I would ever need to know about them.

</comment><comment><USER38> I'm glad the wouldn't let something as Patently Right Wing as "being thrifty" to escape their journalistic gaze.

it's super important to make sure that no stone goes unturned in the constant battle to find out who's keeping them down over there on "The Great Left".

/s

<comment><USER32> There's nothing wrong with being thifty, but there is a lot of wrong in using "you're not thrifty" to explain systemic income inequality

<comment><USER38> if any portion of success can be explained by patterns of behavior, then portions of "systemic" income inequality can as well.

I'm emphatically _NOT_ suggesting that poor people are only poor because they don't understand how to balance a checkbook, avoid predatory loans, and how to use the tax system to their advantage.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I would also make the economic argument that a rich person that is still frugal is actively exacerbating income inequality.

If Warren Buffett is indeed still paying only $3 for breakfast every day, that's giving a big middle finger to the economy. Money is half of the circulatory system of the economy. When it pools too long in one spot, it clots, and then a thrombosed clot can cause damage somewhere else.

He really needs to spend more on breakfast. As one of the richest individuals on the planet, even if he just wants a sausage muffin, it should really be made from only the highest quality agricultural goods, with a lot of personal services added. If he can't manage to swallow that level of ostentation, buying thousands more of the consumer-grade item than he could eat personally would also work.

The only reason for poor people to permit rich people to continue existing is that concentrations of wealth allow for the development of novel classes of goods and services. There would be no luxury yachts if nobody could afford more than a fishing reefer. There would be no Acura if nobody could afford more than a Honda; no Lexus above Toyota; no Cadillac above GM. The luxury goods and services are the early adopters. Without them, some technologies would have died at inception, never to make it to consumer-grade products, because they were too big and expensive.

Anyone can spend small. Everyone else needs the rich folk to spend big, whenever they can. If you don't buy _the best_ , you are not doing your job as a rich person. If you aren't spending on someone's wage, you aren't really "creating jobs". If you can afford to have your cabinets painted instead of doing it yourself, hire someone for that and get back to being the QC/beta- tester for humanity's R&D. This crap where you "retire" and pretend to be rustic and homey isn't helping anyone. If you want to live like a poor person, that's easy; just get rid of all your money. Give it to someone more willing to spend it.

Frugality stops once you can pay all your bills from your paycheck and still have some left. After that, it's called stinginess or miserliness.

<comment><USER40> I fundamentally and vehemently disagree with you.

<comment><USER41> Why?

He is fundamentally correct. If you are rich and decide to stop hiring people from your community to build extensions to your already large house, then the money is just going to be pooling in your over-sized bank account: potentially just being deployed by a bank to create profit for other rich people.

<comment><USER40> Although you are correct that money I don't spend remains in my possession, I disagree that there is any morale obligation to spend as much as possible. Overconsumption is not a viable solution to many problems.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


A world without planes - <AUTHOR> http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8626000/8626927.stm

<comment><USER3> The travel times are unduly pessamistic. Australia is an edge case - <USER2> reason that travelling London to Australia takes so long is largely due to poor overland connections after you reach southeast Asia. You can travel by train from London to e.g. Beijing in around 10-11 days.

London to Rome can be done comfortably and cheaply by train in under 24 hours. Some people prefer this to flying.

The website seat61.com has a huge amount of info on travelling internationally by rail.

Also I suspect rail travel would suddenly recieve a lot of investment should air travel become impossible.

<comment><USER4> Yes, in a true plane-free world you'd probably get from London to Sydney by taking a train to Shanghai or Bangkok or something and then catching a ship to take you the rest of the way.

Or with a bit of high-speed rail development, get a train to India, a boat across the Indian Ocean to Perth, and then a two-day high-speed train across Australia.

This actually sounds like fun the first time, but if you had to do it regularly you'd be missing the 23 hour plane ride pretty quick.

<comment><USER5> Travel itself should be quite ok even regularly, it certainly wouldn't be just siting in your seat for 2 days and looking out of the window, more like a hotel on rails. But I'd very afraid of bureaucracy: entry visa, transit visa, various railway companies and their mess of various offers and discounts… Land trip across Asia means passing through countries like Iran, China or Russia. And given how unkind seems rail travel even within EU's borders (where only the last problems applies, and you can get all schedule informations you need by just typing your destination at <http://oebb.at> or similar site) for many people, and not because the length of the trip.

On the other hand, it would be wonderful business opportunity for travel agencies. And much more interesting than just booking the right plane. I almost want it to happen :-)

<comment><USER4> Last December I flew SFO to Buenos Aires to SFO to Sydney to SFO in the space of a month. If I'd done that via land and sea I would have spent the whole month on a vehicle. (Actually it kinda felt that way anyway).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Very eloquent.

The thing that has surprised me with all these Airplane groundings is the number of companies who say they could go out of business. One of the smaller firms has said they will be effectively bankrupt if they can't start flying on Monday. I just heard Easyjet on the radio saying they need to fly at least 2 weeks in the next month to avoid "financial instability".

I know the aviation industry is struggling but didn't realise they were _that_ close to the wire.

<comment><USER7> I hope we don't have a disaster because aviation authorities were pressured into opening the skies too early.

<comment><USER6> That's what's concerning me too.

It's partly ironic; I expect if there had been a terror attack grounded planes would be accepted, but people on the news last night seemed actually cross this was affecting them....

One guy even said (and I swear this is a quote): "but it looks clear out there, it's not at ground level is it?"

doh.

<comment><USER8> Most laypeople do think it's a problem with visibility and can't understand why if planes can fly at night they can't fly through dust. That it will destroy the engines (and won't show up on radar, so you can't just avoid it) never occurs to them. I suppose it's nice to live in a world in which flight is taken for granted.

<comment><USER9> With all the media attention you would think the dangers of flying in this would have been clearly explained to everyone by now.

<comment><USER6> BBC One had a fantastic news report the other night that explained it really clearly. I was impressed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Flights were grounded _en masse_ at the turn of millennium and the bizarre quiet of the skies over the San Francisco Peninsula gave me a sort of surreal feeling that made me think, contrary to the elegiac vision of the author of this piece, "what would it have been like to have been born, lived, and died without planes, electricity, running water, and other modern conveniences and probably fallen victim to some pestilent disease by the time I was 30, just like my great-great-great grandparents did back in the villages of Greece from which they never traveled more than 25 miles during their entire lifetimes?"

It made me kind of shudder to think that this had been the lot of most of humanity throughout all the centuries and made me grateful for what we have today.

Nicely written piece, though.

<comment><USER11> The piece definitely has a quaint naivete to it.

Thinking that it's somehow the things we build which are ruining our lives rather than we creators and our priorities in building them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> > The wise elders would explain that inside the aircraft, passengers, who had > only paid the price of a few books for the privilege, would impatiently and > ungratefully shut their window blinds to the views, would sit in silence > next to strangers while watching films about love and friendship - and would > complain that the food in miniature plastic beakers before them was not > quite as tasty as the sort they could prepare in their own kitchens.

That seems arrogant and ungrateful, but he left out that airplanes tortured 4 senses and merely teased the 5th. They did not in anyway make you feel human.

<comment><USER13> But they let you _FLY_ through the _AIR_. Seriously - it's pretty awesome.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Alain de Botton is a beautiful writer... if you liked this, you'll love "A week at the airport," a whole book full of this kind of stuff from Heathrow Airport. (Currently not available in US, but you can order from Amazon UK with your US account).

</comment><comment><USER15> Time to bring back the Zeppelin.

<comment><USER16> Yay! That would be a boon for my local economic region (Bodensee, home of the Zeppelin!)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'm pleased he thinks that bees will survive.

</comment><comment><USER18> Assuming that the ash layer remains at altitudes over 32,000 ft., would not airlines eventually start flying at lower altitudes, albeit slower, with more stopovers, and more costly?

<comment><AUTHOR> IT is possible. but it will be twice slower and twice more expensive ... but yes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> High speed rail; high speed ships.

Once humanity is hooked on the fast, easy travel, I'm not convinced there's going back.

(Of course, trains still make noise and there are those who think rail lines are ugly, to say nothing of the seas of asphalt. We aren't going back to nature anytime soon.)

<comment><USER11> That fact that you think air travel fails to qualify as fast or easy shows how spoiled we are and is kind of humorous.

<comment><USER19> No, I think it does qualify as fast, at least as far as actual travel is concerned (let's not go into on the ground procedures right now). I meant that high speed rail and ships would soon be created and improved if we really didn't have the airspace anymore.

<comment><USER8> I don't think you realize just how fast planes are compared to ships. A decent speed for a ship is 20kts. An airliner routinely makes 500kts. Hours become days and days become weeks. Everyone's world becomes a _lot_ smaller unless you want to spend your entire vacation traveling.

<comment><USER19> I actually do realize that.

(Nitpick: the 747-400, "among the fastest airliners in service", has a cruise speed of 913 km/h or 493 knots, so I'd dispute the "routinely" -- but your point definitely stands.)

That's why I made it a point to include the "created and improved". Right now, it's much easier to barrel through low-resistance air. A ship twice or three times as fast as your average passenger ship will still be an inferior choice to an airplane on most (probably not all, but definitely most) routes. There is therefore little incentive to try to improve ships. In most cases, it's just not going to pay. The situation is similar for rail travel on longer routes: there's little money in making the Trans-Siberian go faster.

 _If_ we can no longer barrel through air, whether worldwide or on a selection of routes (European airports to Keflavík, for instance), suddenly making the ship or the train go twice as fast is much, much more appealing. Return on investment is much better, so investment is going to pick up.

The current airplane speeds actually help this argument. Once people are used to trips taking days, not weeks, convincing them to pay premium for something that feeds the speed addiction is easier.

I don't know what the technology will be, or how far it will go. It's very likely that it won't go as fast as airplanes. But already, with the limited reward, we have passengers ships that go over 40 knots (HSC Manannan). If I had to guess, catamarans, hovercraft-like, and ekranoplan-like technologies might play a role, but I really don't know where we'll end up. It will undoubtedly be difficult, but engineers don't roll over just because water is more viscous.

Similarly, conventional high-speed rail exceeded 300 knots in test runs. There's probably room to go up, but little reward for investment because right now you still have to compete with 400-500 knot airplanes. Once you don't, and people are willing to pay for any extra speed... who knows what will happen.

(Can you tell I'm an idealistic engineering student?)

<comment><USER8> Boeing is quoting speed _through the air_ there. With a tailwind ground speed will be higher - and airlines plot their courses to take advantage of it wherever possible (e.g. the jetstream). That's why I say "routinely".

One of the reasons the Dutch are so eager to fly again is they are the world centre of the flower business - but only if they have air freight.

<comment><USER19> Fair enough.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Very relevant Louis CK standup bit: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk- Gk&feature=playe...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk- Gk&feature=player_embedded)

<comment><USER21> Here's a better link to that same clip: <http://barefootmeg.multiply.com/video/item/56>

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Everything I've read talks about the potential for damage to jet engines. Does that extend to turbo-prop engines ?

I know they fly slower, but in a real emergency, could smaller cargo aircraft (e.g. C-130) still fly ?

<comment><AUTHOR> Turbo-prop is in the same danger (TURBO means they use turbine) Piston engines looks to be in safter zone. And prolly we can use it.

<comment><USER23> Piston engines are just as vulnerable, the only difference being that the failure mode (scouring versus glassing) is slower, so there's a somewhat better chance of survival.

As for the original question, current commercial and military cargo aircraft don't use "jet" engines anymore, they use turbofans, where the vast majority of the thrust comes from a ducted fan at the front of the engine rather than from heated and accelerated exhaust gas. The main differences between turboprop and turbofan configurations are (1) the duct, which allows far more efficient high-speed airflow at the expense of low-speed (near-static) thrust, and (2) the variable pitch and "eddy wall" (in which the turbulence of the propeller wash creates a virtual surface behind the propeller, allowing greater pressure to build up) of the propeller (as opposed to a fan), which provide a huge advantage in short takeoff and landing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> One thing for sure, even though the ash is probably not good for the environment itself, having a severe cut down on aircraft flights is good for nature.

<comment><USER25> When all aircraft were grounded over the USA after 9-11, the temperature over the USA spiked 1.1 degrees above expected. It then fell back when flights resumed.

It turns out that the contrails left by aircraft bounce some of the solar radiation back into space before it reaches the ground, which stops it being converted into infra-red and being trapped in the atmosphere.

So if global aviation ceased entirely, it would help global warming along quite a bit. Of course, the emissions would be gone, but their effect is long- term...

<comment><USER4> Got a source on that? Any strong evidence that it was a true temperature spike due to that effect rather than... y'know, the usual week-to-week fluctuations of weather?

<comment><USER26> [http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/08/07/contrails.cl...](http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/08/07/contrails.climate/)

It has nothing to do with global warming, but it's a true story.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is how it ends, not with a bang but with a whimper.

<comment><USER27> I think the volcano itself makes more of a "bang" sound. :)</comment></comment>