Heart Stents Fail to Ease Chest Pain - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/02/health/heart-disease-stents.html?_r=0 <comment><USER2> " _For the study [...] recruited 200 patients with a profoundly blocked coronary artery and chest pain severe enough to limit physical activity, common reasons for inserting a stent._

" _All were treated for six weeks with drugs to reduce the risk of a heart attack, like aspirin, a statin and a blood pressure drug, as well as medications that relieve chest pain by slowing the heart or opening blood vessels._

" _Then the subjects had a procedure: a real or fake insertion of a stent. This is one of the few studies in cardiology in which a sham procedure was given to controls who were then compared to patients receiving the actual treatment._

" _In both groups, doctors threaded a catheter through the groin or wrist of the patient and, with X-ray guidance, up to the blocked artery. Once the catheter reached the blockage, the doctor inserted a stent or, if the patient was getting the sham procedure, simply pulled the catheter out._ "

I would really like to know how they got that study past the assorted ethics committees.

<comment><USER3> "Stenting is so accepted that American cardiologists said they were amazed ethics boards agreed to a study with a sham control group.

But in the United Kingdom, said Dr. Davies, getting approval for the study was not so difficult. Neither was it difficult to find patients.

"There are many people who are open to research, and if you tell them you are exploring a question, people agree," he said. Nonetheless, it took him three and a half years to find the subjects for his study.

Ethics boards at many American hospitals probably would resist, since giving such patients fake procedures "flies in the face of guidelines," Dr. Boden said."

<comment><USER4> In a practical sense, I wonder how they'd successfully do it in the US.

Stents cost on the order of $11k-$44k per the article. Wouldn't you just know from looking at your bill afterward whether you got the stent or not?

<comment><USER5> A simple way around that would be to pay for them so that no patient was billed for one.

<comment><USER6> Is there not a problem that in the US it would encourage people who otherwise couldn't afford the operation to opt for the "riskier" trial, even if they'd really prefer not to. Whereas in the UK, they would have received the operation free in or out of the trial, therefore the patients financial situation wouldn't factor in to their decision to join. Which feels significantly more ethical to me.

<comment><USER7> In theory you either have insurance that should cover this (more than 90% of Americans are covered), or else you'd be too poor to really even be able to afford such an operation or medical care. The system sucks, but I don't think the way the system is set up would cause a significant number of people to use free research for medical alternatives.

<comment><USER4> Even if you have insurance you get a statement from your insurance provider detailing how much everything cost and how much of it insurance paid for.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Stents are an incredible piece of engineering, but probably are over-used (particularly in the USA). There are a few issues at play:

-Chest pain

-Artery narrowing

-Heart attack risk

They aren't the same, although there is correlation between each. The original idea behind stents was to stabilise vessels in the process of a heart attack. They are increasingly used in a preventative way - but the problem is there aren't very many or good tools to tell how at risk an individual is to a heart attack.

Another major problem (as the article mentions) is that stents improve the situation in one artery, but most patients that need a stent have atherosclerosis in multiple vessels. This likely explains why the chest pain remains.

<comment><USER9> I'm a little confused by this. Patients can get stents in multiple arteries during one cath lab session. Generally it's a diagnostic cath at first, finding all blockages, and deciding which vessels should be ballooned/stented. I've been in multiple procedures (shadowing, not performing) where they did 2+ vessels.

<comment><USER8> Agreed that multiple stents and multiple vessels can be stented in one cath session. My point was more that there isn't very strong evidence or criteria for what constitutes a vessel that should be stented versus which should not. Worse, plaques are dynamic – what looks benign today could rupture and cause a complete/near occlusion. Rupture and subsequent thrombosis is more dangerous than stenosis itself.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Previous research showed that stents increase lifespan only in patients who have already had a heart attack.

</comment><comment><USER11> They only assessed the patients after 6 weeks. It would be interesting what a longer follow up of the patients would reveal.

</comment><comment><USER12> A 6-week study of 200 people.

Why is this news?

<comment><USER13> I once read a study that the half life of truth in medicine is 20 years. Namely in 20 years roughly half of the things we identified as truth are overturned. Examples? Fat clogs arteries. Cholesterol clogs arteries. LDL causes heart disease. High blood pressure causes atherosclerosis. All of these "truths" have been debunked in the last 30 years or so. Apparently there are many more. Stents save lives? There's 50% chance you'll be proven wrong in ~20 years! Maybe much sooner.

<comment><USER14> When I was at med school 7 years ago we were told for years. I thought it was just a way of saying that medical knowledge increases so quickly, but then whilst I was there we had:

\- Total change in how we manage chest pain/heart attacks (moving from previous full/partial thickness infarction to STEMI/NSTEMI and totally revising treatment algorithms

\- Introduction of ipilumimab for melanoma (changed metastatic melanoma from a condition with 6 month average survival to 5 years/chronic disease

\- Introduction of cure for help c (previously followed the rule of 20 and it was a chronic disease)

\- Total revision of food pyramid

\- Multitude others

I believe 4-6 years. So much changes, without CPD/CME you are useless.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Problem with NJ Probation Taking Money - <AUTHOR> I am looking for input, help, perspective, case-law that might help in the following situation.
I am divorced in NJ as of 2015. As per standard procedure, money is collected from my paycheck and sent to NJ probation who disperses it to my ex-wife for child support and alimony.
The issue is in question: NJ Probation erroneously thought I was in arrears. I got a NJ judge to vacate e.g. to tell NJ probation no money was owed. Regardless, NJ probation took money after this judgement from my Federal tax refunds, and bonuses.
I asked for that money back. Another Judge at the same court denied my request saying I'd waived my rights to it. There is no dispute the money was taken, or in the amount taken. My ex-wife and her attorney were aware that I had overpaid previous to the Judgement, and I communicated with NJ probation to no ultimate effect numerous times prior to the Judge vacating the alleged amount owed. NJ Probation told me they will not take action without a Judge's order, which I got. Nonetheless they proceeded to take money anyway.
I am appealing this case to the Appellate level. What can I do to win on appeal? <comment><USER2> Do you have a lawyer?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes and no. The lawyer who defended me in the original case and our appeal of the first decision ... Is still around. But unless I hear something that seriously suggests error of commission or omission on firm's part, I'll do the appeal myself. I've spent north of $50K to get nowhere and will not spend that kind of money again. I've fired two attorneys getting divorced for various kinds of stupidity. However I believe in this case my attorney was excellent. The fault is with the judge.</comment></comment>


Dwarf Fortress Development - <AUTHOR> http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html <comment><USER2> I know they don't want to open source it, but I wonder if they would be amenable to having a volunteer who would help organize and push the code into a version control system hosted on their private server.

In an interview I read, Tarn said something to the effect of that "he was not interested in learning about version control and it would just be a distraction that would take away time from the important work, since the way he works has worked for him for many years".

I can't help but think that first, it's a bit dangerous way to work, all "past, current and future" state of the project is only in his head and if he happens to become indisposed, the project is very very likely to die (though I suppose there would be hardcore fans willing to reverse engineer it)...

Second, it's a loss of historical record... imagine in fifty years historians wanting to analyze the project's history, it would be so much more useful to have a granular history instead of just a blob of files scattered across thousands of directories...

Just look at Unix History repository here for example: [https://github.com/dspinellis/unix-history- repo](https://github.com/dspinellis/unix-history-repo) \- I think there's immense long term value in preserving this kind of archival history.

<comment><USER3> Dwarf Fortress desperately needs multithreading and optimization for data locality. Without that it is permanently limited in scope.

But it will never ever happen. Forget it. Anyone dreaming about open source DF should go make their own game. And I mean that sincerely: Dwarf Fortress is very good, but there are even greater things that will come. Build those things!

<comment><USER4> This has somewhat happened a lot. To an extent, the entire crafting genre owes itself to DF, which inspired Minecraft, and between the two of them, a genre was born...

However, as yet, no-one's come close to the epicness of the generated world and story, even if they've made progress on the core gameplay.

<comment><USER5> I hear that claim, but do you have sources to back the fact that Minecraft was significantly influenced by DF? I mean, there was a crafting mechanic before DF, right? And not many gameplay elements from DF found their way into Minecraft at all.

<comment><USER6> [http://notch.tumblr.com/post/227922045/the-origins-of- minecr...](http://notch.tumblr.com/post/227922045/the-origins-of- minecraft#_=_)

<comment><USER7> Dead links galore, the way back version has the images, but not the games nor videos:

[https://web.archive.org/web/20091102174928/http://notch.tumb...](https://web.archive.org/web/20091102174928/http://notch.tumblr.com/post/227922045/the- origins-of-minecraft)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> For all their advancement in storytelling and worldbuilding, it is still _so_ frustrating to try and play DF today. I did not grow up with Roguelikes and ASCII characters or backwards-ass vim-style key-memorization GUI patterns, and the nostalgia that surrounds these things is simply annoying. The noob pack helps but what it really needs is for that isometric graphics mod to become a full UI layer. Mid-90s WinForms would be an improvement over what DF's got.

It is painful to see people so smart pooh-pooh something so obvious as a _useable_ UI (I won't say "decent", because "decent" nowadays is this brightly-colored material-design garbage) that isn't super painful for people who like to come and go.

<comment><USER9> Anything worth doing takes a lot of work, and Dwarf Fortress is no different. It really is a matter of putting in the hours. But thanks to dozens of radical tools, you, too, can turn your fortress into a 3D, moving world.

Treat the experience more like playing with some sort of odd micro-kernel in a VM, with tools for poking and probing it. Approach it like a software development tool, or a Linux server and it becomes a little less daunting, especially as all the letters are on the screen for quick reference, rather than in a man page.

Still, the beauty of Dwarf Fortress IS that it doesn't care about the UI. It's not for you. It's not for anyone other than it's creators. It's for Zach and Tarn. Yes, it's also for the game's fans, but the brothers have always been building the game THEY wanted to play, and doing exactly what they wanted to do. They're not beholden to a schedule, or some massive revamp required in order to make the game more accessible. They're true to their own desires and souls.

They're artists. This is their art. Yes, it is truly impenetrable, but as with almost all art, taking the time to delve deeper is uniquely and spiritually rewarding. Yes, spiritually.

<comment><USER10> > Anything worth doing takes a lot of work, and Dwarf Fortress is no > different. It really is a matter of putting in the hours.

And this is why, fascinating as it sounds, I'll never play Dwarf Fortress. I already have a job, and I get paid for it not only in satisfaction but also in money. It's awesome that they're able to devote their lives to their artwork, and I like reading about it from time to time, but in the end it's an unappealing value proposition for someone with limited time.

<comment><USER11> I agree 100%. I am very fascinated by Dwarf Fortress, but with a full time job, a family, and hobbies, I only spend a few hours every other week playing games. I donated money to them, but every time I think about actually starting to play I get intimidated by the incredibly steep learning curve. There are many other games that I can start playing and having fun immediately

That being said, I'm glad that I donated. I feel that I've gotten my money's worth just from reading about it every few months and knowing that I am supporting indie game developers. Hopefully at some point it will become more user-friendly so I can actually play it. Or maybe I should drop some hobbies...

Does anyone know how long it takes an average new player to get to the point where Dwarf Fortress is more fun than confusing and frustrating?

<comment><USER9> Honestly, just put in one long day. Throw 8 hours at it and by the end you should be having fun. Honestly. it only takes an hour or two to get going and learn the basics. The complex things are around specific functions, like military management, or the complexity comes from a task being difficult, like irrigation. Honestly, I fell in love with the game on the first day, and it took me a week or two to really learn the ins and outs so that I could begin doing complicated stuff. Again, a lot of the difficulty isn't from the UI, it's from the fact that finding out how to manage things is tough, and the fact that some of the things you're expected to do are extremely difficult to pull off, even if the UI were great. Perfect example is dealing with an acquifier: you have to dig a large, 3d plug into the ground: like a vertical box. You dig it out, but leave it connected by a small piece of land, then you dig out underneath it completely for a few Z-levels, then you dig out the last piece holding it up, and it drops into the Acquifier, making a sort of horozontal bridge layer through which you dig a staircase to the area under the acquifier.

Or, like me, you just turn off acquifiers in the Lazy Newb Packs launch options. Newbs should probably also turn off invasions.

Finally, a quick hint to help your fort flourish: ALWAYS kill the elf traders. You get all their stuff, and they never invade or get angry. They tend to come back again, actually, bringing you more cloth and food for free!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It's funny how you can look at a simple item on that list, say, 'randomly generated musical instruments' and suddenly imagine a magma-powered tuba that menaces with spikes of microcline and which has an engraving of a dwarf and dwarves in orthoclase and rat leather relating to the founding of Doomedice on the Forgotten Glaciers of Terror in 1387...

<comment><USER13> Where it falls down is that none of that has any meaning. There is no context to explain why Doomdice or the Forgotten Glaciers of Terror are significant, nor what was going on in 1387 that caused dwarves to settle in such an inhospitable place.

<comment><USER14> It all has meaning. It's not just a RNG picking off words from a list and putting them together. All created masterpieces refer to an actual event in the history. All worlds have full histories with wars, civilisations rising and collapsing, megabeasts destroying pregenerated fortresses etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This game is the masterpiece life's work of one eccentric math PHD developer, and if you have any interest in fantasy or poetry in your soul I suggest you give the game a try. The learning curve is deathly steep, so I suggest starting with the lazy noob pack: [http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/Utility:Lazy_Newb_Pac...](http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/Utility:Lazy_Newb_Pack) Strike the earth!

<comment><USER16> The learning curve is deathly steep, so I suggest starting with watching hundreds of hours of other people playing on youtube. Then getting the lazy noob pack.

<comment><USER17> The joy of DF is learning all the ways you can fail. Once you know how to set up a fort that can handle itself, the fun largely dissipates.

<comment><USER16> There's always somewhere harder to settle. There's always some new creative contraption that needs to be built.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The sense of entitlement that crops up throughout this thread amazes me.

It'd be bad enough coming from the people who actually donate the money that adds up to the steady living the Adams brothers earn by their work on Dwarf Fortress. Coming from random Hacker News commenters, many of whom hasten to add that they'd _never_ play anything with such an awful UX themselves, it is bewildering and disappointing.

Isn't this community supposed to be above such things?

<comment><AUTHOR> It is a bit discouraging. And keep in mind that the game is technically still in Alpha, everyone.

<comment><USER19> It has been in Alpha for a decade now. It's not clear if it is ever going to advance to Beta status.

<comment><USER20> Well, he has a set of goals he intends to achieve before it hits 1.0 and the version numbering currently is meant to reflect the % the brothers deem it complete. Considering they've managed to spend ten years doing the work I would say it seems possible it will, eventually, hit beta and even be 'finished'.

<comment><USER19> Well, it is currently at 0.43, and since we know that the last 10% of the project takes 90% of the time we can expect the 1.0 to release in approximately 232 years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I find it interesting that there are so many complaints about the UI / keybindings. I agree that the keybindings are a bit confusing once your start, but I didn't find them to be that difficult to master. No more difficult than say, learning to use Vim effectively.

However, certain things do become issues once your dwarf population scales past 15 or so. Checking dwarf occupations manually (e.g., to make sure that there is at least one dwarf who is currently assigned the furnace operator occupation) becomes a pain, so I'd suggest using Dwarf Therapist [0] to manage that. It also lets you quickly check other things, such as whether any dwarves are feeling particularly sad.

Also, I encourage people new to the game to check out some of the stories that the community has generated throughout DF's existence. The game's ability to generate interesting scenarios that lead to good stories to tell your friends is perhaps the most interesting part of the game. Boatmurdered [1] is a classic. Roomcarnage [2] is currently in the process of being told and is quite good.

[0]: [https://github.com/splintermind/Dwarf- Therapist](https://github.com/splintermind/Dwarf-Therapist)

[1]: [http://lparchive.org/Dwarf-Fortress- Boatmurdered/](http://lparchive.org/Dwarf-Fortress-Boatmurdered/)

[2]: [http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=139393.0](http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=139393.0)

</comment><comment><USER21> Honestly, I think eventually a central question of our time will become whether or not it is ethical to turn off dwarf fortress.

</comment><comment><USER22> This game simulates at a granularity that is light-years beyond anything else that exists, so it's only fitting that the dev notes should contain goals which are absolutely impossible to imagine in any other game.

<comment><USER23> Indeed. From engravers drawing rats on a noble's bedroom walls because they dislike said noble (who hates rats), to cats getting drunk, because dwarfs moving around would spill their booze, which would get into the cat's pawns, who would subsequently lick them... the level of detail is outstanding.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Off topic: Using `background-attachment: fixed` for your background image will cause high CPU usage as the user scrolls.

[http://fourkitchens.com/blog/article/fix-scrolling- performan...](http://fourkitchens.com/blog/article/fix-scrolling-performance- css-will-change-property)

<comment><USER25> Nah, modern browsers simply offload this to your GPU. They send the background layer to the GPU once, update the foreground as you scroll, and let the GPU composite them for display. Since this is a screen-space effect, and the fill- rate of a modern GPU is immense, this is pretty cheap overall.

<comment><USER24> Well a lot of people use Chrome and I immediately noticed a problem with the site when using Chrome, so maybe it's still something to keep in mind until it's improved.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> This article was my introduction to DF when it was originally posted on HN: [http://nytimes.com/2011/07/24/magazine/the-brilliance-of- dwa...](http://nytimes.com/2011/07/24/magazine/the-brilliance-of-dwarf- fortress.html)

</comment><comment><USER27> I love DF, played it for a long time but haven't touched it for last 1-2 years. A feew weeks ago I tried to play it again, I was excited about new features such as libraries and crafting in adventure mode.

I first started with adventure mode, and tried to make a conversation with someone... tried. New conversation system is a huge mess. Sure it is much more advanced but interface is needlessly complicated, it takes away all the fun.

I just closed DF and didn't even try fortress mode after that. I love DF but Toady's tastes with ui is too eccentric for me. I hated military UI when it came out and now this.

People doing awesome job with DF using reverse engineering. Playing it without dwarf therapist for example would be a nightmare. I wish it was opensource or at least had more modability.

</comment><comment><USER28> This looks great, but I hope they don't fall into the "manual window placement" usability trap.

There is a reason the "old-fashioned" tiling window managers are still popular. And today most applications are internally structured via tiling/splitters and tabs, rather than individual window placement. Let alone that all attempts for a "web desktop" never took off.

Alas, I don't know any authorative sources for that, but I bet that manual window placement (and most of the time, also overlapping windows) is a well- known anti-pattern of user interface design.

<comment><USER29> Dwarf Fortress has never been about its usability and user interface - it's 100% focused on the background processes that drive the game.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> How plausible would it be to take the generated executables, and get actual, readable code out of them?

<comment><USER31> It depends how much you like reading a whole ton of X86 assembly language, with all the variable names replaced with numbers.

Something that looks like the UI code has its source included with the game, so there's some info to be gleaned there. Also, any interfaces to external libraries would be fairly easy to trace.

Still: Very difficult, due to the size of the binary (21MB), and the level of painstaking attention to detail that's necessary to reverse-engineer a program from its binary. Automatic decompilers exist, but they're fairly limited, and you'd still have the issues of meaningless variable names, even in the best case.

<comment><USER32> Emscriptem has a "loop detection" feature, I wonder if you could apply that to the binary...

<comment><USER31> One classic way to handle it is to load the binary into IDA Pro (a graphical disassembly suite). That starts from the entry point of the binary and traces through as much of it as possible, noting the locations of strings, function calls, the state of the stack when functions are called, different segments in the binary, etc. It'll allow you to view the code in blocks connected by lines, which indicate branches and loops. As a dev, you can go through the code then and start working things out. With some investigation and the context of where you are in the program, things slowly start falling into place, and you can start putting names to different functions. Although...Dwarf Fortress looks like it was compiled with GCC 4.5, so I'd expect things to be pretty difficult to read, just because of non-obvious optimizations made by the compiler.

I've always thought it would be useful to have a debugger that logs all the locations that data is read from or written to during execution, and which addresses were executed as instructions. Just play the game for a while to try to get some good code coverage, and import the data as extra input into IDA (probably you'd have to write your own plugin for that too).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Toady should decouple the ui from the game so people could write a nice ui for a change. The only thing which stands between me and the game is the horrible ux.

</comment><comment><USER34> Once a year or so, I pick up DF and play for a few weeks just to see what has changed. Coincidentally, I just finished my 2016 playfest last month.

I am sold on the ASCII graphics, especially once you drop in a decent replacement set. Generating unique icons for all the bazillion different things would be a huge undertaking graphically, and you pick up what things are quickly.

Sadly, the UI (and I use the term loosely) is still, well, awful. The menu system makes no sense (sure, you can memorize where something is, but that's not what I mean), and the keystrokes seem to be randomized across menus. As others have said, there's actually a pretty good game under there these days. It's just horrible to interact with.

<comment><USER35> Is Dwarf Therapist still being maintained? (I'd look it up but I'm at work and all DF stuff is blocked by the firewall as "games") DT made the difference between playable and fun DF and endless fucking about with menus.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sure is [0]. Really grateful for it. I don't think I'd be able to play this game without using Dwarf Therapist. Generally it becomes way too difficult to manage dwarf occupation assignments once your population shoots past 15 or so.

[0]: [https://github.com/splintermind/Dwarf- Therapist](https://github.com/splintermind/Dwarf-Therapist)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Love DF. Didn't know the community was so vast. Fingers crossed for open source, definitely would add some years of playability for the kiddies.

Praise the miners!

</comment><comment><USER4> If you want to read the best stories the community has gathered from playing this game, here's a collection!

[http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=41896.0](http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=41896.0)

</comment><comment><USER37> I am thankful enough to have this incredibly fun game available to me; let's hope they can keep improving it.

</comment><comment><USER38> No offense but trying to read a list with that background burns the eyes

<comment><USER39> Not sure why you're being downvoted. I agree. Merely opening that page made my eyes and head hurt immediately so I had to close it. I get that the game isn't for me, or for you, but it's a valid thing to say. I have a minor headache because of this page, and while that's not something I would normally complain about, I think it's a perfectly valid thing to say.

<comment><USER38> I find the responses to my comment pretty great. I find the comment that "the game is not for me" particularly amusing. This game is right up my alley. I knew I would get downvoted for posting what I posted, but I feel it should be said. Contrary to what the other guy says, I feel it's a valid contribution in itself. I get that the background is the game. I get that it is a brilliant game. I get that it is a cult classic. I don't care if nobody cares. It is a fucking terrible background to read text on.

<comment><USER40> Actually, you could even mention it to the brothers, its quite possibly something they may eventually get around to fixing (if its a small enough fix).

Or you could wait till someone makes a web page which tracks and sorts all the goals into a readable tree, thus side stepping the issue all together.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I love the game and have played it many times over the last 5 or so years... But does anyone else feel kind of betrayed/insulted that the project is not open source? The team is mostly just supporting 1 or 2 core devs who take years to release new features - and for a while now tools like dfhack are basically required to play the game.

The game has a huge community of fans but no one can contribute in any meaningful way. I dunno I find it mildly frustrating.

<comment><USER42> I don't think he even uses source control, so I imagine the code is not the cleanest.

<comment><USER43> I wonder how many self-conscious developers are out there, that don't release their source code for fear it having glaring flaws that will bring the wrath of their peers upon them.

<comment><USER44> I know a professor working on a potentially important project that won't release his code and I suspect it's precisely for this reason. The communuty would tear him apart for sure, but it would be worthwhile to release it anyway.

<comment><USER45> This is a real problem in academia and not just because of superficial coding- style issues that the authors might be fearing criticism for. There is a real probability of serious bugs. There have been papers that have had to be retracted because the analysis software used was later discovered to have bugs that caused incorrect results (things being called statistically significant that weren't, and so on).</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Will AirBnb Go Bankrupt? and When? - <AUTHOR> https://thehftguy.com/2020/03/23/will-airbnb-go-bankrupt-and-when/ <comment><USER2> Of course they'll live. It's wildly profitable net of R&D and silicon valley has plenty of capital to support them.

My favorite quote: "bankers give you an umbrella then take it away when it rains. VCs give you an umbrella then charge double in the rain."

</comment><comment><USER3> > Conclusion

> AirBnb will be alright, don't worry.

> Individual employees, not so much. Take care.

<comment><USER4> I came back here to mention exactly the same quote. The title is really misleading. The whole idea is to show AirBnb will cut jobs, the question is how many (the article mention it could be as high as 2/3).

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> There is a difference between revenue and transactional value! In the industry it seems that the revenue rate is ~10%. We can look at HomeAway for example - acquired by Expedia in 2015, for 3.8bn, 2014 revenues were ~$446.8m ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HomeAway](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HomeAway)), for about 500 - 1k employees (can't find any data on this). [https://ir.expediagroup.com/?ReleaseID=880362](https://ir.expediagroup.com/?ReleaseID=880362) does not list any information on Hotels.com generated revenues. But overall, Expedia generates ~450k/employee, and I'd expect this to be the norm, maybe higher for Hotels.com, by max 50%. The writer has no business knowledge and is generally uninformed when it comes to the requirements of managing a vastly complex company. For Airbnb, maybe 20-30% of people are working in customer support from India, and get paid $5000/year. An average is not a good indicator of a company's ability to make money

</comment><comment><USER6> A very interesting question.

Like the title suggests, perhaps it depends how long this outbreak will last and how much longer Airbnb can afford to survive with little to no booking due to social distancing and ban on gatherings and travel. My take is that they will live [0].

[0] Only if they make internal changes to the company and do something to save themselves.

</comment><comment><USER7> Purely from a business perspective:

Wait, this makes me wonder. Isn't it in a lot of companies their best interest to pool money together for rapid COVID-19 research? If a cure is on the table ASAP, then governments will stop implementing harmful rules.

Or is it the case that it takes too long and no matter how you slice it, businesses will lose a lot of money either way? In other words, hypothetically: it doesn't matter whether there's a cure within 6 months from now versus 2 years from now.

<comment><USER8> To quote Warren Buffet, you can't have a baby in a month by getting nine women pregnant. This will take time, no matter how much money you throw at it.

<comment><USER9> any scientific reference for that ? We might have a consistent hashing algorithm for scientific research load.

<comment><USER10> It's very hard to speed up vaccine trials. You want to know whether the vaccine has adverse side effects that show up 6 months later. There is no way you can have that information 2 weeks from now. (Unless we have some Star- Trek-level technology for simulating the effect of vaccine on a human's metabolism faster than real time, which is clearly decades if not centuries away.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I imagine it would work like all the airlines that went bankrupt after 9/11\. Painful short term, but probably not so painful long term. There's also some benefit to going bankrupt. All of your contracts, including employment contracts, can be renegotiated with all the benefit of hindsight. And for many of those contracts, AirBnB would have the upper hand.

</comment><comment><USER12> Maybe the contrarian view but quite bullish on AirBnb (obviously not short term). This situation sucks but there is a glimmer of light which assuming the world finds a vaccine and anti-viral treatment:

1\. Globally people are on lockdown and once done are going to realize that black swans can happen anytime and thus will travel more as never know when you can't. Travel will bounce back hard (business travel maybe not as much) 2\. Due to loss of jobs/income: More folks will need to securitize their fix assets meaning house for additional income which means more inventory for Airbnb 3\. Hotels will be devastated as due to fix cost had to pare down impairing service, locations, etc. thus net positive for Airbnb 4\. Remote work will take off: Ppl will want to explore other locations as remote work becomes more prominent. They can launch an ancillary business that attacks WeWork.</comment>


A war for the future of the Internet - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2010/12/08/the-wikileaks-scandal-is-more-than-just-a-diplomatic-scuffle-its-a-war-for-the-future-of-the-internet

<comment><USER2> _LOIC currently has a Trojan in it._

It doesn't, but some antivirus detect it as a trojan. The reason might be that they detect as a trojan anything than can be used for a denial of service attack, since a lot of trojans include DDOS capabilities.</comment>


Twitter Unveils New Moments Feature for Tracking Big Events - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-06/twitter-unveils-new-moments-feature-for-tracking-big-events-iffdiywb <comment><USER2> so Tom Hanks returning a Student ID is a big event?</comment>


Hidden motors for road bikes - <AUTHOR> http://cyclingtips.com/2015/04/hidden-motors-for-road-bikes-exist-heres-how-they-work/ <comment><USER3> There are two videos on Youtube that have been regarded by bike fans as suspicous. I will let HN readers make their own minds up!

[https://youtu.be/8Nd13ARuvVE?t=3m35s](https://youtu.be/8Nd13ARuvVE?t=3m35s)

and

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ideiS-6gBAc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ideiS-6gBAc)

I would love to hear smart people's thoughts!

<comment><USER4> Here's the thing. No one to date has actually been caught using one. The banned woman was caught having one, on a spare bike in the pit. She claims it's owned by a friend (who corroborated) and that her mechanics mistakenly put it in the pit, etc.. it's a pretty shaky story, but the fact remains they have never actually caught someone using one during a race.

There's a large number of people who think it just wouldn't help that much. While 100 watts extra would be a game changer, the forced cadence, inability to manipulate the pedals, etc makes it potentially no help at all.

As for those two videos.. Cancellara has been attacking like this for years. It's his style. He's also the 4 time world time trial (solo racing against the clock) champion, so he's exceptionally good at sustained high output power.

Hesjedal and the spinning wheel.. Why wouldn't you turn off your motor on a descent is the only thing I'd say? I wouldn't put it past him, he was one of the Lance era EPO doping crew, I just don't buy it on that video. I've seen plenty of crashes in person where bikes did all kinds of weird things.

<comment><USER5> There is no forced cadence. The motor is not fixed at a particular RPM; if the motor were unloaded, it would spin a lot faster than it does. It supplies a certain amount of power, and the bike hits a certain ground speed, and through the gear ratio, that determines the motor's speed.

If you only want to go _that_ fast, then you don't have to crank the pedals, and it's awkward. However, you _can_ crank the pedals to go even faster.

That's the point of using the motor. You + motor is faster than you alone or motor alone. Or: you + motor requires a lot less effort on your part to maintain a certain speed than you alone. Suppose that you can go 30 mph, but with great difficulty and not for very long. Suppose that a given motor by itself can go 20 mph. If you use that motor _and_ your own muscles together, you can go 30 mph with a lot less effort, and sustain it a lot longer. The cranking of your pedals and cadence will be natural; you're cranking 50% faster than what the motor can do by itself. It will be like cycling in the slip-stream of a truck, or down a slight downgrade. To the spectators, you will just look like a strong cyclist.

About the 100W, almost _any_ amount of cheat torque can make the difference between placing N-th and N+1st. Every second counts.

Even a 2.5W power boost could be a game changer. If your muscles put out 250W, 2.5W is 1% more, which is significant. It's about 36 seconds shaved off a one hour haul. The game has changed from a neck-and-neck race to the front runner having a 36 second lead.

A tiny, light-weight motor of just a few watts that would be useless in a commuting bike used by someone who is out of shape and cannot climb hills could nevertheless win trophies for a cheater.

One minute you're racing just beyond your lactate threshold. Flip a concealed switch, and a tiny power boost drops you within your threshold.

<comment><USER6> This is a great description of why motors can make a big difference in racing. Even small differences in power output can make a big difference in an elite race where so little can mean the difference between winning and not. It's easy to imagine using a tiny motor (much smaller than the one mentioned in the article) could make the difference between winning and being an also ran.

However I have to nitpick on one point:

"Even a 2.5W power boost could be a game changer. If your muscles put out 250W, 2.5W is 1% more, which is significant. It's about 36 seconds shaved off a one hour haul."

Air resistance is one the most significant factor affecting riders at race speeds, and its force increases at a much greater than linear rate. You'd need about 3% more power in your example to save 36 seconds. In a flat time trial over one hour, 1% extra power would actually save you closer to 12 seconds. That said, the Tour de France has been won by less.

<comment><USER5> Also, a boost gives you a tactical advantage: an advantage of psychology.

Firstly, in a race, it is psychologically challenging to be the leader of the pack. Are you really faster than those behind you? Or are there opportunists nipping at your heels, wearing you down, who will surge by you when the goal is in sight? With a secret boost, you can overcome some of this uncertainty.

Likewise, you can use the boost to surge by opponents after tailing them for extended distances without the boost. When you surge by someone, it has a mentally devastating effect on them. You show that you have untapped reserves that they don't, which creates the belief that you cannot be beaten. In the absence of cheating, that belief is just a belief. The playing field is level: by trying to create the belief that you are stronger and faster, you're taking a risk (because it's not a given that you actually _are_ ; you're faking that out with a little surge that you could well pay for later.)

I believe that with a hidden motor, you can not only reduce your own race time, but make someone else's race time _worse_. You wear them down with an unrealistic pace, either as a leader or follower (pressure from the back) which you can then maintain yourself thanks to the motor, while they blow their race.

And then, here is the thing. If you win by _tactics_ , that doesn't have to involve coming anywhere near the best time for that course or a world record etc. You get everyone to screw up, and then cross the finish first, but in some credible time that doesn't draw attention to your performance, seconds or minutes behind the best time that was ever observed on that course. That reduces the suspicion of any cheating, unless your splits over the course are scrutinized.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> A few other commenters have touched on it, but I'll go ahead and say it -- the UCI really needs to drop the minimum weight limit which I think will be an effective disincentive (along with more draconian life time bans).

They are artificially holding back the state of the art in a way that promotes cheating (if you need to add weight to your bike to make the limit, why not a motor instead of dead weight.)

<comment><USER8> The same thing has been said about Formula 1- the cars are power-limited, minimum-weight-limited, and so forth.

But even a cursory look at racing history explains why. Group B Rally springs to mind. More power & lighter weight aren't really going to make racing that much more interesting, just more deadly.

FIA has tried to shift innovation to other aspects, e.g. ruling that an engine has to last at least two race weekends (setting a floor on durability sacrifices).

<comment><USER9> All frames and wheels used in UCI-sanctioned races must pass UCI safety tests. The weight limit was not introduced for safety reasons but as a result of the Lugano Charter, which stated that technological development was inherently antithetical to the sport of cycling.

C.f. the hour record. Until recently, the rules essentially stated "the hour record must be attempted on a replica of Eddy Merckx's bike circa 1972". Rules for the hour record banned streamlined helmets, aero bars, disk wheels and frames with non-round tubing. These rules were introduced directly as a reaction to the battle of engineering an ingenuity between Obree and Boardman.

[http://oldsite.uci.ch/imgarchive/Road/Equipment/The%20Lugano...](http://oldsite.uci.ch/imgarchive/Road/Equipment/The%20Lugano%20charter.pdf)

<comment><USER8> Right, I'm not saying it's specifically about safety, rather that a battle of technology was decided for some reason to be worse than the added marginal excitement of lighter bikes. In F1 that reason was (originally) safety, in bicycling it's something else.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is another method: wheel accelerated by induction, no gears, no noise. [http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/electromagnetic-wheels- are-t...](http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/electromagnetic-wheels-are-the-new- frontier-of-mechanical-doping-claims-gazzetta-dello-sport/)

<comment><USER11> and an "automatic transmission" that engaged when on a hill or sensed pedal tension could eliminate the switch! Then it would be truly invisible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I remember a Kickstarter that was popular that had a bicycle wheel with a motor in it that you could fit most bikes. I'd be far more interested in a solution like this for a daily commute, seems very elegant.

<comment><USER13> _I remember a Kickstarter that was popular that had a bicycle wheel with a motor in it that you could fit most bikes_

Yeah. Kickstarter has had a lot of interesting bikes in the last year. One YC company, Vanhawks ([http://vanhawks.com/](http://vanhawks.com/)), came up through Kickstarter, and they've been shipping smart bikes in the last couple months.

Still, prices among electrically assisted bikes remain high. For example, the Faraday electric bike: [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/faradaybikes/faraday- co...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/faradaybikes/faraday-cortland) starts at $2,700. It seems like they should be less expensive, but for whatever reason few electric bikes have appeared in the U.S. for under $2K.

It seems like price is holding back electric bikes more than anything else. The system discussed in the original article appears to be much more expensive than an entire electric bike.

<comment><USER14> You can buy $200-400 conversion kits (and a battery) and convert a bike you already own into electric.

[http://www.ebay.com/bhp/electric-bike-kit](http://www.ebay.com/bhp/electric- bike-kit)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Called "Mechanical Doping", and people are getting busted for it in races

[http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a19366/heres- how-...](http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a19366/heres-how-that- cyclist-hid-a-motor-in-her-bike/)

Sad sad world we live in

<comment><USER16> I don't think it's sad, I find it evolutionarily appropriate. If there's competition, there's drive to win, and in the drive to win, there are temptations to gain an advantage, and where there are ways to get an advantage, they will be used. From my years and years of review, study, and use of PEDs I'm simply in awe of the dedication to cheating that is endemic in cycling. It's quite fascinating, at least to somebody with no qualms about integrity in that particular sport.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'd never would have thought to use a worm ring geared motor hidden in the frame. Reminds me of how nitrous bottles are hidden inside roll cages and cooling systems in racing cars. Cheating is an art of itself.

<comment><USER18> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Celica_GT- Four#ST205_.2...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Celica_GT- Four#ST205_.281994-1999.29)

"During the 1995 World Rally Championship season, Toyota was caught using illegal turbo restrictors at the Rally Catalunya and were given a one-year ban by the FIA. FIA president Max Mosley called the illegal turbo restrictor "the most sophisticated device I've ever seen in 30 years of motor sports.""

<comment><USER17> More details on the illegal modification: [http://homepage.virgin.net/shalco.com/tte_ban.htm](http://homepage.virgin.net/shalco.com/tte_ban.htm)

It is quite brilliant. Think of it as a software backdoor. :)

<comment><USER18> The wording is a bit confusing - IIRC it was a way to bypass the restrictor (which all cars were fitted with) to sneak more air into the engine.

<comment><USER17> Yes, it was a mechanical valve built into the area. If you've never had a turbocharger in your hand it might be tricky to picture it in your head.

<comment><USER18> I have; although I was under the impression that pressure is normally regulated by the wastegate opening to allow exhaust to bypass the turbine - <USER2> restrictor required

<comment><USER17> You can use the wastegate, a blow-off valve, or a restrictor to limit the amount of boost (backpressure in the air intake side of the engine). The wastegate controls how much the turbo spins and thus how much air it moves. The blow-off valve leaks the pressurized air (think of letting pressure off of a tire) into the atmosphere. The conventional use for a blow off is to relieve the compressed air during engine vacuum. The restrictor works by limiting how much air can enter the turbo. This means that the wastegate will be unaffected because it will depend on how much boost exists in the intake manifold. A retricted turbo will need to work harder for the same amount of boost (or be more efficient).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> By the way, since this thread seems to have attracted the interest of the HN bike community, if anyone's ever here in Bend, Oregon, look me up. Always happy to go for a bike ride - road or MTB.

No motors, please.

</comment><comment><USER20> dutch bike sellers see an increase in sales in hidden motors after an athlete was caught: [https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&...](https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.com&tl=en&u=http://nos.nl/artikel/2090793-verkopers- van-fietsmotortjes-merken-femke- effect.html%3Fnpo_cc%3Dna%26npo_rnd%3D391192662%26npo_cc_skip_wall%3D1&usg=ALkJrhjY16MaBIlRukms4E_w2zXxF7Jorg)

</comment><comment><USER21> I just don't get how psychologically how these people are making this ok with themselves. I almost get human doping (I don't approve it, but I get it) but this is straight cheating.

<comment><USER22> There is next to no money in pro cycling. Sure there are a few very very elite riders that make millions, maybe 10 to 20 of those. There are also the other 160 riders that start a grand tour. Read some of the documentation USADA put out on Lance. Not about the doping, but like Dave Zabriskie was a legit world class pro, he raced the Tour, and I think they listed is salary in those early years as like $24k. Another name that comes to mind, Gilberto Simoni, as fine a climber as has been, a grand tour winner, in his earlier years he worked as a bike shop mechanic in the off season to pay his bills.

There is no TV money for the teams. The team sponsorships aren't even guaranteed for any serious time. It's all about individual results in what is really a team sport. And then the best years are during the college years for everything else, close to no pros actually have college degrees or anything. Worse, I can't think of a pro that came out of college and ever did anything other than domestic racing. I mean, the team bikes are technically supposed to go back to the sponsors according to most deals but everybody just sort of knows that a lot of riders sell them to supplement their income, there are even web stores that specialize in it.

Cheating is cheating, be it chemical or mechanical or whatever, but cycling (like skiing, track and field, etc) is a perfect storm for it. If you do it and don't get caught, you can get rich, like life changing rich. If you wash out, not just did you lose what little paying gig you had, but you've probably got limited options outside of cycling. I'd argue that other than the love of the sport and sportsmanship, there are a lot of cyclists in a certain age range that have no reason not to cheat one way or another.

<comment><USER21> wow really good point, never thought about the financial motivation especially the motivation NOT to be broke

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The guys at GCN have an interesting video on the practicalities of using one, but conclude it's unlikely anyone in the Pro peloton are using it. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv5F5N6mFf0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv5F5N6mFf0)

</comment><comment><USER24> This competitor claimed her motor equipped bike belonged to a friend [1]...

1\. [http://www.businessinsider.com/bike-investigated- technologic...](http://www.businessinsider.com/bike-investigated- technological-fraud-cycling-world-championships-cyclocross-2016-1)

</comment><comment><USER25> Don't bicycle races have inspections? Safety or otherwise? I'm more familiar with motorcycle and car races where there are long lists of "class", safety, and weight requirements.

Would be trivial to detect either by weight or looking down seat tube.

<comment><USER19> Messing with the height of someone's seat by pulling it out before a race would ... _not_ be seen very well. A lot of people can tell when it's off by a few millimeters.

But yeah, they are doing inspections these days.

<comment><USER26> Bike seat height adjustments are very simple: the seat is mounted on a tube, which fits within the slightly larger seat tube and then is clamped.

Getting the exact same position is easy: just use a Sharpie marker on the inner tube to show where it fits in the outer tube. Draw a second, vertical line across both tubes to make sure the orientation is the same.

<comment><USER19> Yeah, but if you do that before a race... someone's going to do it quickly and not do a great job. Like I said, it's not that difficult to detect a difference of a few millimeters, and it's annoying.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Agreeing with people who comment just how important watts are in cycling.

I used to race (never made it out of CAT 5 cause I suck on hills, though I'm a very strong sprinter but I hate crits). Even a few watts can make a difference. Its the difference between being dropped when someone attacks on a climb and being able to hang on and recover. Biking is the 'Cold Equations' (old Sci-fi story that illiustrates the cruel implacability of science) of sports. The standard unit of currency in cycling is Watts per Kilo, essentially, now many watts per kilo you can maintain at your FTP (Functional Power Threshold). If you look at a chart of cyclists from CAT-5 (the lowest racing category, all the way up to Grand Tour Contender (realistic chance of winning one of the big 3 races, Giro, TDF or Vuelta), it ranges from about 1.8- 2.0 for an untrained casual cyclist, 2.5 Watts/Kg for a CAT 5 to 6.7 Watts/Kg for Grand tour contenders (The Lance Armstrong's, Alberto Contador, Cadel Evans). 6.7 is the magic number. [http://www.americanroadcycling.org/articles/PSL/WiddersHump/...](http://www.americanroadcycling.org/articles/PSL/WiddersHump/WattsSpeed.htm)

It is really hard to explain just how much different from you and I GC contenders are. I weight 70-75 Kg. At my fittest (down to 65 kg), I was probably putting out 3.5 watts per kilo (wasn't racing at the time yet). You have 2 variables to play with, power, and weight. This is why pro cyclists are thin, and GC contenders cadaverously thin, especially before the big races. These guys weight 138 lbs (62 kilos) with an FTP of 420+. I've met Alberto Contador, I'm not a big guy (I'm 5,11), but next to him I seemed like a giant. I cannot even explain how insane their power figures are. When you're riding at the pro level, especially at the Grand Tours, everyone you are riding with is a genetic freak (this is why EPO will not turn Joe six pack into the next Lance Armstrong).

At my fittest, I once rode with a woman who'd come 3rd in the U.S Nationals. And she totally shredded me. She was out for an easy/medium ride, I was hanging on, seeing dots in my peripheral vision and feeling like I was about to puke my heart out. And this was the easy part of the ride on a flat. Once we got to a hill I was dropped like a hot potato. This is also why you don't accept invitations from strangers at parties that start 'Hey, your wife tells me you ride. My friends and i are going on a ride tomorrow. Wanna join us?'

Someone else posted about riding with a cyclist who rode the TDF and who never finished because he absolutely sucked at riding (this is true of a lot of cyclists whose goals is to support their GC contender at all costs even if it means destroying themselves and their chances). It was a hilly competitive ride with the local fast guys. And he dropped them on the first long climb, and he wasn't even going hard. Being a TDF rider who sucks in the climbs > 99.9995 of cyclists. It's all relative.

At that level, the gap between the winner and the also runs can come down to the smallest difference. Tyler Hamilton lost the Giro because he bonked on the final climb. He had an energy gel in his pocket, but forgot to eat, and by the time he did, it was too late. All it takes is a few watts so a motor that can even give a cyclist an extra 5-10 watts is huge. This is why cyclists wear skin suits and even go to ridiculous lengths (apparently, on a flat 40K TT, shaving your legs vs not can gain you 1-2 seconds). Bike innovations, especially for aerodynamic frames are measured in watts saved. This is also why there is a lower limit on the weight of bike frames in UCI races (about 15 lbs), because frame makers would be tempted to make even lighter bikes to the point of danger cause a few lbs when you are already at 3% body fat can make a difference (an aside, for most cyclists, weight frame is overrated. Saving 3 lbs on the frame is much more expensive than shaving 3 lbs off your weight, or even 20 lbs). My road bike weighs 16.5 lbs, I'd be better served by losing 40 lbs off my body.

Also, no one is going to use this motors for flashy efforts that are obvious. All you need is to save 20-30 watts on a long stage, and arrive at the base of a climb fresher than your competitors, and then use it again when needed on the climb.

</comment><comment><USER28> I gave up on paying any attention to the sport of cycling years ago. Everybody who was winning or did something awesome turned out to be cheating. Seems like that hasn't changed at all.

</comment><comment><USER29> I read a good rider can sustain 250 watts for hours and peak at twice that. (power is weight dependent) So if you have an effective 100 watt assist, that can be helpful.

<comment><USER30> 250 watts is an output a fairly average amateur racer will produce at threshold (where threshold is their one-hour max sustained effort). The pros are significantly higher than that (estimated 350W or more for the latest batch of 1-hour records).

But, an extra 100 watts for even a few seconds can make a significant difference. In cycling, staying in the draft is a major factor. If that short burst of assistance helps a racer keep the wheel of the guy in front, it conserves a lot of energy for later in the race.

<comment><USER31> The one hour _record_ is actually about 470W from Wiggins.

(Though not a record of power for a single hour, just distance ridden on a track in one hour. But it ends up measuring more or less the same.)

<comment><USER30> Damn, the 350w was Jensie's estimated output (or maybe it was 375?). I knew Wiggins went substantially faster, but didn't realize it translated to that much more power. It's really nuts what these guys can do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Let's forget about cheating on races. I want one for my commuting bicycle so it still looks like a normal bicycle so thieves won't be interested in it.

<comment><USER33> You may want a moped. And there are eletric powered mopeds as well (they aren't that expensive).

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Is there any way to scan these bikes for EMF radiation?

<comment><USER35> Why don't they just weigh the bikes? Website states the motor weigh's 1.8kg, that would be easy to detect surely? The component spec for the bikes of a race team are probably fairly fixed, so shouldn't be hard to figure out what a bike should weigh?

<comment><USER36> The UCI limits the _minimum_ weight a bike must weigh. Carbon bikes and parts can get a bike well below that minimum weight, such that some racers have had to tape weights to the bike to get it up to weight when it didn't pass tech inspection.

Now what if instead of taping weights to the bike...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Question : why do people cheat?

Saying it is in the human nature is laughable. I see no one cheating at being poor sick, handicapped or being lazy.

People only cheat because they don't care about winning for themselves. They have no personalities and are lost in the recognition of a mindless crowd as a substitute to self esteem.

We have to focus society on individual realization to fight efficiently against hidden motors. Technical means of cheating are just a side problem.

Maybe we should forbid professional competition to remove the incentive of cheating.

<comment><USER24> You cheat if you know that you have no chances of winning otherwise?

<comment><USER37> Exactly.

Is it because education make people lack of confidence in themselves or do people adapt a rigged games?

My opinion is some kids especially introverted one lacking of self confidence are put in a stressful competition early and education/society advocate early results on strong competition. The race for the elite schools being at kindergarden.

The culture of results coupled with a rigged system (the system enable institutional cheats for some) result in the conviction of being right to fight the system back by compensating for the one considering themselves _unlucky_.

Our education is clearly creating the cheaters at my opinion. Corrupting the expectations of kids about progress, merit, hard work and replacing it by saying only the result matters.

The funny part is all these kids having paying loans for studies that enslave them not only in debt but also breaking their mind. No educated kids have been suing universities/banks for having scammed them by giving them false information to engage them in life long debts.

Smart kids are not smart. Education has broken bright spirits.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How to be sure that an app on a store is running the open source code? - <AUTHOR> Let's say for example Bitwarden: How do I know, the app I am installing from the App Store, is running the code that is Open Source and not something else? <comment><USER2> You can't even tell that with 100.000% confidence of code you write by hand using 'echo' and run locally.

In the end you have to trust your OS. If you write that yourself, you have to trust the CPU. If you build that yourself using discrete components, you have to trust that nobody sneaked a CPU into what you think is a simple NAND gate, or into a wire you used ([https://developer.arm.com/ip- products/processors/cortex-m/co...](https://developer.arm.com/ip- products/processors/cortex-m/cortex-m0) tells me a 32-bit ARM CPU can be 0.008 mm² and use 5.3 μW/MHz. An attacker probably would need some extras such as memory, but _if_ you happen to be worth it to an attacker with huge resources, these things could end up in surprising places, so you would have to get out your microscope, and look at every single component in detail)

With iOS, the 'only' addition is that you have to trust Apple, too. It could change the binary, put code in iOS to change what's running, etc.

If you are concerned about that, don't use iOS.

<comment><AUTHOR> > If you are concerned about that, don't use iOS.

The advantage of Android is that you can get the apk from a trusted source or build it yourself, right?

<comment><USER2> Yes, you can, but even then, you can't be 100.000% certain that that code will get executed. Google, your phone manufacturer, big brother, etc. _could_ detect that you're running Foo and do Bar instead. Most people shouldn't worry about that, though. I would be more worried about 'them' listening to what you do than about 'them' changing what you do (and if they want to, 'they' likely can do that easier outside your app or even outside your phone than on it)

As to iOS, if you can get the source, you can build and install apps yourself on iOS, too, with the disadvantage that you will have to reinstall the app every x days (executables signed for debugging have an expiry date), with 'x' relatively short (a few weeks, IIRC)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> With the tools available on an iPhone, you can't! This is a big deal and an important question!

The Reproducible Builds project [https://reproducible- builds.org/](https://reproducible-builds.org/) exists to solve this problem.

</comment><comment><USER4> Something similar from Israel [1], the official Corona tracking app was supposed to be based on Open Source.

They decompiled the APK, and moved on from there. Note that the code itself is not everything, there are configuration files, databases and some data that comes with the app

[1] [https://cybercyber.co.il/?p=151](https://cybercyber.co.il/?p=151) (use Google translate from Hebrew)

<comment><AUTHOR> Precisely. My concern was raised thinking about contact tracing apps. I'll have a look at the link you shared, thank you!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Telegram has this [https://core.telegram.org/reproducible- builds](https://core.telegram.org/reproducible-builds)</comment>


Santa Cruz decriminalizes psychedelic mushrooms - <AUTHOR> https://abcnews.go.com/US/santa-cruz-decriminalizes-psychedelic-mushrooms/story?id=68611065 <comment><USER2> Super excited to see this. If you live in California please head on over to [http://www.decrimca.org/](http://www.decrimca.org/) We're working to get state wide decriminalization on the ballot in November and we need signatures! If you buy a button ($5) they'll send you a petition sheet. There are also signature locations and volunteers in every county in the state.

<comment><USER3> > SEC. 3. PURPOSE AND INTENT.

>

> The purpose of this article is to decriminalize the personal possession, > storage, use, cultivation, manufacturing, distribution in personal > possession amounts without profit, transport, and consumption of psilocybin > mushrooms and the chemical compounds contained in them for any person over > the age of 18, or for any person younger than 18 with parental or guardian > consent by amending California Health and Safety Codes HSC § 11 390 & 11391.

I'm confused, whats the difference between legalization and decriminalization then. This sounds like legalization to me? Decriminalizaton i thought was making it a low priority to law enforcement which some places already did?

<comment><USER4> This allows "distribution in personal possession amounts without profit".

Legalization would imply that some entity or entities were legally allowed to sell at commercial scale to the general public at a profit.

<comment><USER5> Alcohol is legal, but you can't sell it legally without a liquor license and those can be restricted in number and limited in scope (in MA you can't sell liquor on Sundays).

<comment><USER6> That last part hasn't been true in quite some time. Since 2003, alcohol sales have been allowed on Sunday in Massachusetts.

<comment><USER5> Sorry - I moved away around that time!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I just wished their was fairer representation online of impact on people's lives when drugs get brought up. I never done drugs. But still, I suffered thanks to people who chose drugs as a way cope - and it's soul sucking.

The problem with decriminalizing/legalizing recreational drugs is its interpreted as officials of the state validating drugs as a coping skill.

In almost all cases, getting high is maladaptive coping style.

My anecdote from being raised by substance abusers: Makes you think you're smart, maybe even makes you look competent to other people. Until you don't have the drug anymore, in which case you're left with an anxious person who can't cope with difficult circumstances.

It's excruciating to have to endure loved ones who become dependent on substances. It saps the energy out of you to deal with. Their brain is rewired to get high - at the expense of their social connections, family, reputation, and so on.

Suffering and enduring a drug abuser is a silent pain. The incentive for users to get high and for rehab clinics to make money show why the conversation is so lopsided.

<comment><USER8> > Until you don't have the drug anymore, in which case you're left with an > anxious person who can't cope with difficult circumstances.

That's where you're mistaken. Psychedelics aren't for escaping reality. They're for facing it.

On heroin/meth/cannabis/alcohol, you take it and feel good, forgetting about stuff like going to work or feeding your baby.

On LSD/mushrooms, you are more likely to curl up in a ball in the corner of the room crying than you are to experience euphoria. Nobody takes that stuff for "fun".

<comment><USER9> I completely disagree.

I've used psychedelics plenty of times as a form of escapism. I tend to stop worrying about reality when I'm 500 µg of LSD deep. I also use it frequently for fun, in fact I can't remember the last time I didn't use it for "fun".

<comment><USER10> How comparable is LSD to Mushrooms?

<comment><USER11> On the street, mushrooms have a reputation for being much more gentle than LSD, and LSD is supposed to be more pushy (ie. LSD will make you face your issues, while mushrooms might just invite you to do so). But it's questionable how strong a dose of mushrooms those who maintain it's more gentle than LSD actually took.

Also, a long time ago I read of studies that showed that even experienced users couldn't tell the difference between all the various major types of psychedelics when they were administered in a double-blind fashion.

Something else to consider is that, as I've mentioned in another comment, a lot of what's sold as LSD on the black market actually isn't, and most people don't test their drugs. So much of what you read these days about self- reported LSD use is probably actually about other substances.

<comment><USER12> Yea, I've never noticed much of a difference between the two. I'm bolstered in this belief by the fact that everybody I know has a confident, contradictory opinion about how exactly they're different from each other.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Great. Would also be great if we could just get the spores legalized at the state level. California, Georgia and Idaho prohibit possession of the _spores_ of magic mushrooms. In CA this is especially ridiculous, given that the mushrooms have lived here longer than the state has existed.

In many other states, you can walk into any head shop and buy a mushroom kit containing spores. Not in CA. It makes no sense.

</comment><comment><USER14> I used to live in London at a time when the fact that mushrooms were technically legal seemed to suddenly come to light. Oxford street was full of places selling them, as were various markets. There was lots of branding and marketing that appeared as if from nowhere.

Honestly the kind of overnight switch from not being visible anywhere, to seeming to be on every street corner reminds me of being in SF when Lime and the other scooter startups blanketed the city seemingly overnight.

</comment><comment><USER15> UC Santa Cruz is home to the Greatful Dead archive[1] and more recently for Hunter S. Thompson[2]. And they do, like, engineering too, man.

[1] [https://guides.library.ucsc.edu/gratefuldeadarchive](https://guides.library.ucsc.edu/gratefuldeadarchive) [2] [https://news.ucsc.edu/2018/11/hunter-thompson- collection.htm...](https://news.ucsc.edu/2018/11/hunter-thompson- collection.html)

<comment><USER16> ucsc is the only college I know that will let you live as an unrestricted hippy in an RV on a lot on campus, or just in a tent off in the woods.

<comment><USER17> Go Slugs!

The astrophysics PhD program is _very_ good. Top 40 worldwide physics and earth sciences undergrad programs too.

The forest hippies are mostly harmless, though they will try to expand your mind and sneak into the dorm showers from time to time.

Is the totem pole still by the cat graveyard? What a great view up there of SC on Friday nights as the smoke, err, fog rolled in about the drum circles.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> One of the volunteers at Decrim Santa Cruz here. AMA!

<comment> some-guy Congrats, I'm very excited to see how this affects the greater movement.

As a former Santa Cruz resident of ~4 years at UCSC, do you think this will affect enforcement at the local level? Living there between 2010-2014, there didn't seem to be much drug enforcement by the police at all, at least not for possession.

<comment><USER18> Yeah, I don't think it'll change anyone's day to day life very significantly as enforcement is pretty lax already. It's more important in the sense that it's a step in the direction of legalization, which I think will have genuine society-changing effects. There will likely be a boom in psychedelic treatments for mental and physical health when they're legalized on a state level, and that can't happen till everyone's comfortable with them being decriminalized.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> "Psychedelic capital of the world decriminalizes psychedelic mushrooms"

<comment><USER20> There's certainly some ambient magic in the air in SC.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> > "Entheogenic plants offer many in our community a way out of the addictive > pharmaceuticals known as opioids. People came forward at last night's > meeting telling of the beneficial effects of how these plants changed their > lives."

that's an interesting take. could the opioid epidemic be tied directly to psychedelic prohibition?

<comment><USER22> I think the opioid epidemic is pretty much tied to the over prescription of opioids and the abusive practices of opioid manufacturers.

Psychedelics have been banned long before the epidemic started, additionally, countries that also have a ban in place do not also have epidemics.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Cool! Denver legalized it May 2019 as well...

</comment><comment><USER20> Love this.

Where's next?

</comment><comment><USER24> afk brb... heading to Santa Cruz for ... research purposes.

</comment><comment><USER25> I always wonder what unintended consequences measures like this will have. (I am not opposed to it)

I remember a long time ago Montana fought the 55 mph (and later higher ones) imposed by federal pressure. Their laws favored "reasonable and prudent" over absolute limits. (How wonderful to choose personal responsibility)

Then out-of-state drivers from car clubs started driving to Montana and doing high-speed drives across the state.

Maybe that was why Montana enacted actual limits and fines later on.

<comment><USER26> >Maybe that was why Montana enacted actual limits and fines later on.

No one in Montana cared. 'reasonable and prudent' was struck down due to a simple court case where a defendant appealed his reckless driving conviction because he thought the law was too vague.

[https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme- court/1998/b182...](https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme- court/1998/b1822668-90ed-4f1f-9d46-cc9be810cf87.html)

The Montana Supreme Court agreed with his assessment, and as a result, a numeric speed limit was instituted.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> To quote Gene Hunt from Life on Mars: "Drugs eh, what's the point? They make you talk funny, they make you walk funny, they make you see things that aren't there. My nan got all that for free when she had a stroke."

In all seriousness, I think people who use drugs like this have something missing in their life. Instead of getting hopped up on mushrooms, why not look at your life and work out what you are using mushrooms as a subsitute for.

<comment><USER28> Okay, lets say you're right. What does that imply about all the other things people do? Why are you watching movies - what is that a substitute for? Why are you exercising so much - what do you have to hide from yourself?

Given that you could (and should) ask these questions legitimately, why focus on recreational psychadelics? I think the answer is that you've internalized a particular cultural story about drugs, and you probably have Nancy Reagan to thank for that.

Being against mushrooms seems particularly odd, since every human being on the planet involuntarily falls unconscious and hallucinates for hours every single night, including you. In the hierarchy of damaging escapist behavior, it's pretty low I think (far lower certainly than say, Facebook or Twitter usage).

<comment><USER29> I know a lot of drug users and they all do it to kill their pain. No exceptions.

And they all progress towards harder drugs. They either progress or stop doing drugs. Nobody started doing drugs directly shooting heroin.

Comparing psychedelics to sleep is just laughable.

<comment><USER30> Pretty small anecdote though.

There is some truth in the Buddhist truth of "Dukkha" (that life is suffering).

Most of us are simply seeking ways to enjoy the ride and have a meaningful existence while we're here. Some people try mind-altering substances in small doses to explore different states of existence, cope with pain, celebrate, meditate, etc.

We all do things to numb our pain don't we? Medication, activities, work, family, hobbies, art, music, whatever.

I believe legalizing psychedelics will give us a chance to better study and understand what precautions we need to give to people curious.

<comment><USER29> I disagree with that "life is suffering, so lets do whatever we want".

Also I have no pain (luckily) in my life. I've never had other than when family members died. And I enjoy every day without doing drugs, alcohol or something like that.

In my opinion (and I am aware this is harsh) most of the problems people claim they have are pure nonsense and incredibly trivial. They want to blow them out of proportion so they can add some meaning to their life. It's like trying to deal with boredom in the most destructive way imaginable.

In my mind, the only non-trivial problems are generally health issues (death of a loved one etc.)

What kind of pain do you have that you need mind-altering substances?

We are at the height of our civilizations, we have billions of things to do and billions of hobbies to choose from and research, and explore and.. I don't know what else. We live better than ever, and better than kings used to live.

I can't understand how someone that is healthy, has money to live life somewhat comfortably needs to do these drugs to survive.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>