Why Cars Will Kill 30,000 Americans This Year - <AUTHOR> http://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/murder-machines/ <comment><USER4> As the article points out, "auto safety" itself has had a huge push from consumer advocates at least since Ralph Nader highlighted the risks of car design defects in the 1960s.

That said, a few points about the law and auto safety:

1\. U.S. law is tied to individual responsibility for conduct that is wrongful. As the auto industry developed over the past century, that meant that those who sought to drive by what the law declared to be the rules of the road were deemed to have done something wrong only if they failed to meet a reasonable standard of care in driving - that is, if they were negligent, careless, inexcusably inattentive, or otherwise failed to exercise a sufficient degree of caution that they created safety risks to others owing to their manner of driving. Breaking rules (e.g., speeding, driving the wrong way on a one-way street, and like items) constituted one such failure to exercise proper caution. In such cases, the law developed so as to hold such drivers responsible for damages in civil proceedings for the what the law called the "tort" of negligence. A tort is a civil wrong by which the actor committing the tort ("tortfeasor") is responsible to pay in damages for all harm caused by his tortious activity. In layman's terms involving cars, this generally means careless conduct. If the degree of wrongdoing is more egregious than mere carelessness, as for example when teenagers in the 1950s used to drag race through city streets in a way that constituted reckless conduct (that is, conduct by which the wrongdoer deliberately does things that have a high risk of endangering public safety), the consequence of this to the wrongdoer is also a civil wrong for which damages will lie but it is also (usually) defined as a criminal act by which the person can be prosecuted, fined, or jailed as a consequence of such actions. As the intent to harm increases even further, such as an act by which someone deliberately seeks to inflict harm on another while using a car as an instrument of harm, this can constitute a serious crime such as murder (for example, when someone deliberately drives at high speed into a crowd of people and does so with intent to harm or kill others).

2\. Underlying the system of law that has developed around accountability for auto-related collisions, fatalities, etc. is a social policy judgment that sees automobiles as a positive good for society. The article notes that such social policy judgments were made over the years more and more in favor of promoting more expansive use of the automobile at the expense of pedestrians and mass transit riders who might also use the roads, especially in urban environments. This undoubtedly happened, though it is a dubious assertion to say that some sort of sinister forces ("Motordom" is the term used in the article) made this happen in some way that somehow overrode the will of ordinary people. I am old enough to remember as a kid how people perceived automobiles in, say, the late 1950s, and there is no doubt from my personal recollection that average people rejoiced and celebrated ever-increasing uses of the high-speed automobile, cheered on the National Highway Act by which old two-lane state roads were sent into relative disuse through the creation of a vast network of interstate freeways, and, as a matter of culture, broadly celebrated what was called the "car culture." Even dissidents of the time, such as Jack Kerouac, though a counter-culture figure of his time, broadly promoted the idea of freedom in driving the open road. If anyone in that era would have suggested that cars be shut down or limited in favor of bikes, they would have been laughed at by the average person. Such ideas were basically considered crank ideas and had no form of popular support whatever. Therefore, it did not take a secret plot by General Motors (or whomever) to get people to push widespread auto use. People _wanted_ to get away from cities generally, _wanted_ to live in the suburbs that were growing rapidly at the time, and _wanted_ the freedom to use cars to get around whenever and wherever they wanted with limited restrictions other than having to obey the rules of the road. Yes, individual cities deployed mass transit with varying degrees of widespread use but these were limited to a few highly localized areas. People generally wanted cars, and mainly cars, to get around.

3\. So, coming to the themes of this piece, "auto safety" is one such theme and the idea of the automobile being inherently "murderous" certainly tries to highlight this theme. Yet I would say the broader theme is actually more one of saying that the rules of the road should be rewritten to strike a different social policy judgment about how roads are used. It is nowhere stated in the article, but is strongly implied, that perhaps drivers of automobiles should be subjected to stronger legal consequences than those currently existing in the event they collide with others in using a road. Given that we are here in the realm of social policy, and not existing law, this could mean almost anything. For example, it could mean strict liability for damages if you hit someone using a car, no matter what the circumstances and regardless of what the law now calls "fault." This is what happened to the law in other areas over recent decades, most notably with the expansion of strict product liability law by which manufactures (who at one time could be held liable for injuries resulting from use of their products only if the injured party could show that the manufacturer was negligent or otherwise at "fault" in making the product) had their liabilities dramatically broadened if injuries resulted from use of their products. As the law evolved in that area, the courts and legislatures eventually determined that manufacturers should be held liable regardless of fault if their products could be shown to have inherent "defects" (broadly defined). This led to a huge expansion of liability for manufacturing such products and, for example, pretty much decimated certain industries such as manufacturers of small aircraft. As a matter of social policy, the same could be done with the idea of driving an automobile. Courts and legislatures could determine that it is socially desirable that drivers be held strictly liable regardless of fault because this would promote greater driver safety and would also strike a balance in shared road usage that favors pedestrians and others more than drivers. They could also define as a crime any collision by which a motorist acts carelessly in a way that results in death or injury. They could impose strict penalties, such as losing the right to drive upon the occurrence of even one such event. This sort of change - <USER2> any other like it - would have _huge_ social consequences for the vast majority of primarily suburban drivers who do in fact continue to value having the ability to drive freely about as their primary means of transportation. Young people flocking to cities in favor of "upscale urban lifestyles" (and others who have a particular viewpoint, in the case of such young people in favor of mass transit over cars) may see the issue differently. But the law ultimately is driven by the average people who elect politicians, etc. and I would suspect will be slow to change in this respect.

4\. The article also expresses concern about high speeds and about drivers themselves being at risk of death or serious injury in driving the so-called murderous machines. While it is true that high speeds clearly enlarge such risks, it is a bit disingenuous to claim this as a primary concern while simultaneously forcing cars to be made smaller and smaller out of concern for increasing car mileage per gallon and promoting environmental goals. In modern public policy making, the same people who try to flog the auto companies for endangering drivers for this or that reason are often the first to decree that cars be made smaller and smaller even though this might create increasing safety risks to drivers who wind up in accidents. Again, this is a matter of social policy, and there are lots of arguments for why smaller cars promote broader social goals, but I rarely hear the people insisting on smaller cars acknowledge that an inherent by-product of this is to increase safety risks in case of collision (perhaps I am wrong on this point but I am going from memory in saying that this is indeed a known consequence of shrinking the car size).

The real battle here is over a strong push to have the law conform to the modern urban trends favoring bike riders, transit riders, and pedestrians over automobiles. That issue should be addressed head on by assessing not only the potential benefits of limiting auto use but also the social costs (which I believe could be substantial). The article does not do that and is flawed because of this, notwithstanding its (many) interesting points made along the way.

<comment><USER5> > _I am old enough to remember as a kid how people perceived automobiles in, > say, the late 1950s, .... Even dissidents of the time, such as Jack Kerouac, > .... Therefore, it did not take a secret plot by General Motors (or > whomever) to get people to push widespread auto use. People_ wanted _to...._

This whole paragraph is missing the point---the purported "plot" was not a product of the 1950s, but of the 1920s. The evidence that you provide in this paragraph does not support the claim that there was no plot; it might actually just support the claim that the "plot", such as it was, succeeded!

(That's not to say there was definitely a plot, although I think it's clear there was. But counterevidence for this claim would need to come in the form of recollections and data from _much_ earlier.)

<comment><USER6> Exactly. Without a doubt there was a literal conspiracy to undermine urban mass transit during the 1930s and 1940s. Firestone, Phillips, Standard Oil, and GM were all _convicted_ of conspiracy, for Pete's sake.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspi...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy)

<comment><USER7> They were convicted of trying to monopolize sales of buses and bus parts, not eliminate mass transit.

<comment> loup-vaillant Bayesian evidence. Being convicted of a crime is strong evidence that you might have committed _other_ related crimes.

If those companies where convicted of collusion, then it is very likely they conspired about more than a little monopoly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The death rate per miles driven in the United States has fallen dramatically in my lifetime, and I can remember when the annual number of deaths was much higher.[1] That said, the article makes a very interesting claim about attitudes that we should all follow to the end of the article for further discussion here: "There's an open secret in America: If you want to kill someone, do it with a car. As long as you're sober, chances are you'll never be charged with any crime, much less manslaughter." My wife bike-commutes year-round (yes, even in Minnesota), and as I mention this among Facebook friends, other friends who are also bike commuters point out that car drivers can basically kill bicyclists in the United States with no legal penalty at all. That's not a good social environment for getting more people out for exercise and energy conservation by substituting bicycling for driving cars.

The history reported in this article is very interesting. There are a lot of contemporary photographs of changing American cities. The quotations from experts provide perspective on the visuals: "'If a kid is hit in a street in 2014, I think our first reaction would be to ask, "What parent is so neglectful that they let their child play in the street?,"' says Norton.

"'In 1914, it was pretty much the opposite. It was more like, "What evil bastard would drive their speeding car where a kid might be playing?" That tells us how much our outlook on the public street has changed."

Indeed. Are we really thinking carefully about how to spread the risk around, when so much of our living space is dominated by cars?

AFTER EDIT: The video link shared by pugz[2] in a reply comment elsewhere in this thread is not to be missed. Car safety standards have improved enormously in my lifetime, but those protect the occupants of cars better than they protect pedestrians and bicyclists who are hit by cars.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year#Motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year)

[2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPF4fBGNK0U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPF4fBGNK0U)

<comment><USER9> I don't think the solution to unsafe roads is to throw everyone that is at- fault in an accident in jail.

I understand the frustration cyclists have with auto traffic, but we've seen a million times that harsher penalties don't always have the intended outcome. And we have a habit in the US of using prison as the answer for every malady.

Instead, I think the answer is better road design, separating cars and cyclists using dedicated lanes, and automated vehicles.

Also, according to this report, pedestrian fatalities are also on a long-term downward trend, even without correcting for increased traffic: [http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike...](http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/03042/part2.cfm)

<comment><USER10> When people decry using the prison system as a cure-all, it's usually for things like drugs or mental illness. In essence, why punish people for things that either don't harm others, or aren't their fault?

You're applying this to a serious crime, at least manslaughter if not murder. If prison isn't appropriate for that, what _is_ prison appropriate for? I imagine an argument could be made that prison is never the right thing, but I don't think you're making that argument.

Harsher penalties don't always have the intended outcome, sure. But this isn't so much advocating a _harsher_ penalty as advocating a penalty _at all_.

If I'm driving a car, what is my incentive to pay attention and try to avoid killing cyclists? Simple morals, obviously, but that doesn't work on everybody. If I'm a selfish asshole (lots of those out there) and I know I won't suffer legal penalties, why would I care about cyclists?

If you kill someone while driving a car and you are at fault, why should you _not_ go to jail? That is the standard punishment in that scenario without the car, so why should adding a car make it go away?

<comment><USER11> _and you are at fault_

That's the tricky phrase. How do you prove fault in a car collision, to the same degree that's required for a charge and conviction of manslaughter or murder?

In New Jersey, we have "no-fault" laws for insurance, which basically means that when there is an accident there's no way to prove that either party is more at-fault than the other, so legally neither is at fault. In practice, both parties are treated as if the accident is their fault, and both are penalized with higher insurance rates at minimum.

My concern with any law that holds drivers responsible for deaths in accidents they're involved in by charging them with manslaughter or murder is that the same logic will be applied: every driver in every accident where someone dies will go to jail, unless they're rich enough to bend the rules and escape the charge. That's unfair, because many accidents really are accidents, and many people who die in accidents are at least as responsible as the people who survive.

Besides, there are already additional penalties for drivers in these situations. Their insurance pays out substantially to the victims or their families, and the driver's insurance rates go up, potentially to the point that the driver is no longer insurable and they can't drive anymore. So the article is wrong in saying that drivers can get away with murder with no consequences.

<comment><USER10> Why would the same logic be applied? Surely a conviction for vehicular manslaughter would be held to the same standard as a conviction for regular manslaughter, which is to say proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

<comment><USER11> If guilt can't be proven for sufficiently to assess which driver's insurance should pay for the costs of an accident, how can guilt be proven for the much stricter requirements needed for manslaughter? I think this would be especially difficult if the courts are overloaded with all accidents that involve deaths, instead of only the ones where drivers today are being charged with manslaughter and murder. (eg: cases where there appears to be intent to kill, rather than just accidental killings.)

<comment><USER12> > If guilt can't be proven for sufficiently to assess which driver's insurance > should pay for the costs of an accident, how can guilt be proven for the > much stricter requirements needed for manslaughter?

Guilt could be proven for more cases but the cost is prohibitive. It is cheaper for all concerned to just say "we know what happened, let's not bother finding out how and just split the costs of repair", the drivers pay higher premiums for a while, they probably share the blame anyway and both will drive more carefully from now on.

When one of the parties could go to prison for life, society decides to accept the burden and does a full investigation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> In 2004, 42,836 Americans were killed in motor vehicle accidents. So this number actually represents a huge improvement.

Something to realize is that potential replacements to cars are not that much safer. Highway travel is responsible for 7.7 deaths per billion passenger- miles. Mass transit is responsible for 5.4 deaths per billion passenger-miles. Given the less-direct routings used by transit, it's not totally clear this is a meaningful difference.

All of this sucks - but it's the price we pay for being able to move a long distance quickly, something that seems to be a net benefit to society. (How many lives are saved by ambulances each year? How about by being able to easily visit a doctor?)

These are all statistics for the US in 2011. Sources are:

[http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/pub...](http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_40.html) [http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/pub...](http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_02_17.html) [http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/pub...](http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_02_32.html)

<comment><USER10> I'd really like to see that broken down by _type_ of transit, as well as deaths for transit passengers versus people killed in e.g. private cars involved in accidents with busses.

My guess, and this is very much a guess, is that buses will be disproportionately dangerous, and a fair number of those killed by busses are in cars that collide with them.

For one random example, the DC metro has seen 9 deaths in the past five years and appears to run at about 1.8 billion passenger-miles per year, for a fatality rate of around 0.1 deaths per 100 million passenger-miles (or 1 per billion). This is _very_ rough as deaths are spiky (those nine deaths happened all at once almost five years ago) and the long-term average is tough to judge.

<comment><USER11> In my town and the towns around me (suburbs of NYC in New Jersey) there are a lot of deaths from people being hit by commuter trains. It's quite possible that we have more people dying that way than in traffic accidents, especially if you don't count deaths on the highways in the area which don't have any pedestrians.

The problem here is that the trains mostly run at ground level, and the stations are mostly completely open. It's very easy to walk around behind of or in front of the train while it's still in the station or approaching the station. We've had incidents where individuals or groups of commuters who just got off the train try to cross the track behind the train, assuming that the gates are down because the train hadn't left yet, only to be struck by a train arriving on the other track. There was a big public education campaign after the last incident like that, but the town had to resort to a police officer stationed there during rush hour handing out jay-walking tickets before people would stop trying to cross while the gates were down.

There's also a strong suspicion that a lot of these deaths are suicides, but that's pretty hard to prove.

<comment><USER10> That's exactly the sort of thing I mean. I imagine that the safety of commuter trains with open stations and at-grade crossings must be vastly different from the safety of subways with closed stations and full grade separation. But I would love to see real numbers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> "Murder Machines"? Come on. Not all deaths are murder.

We Americans have this idea that nothing bad should ever happen, that we should find a way to prevent it. It's a goal to shoot for, certainly. But calling it murder if you don't reach that goal? No.

Can we climb down from the overheated rhetoric? It smells like propaganda.

<comment><USER15> Also, cars are not killing people. Drivers are. Unless we're talking about self-driving cars that spontaneously turn themselves on, back down the driveway, and mow down pedestrians on their own.

<comment><USER16> What about things like Toyota's unintended acceleration debacle?

Just because driver's actions count for a lot of accidents doesn't mean that car manufacturer are absolved from doing anything. Considering how many accidents there are, cars need to be designed _with that in mind_ , much like how touch keyboards work around our fat finger inputs.

User error is a design consideration (or else we wouldn't have undo commands in all of our software).

<comment><USER17> The Toyota debacle where they had buggy code but no evidence of anything other than driver error?

<comment><USER18> [http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1319897](http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1319897)

[http://www.edn.com/design/automotive/4423428/Toyota-s- killer...](http://www.edn.com/design/automotive/4423428/Toyota-s-killer- firmware--Bad-design-and-its-consequences)

<comment><USER17> That doesn't contradict what I said.

Even if the code failed in some situations I would comfortably bet that most cases were user error.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> It's such a shame. The automobile is built as a requirement to live in society rather than something that complement and argumented our lifestyle.

<comment><USER20> Really depends on where you live, but unfortunately true for much of the U.S. and Canada. Not true in the biggest North American city (NYC), though. Also not true in much of Europe.

<comment><USER21> "Really depends on where you live, but unfortunately true for much of the U.S. and Canada"

What is unfortunate about this? Americans on average are so rich that most of them can afford a car that allows them to both live where they want and still get to the job they want even if those two places are tens of miles apart and there is no public transportation.

Sounds terrible.

<comment><USER22> You're kind of missing what was said. We're talking about the automobile being necessary to function in the majority of the US and Canada. If you don't have a car (whether you can't afford one, can't drive, or choose not to own one), you're going to struggle to get to work, get to the grocery store, visit people, etc. Even in densely populated areas where cycling is a better option, the infrastructure is heavily oriented towards cars, and cycling can be quite dangerous.

Yeah, it's great if you have a car. What's not great is that you _need_ to have a car. And yet it doesn't have to be that way, as other countries have shown us.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> No mention of present and future automation options that increase the safety of cars? On hacker news?

        Reversing sensors
        Automatic braking at low speed to prevent collisions
        Driverless cars.

For me, these features can't come fast enough. They should be phased into being mandatory too.

<comment><USER24> Making them mandatory also has the effect of making sure they never again improve.

<comment><USER10> Like how seat belts and air bags stopped improving when they were made mandatory?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> What happened to those concept cars that were encased in rubber/(or some other bouncy material) so when they bumped against each other, they would harmlessly bounce off ? I distinctly remember reading about them in Wired some years back.

<comment><USER26> Any amount of rubber would only work up to a certain speed. And all modern cars are designed to provide 100% safety to passangers up to 30mph - <USER3> zones, multiple airbags, engine block sliding underneath the body of the vehicle, early collision warning, automatic breaking and so on. Encasing cars in rubber would not improve anything above 30mph, while I am fairly certain would increase the weight of the vehicle - making it consume more fuel and also heavier vehicles take longer to stop,so the benefit might actually be null.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> The dedicated bike lane is surely a great invention, but the implementation is often luck-luster and I think causes more harm than good.

Santa Monica probably has more good bike lanes than most other US cities, but I am terrified to even try the new on 28th leading from Ocean Park to Pico and beyond to Olympic. They basically took a narrow street and tried to leave space for parking and add a bike lane on top of that. As a result, most SUVs or wider cars don't fit into the designated lanes.

As the result, they either try to leave room for bicycles and drive slightly over the center or in the bike lane. If they try the former, they end up swerving violently into the bike lane to avoid on-coming traffic, so I don't know which is worse.

If the bike lanes were actually well implemented the entire way to the office, I would leave my car parked most days... as it stands now, that's not happening any time soon.

<comment><USER20> As a result of issues with those kinds of lanes, Copenhagen changed direction a bit ago and now puts in only bike lanes physically separated by a curb from the car lanes, at least where possible (excluding some narrow streets). If there's street parking, the lane is also typically on the _other_ side of the parked cars (the sidewalk side), making it even more impossible for someone to swerve from the car lanes into the bike lane. Also reduces "door" incidents, since the lane isn't on the driver-door side of parked cars. In addition to being much safer for cyclists, it also helps reduce drivers' need to watch out for the other direction, cyclists unexpectedly swerving into the auto lanes, e.g. to pass another cyclist. That part becomes particularly important if getting people to bike is actually successful: if you have a major route with a steady stream of >10 cyclists/minute, you really want that stream managed in its own space, segregated from both the cars and pedestrians.

I believe some of these kinds of "really separated" bike lanes exist in the U.S., but not many. The last statistics I saw were that the U.S. (in total) has about 200 miles of physically protected bike lanes (including bike-only routes), while Greater Copenhagen alone has 600 miles of them.

edit: some photos of various configurations, [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Physically_separ...](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Physically_separated_bikeways)

<comment><USER27> I have big hopes for the metro line project in SM that includes a dedicated bike path that is linked with the path along the beach. The beach path is fully separated and the link that is not would only be a few blocks long.

The ocean bike path stretches from past Redondo beach to Pacific Palicades.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> > In contrast, traffic fatalities in countries like the United Kingdom, where > drivers are uniformly viewed as the greatest danger on streets, are about a > third of U.S. rates.

Britain here.

This is absolutely false. We uniformly view _cyclists_ as the greatest danger on the streets. No joke, ask around.

I would suggest the reason for our better stats is down to a) a bloody difficult driving test; b) the thing inside a lot of us that makes the nervous/apologetic stereotype _actually be true_ also makes a lot of us quite risk averse and cautious; c) drink driving is a big no-no with very practical consequences near 100% of the time; d) education of how to cross a road starts at a _very_ young age, the result being no jaywalking laws required and watching people cross busy, fast moving roads in cities looks like doing the same in some developing country except we're proper pro at it; e) the speedbump pandemic, an enormous pain in the arse to have them every 3 ft in residential areas but probably highly effective; f) many, many (most?) pedestrian-accessible roads predate almost all vehicles and are twisty, narrow, and generally difficult to navigate; f) motorways/dual carriageways (70mph) were designed in such a way that they are not at all accessible on foot; g) B-roads (60mph usually, narrow) join 2 interesting places through vast expanses of farmland, there's rarely a reason to be on foot near them.

Lots of reasons, none are fear.

<comment><USER10> > a bloody difficult driving test

I think this is key. I'm always amazed at how easy the US "driving test" is. I put it in quotes because it's barely more than a check to see whether or not you're capable of writing your own name. You can pass the practical test without ever exceeding 25MPH.

Worse, you never re-test. I haven't had anyone check my driving in almost two decades. License renewals come in the mail by magic. For all they know, I could have gone blind and senile, but here I am, legal to drive a car. I have to prove my ability to fly a plane every two years to keep doing it legally, but the car is far more dangerous to others when mishandled.

I think we would benefit enormously in the US if we enacted a _real_ driving test that requires actual skill and knowledge, and required re-testing every couple of years. Unfortunately it will never happen. While the American public doesn't really care if their government wastes trillions and invades countries for no reason and spies on everybody and tortures people, try to get between them and their cars and you will see politicians' heads on pikes on the National Mall.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I have always felt one of the saddest things about our society is that we accept these very preventable deaths.

When I was a teacher, about once a year a student would die in an accident. It just seemed so unnecessary, a 17 year healthy kid dead because we can't make cars safe.

I can't imagine cars without seat belts, but most Americans didn't bother with them before Nader came along.

It's definitely a black eye on our whole society when we can't be bothered to keep a basic right of transportation safe.

Maybe driverless cars are the answer, I don't know.

</comment><comment><USER30> Still lower than suicide, sadly. Not many articles about that except the ones about statistics. No real op-ed pieces? Not as newsworthy or good for business?

<comment><USER31> Suicides are voluntary. You can die in an accident through no choice of your own.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> The article quotes the 30,000 per year number, but it only really talks about fatalities or injuries to pedestrians by cars. The 30,000 number includes fatalities or injuries to people in cars as well. So a lot of relevant data is being left out.

Wikipedia has a link to NHTSA figures that give more detail. The link is here:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year#cite_note- NHTSA10-1)

From the 2010 data:

* 32,885 total fatalities

* 23,303 (70.8 percent) of those were vehicle occupants

* 4,502 (13.7 percent) were on motorcycles (drivers or passengers)

* 4,280 (13.0 percent) were pedestrians

* 618 (1.9 percent) were cyclists

* 182 (0.6 percent) were "other/unknown non-occupants"

So the article is focusing in on something that's, at most, only 15 percent or so (counting pedestrians and cyclists, since the article talks about both) of the problem. I say "at most" because of other interesting statistics from the NHTSA report:

* 31 percent of fatalities were in incidents involving alcohol-impaired drivers.

* 47 percent of the crashes that resulted in pedestrian fatalities had alcohol use reported by either the driver or the pedestrian or both. Interestingly, 33 percent of the pedestrians involved in these crashes were alcohol impaired, but only 14 percent of the _drivers_ involved were; in 6 percent of the crashes, _both_ the driver and the pedestrian were alcohol impaired.

* 32 percent of fatalities were in incidents where the driver was speeding. (42 percent of the drivers who were speeding were alcohol-impaired.)

* 42 percent of motorcycle drivers, and 51 percent of motorcycle passengers, who were fatally injured were not wearing helmets.

* 51 percent of vehicle occupants killed were not restrained (not wearing seat belts, or not in child seats/restraints).

* 11 percent of fatalities involved large trucks (gross vehicle weight over 10,000 pounds); of those, 76 percent were occupants of other vehicles, 14 percent were occupants of the trucks, and 10 percent were pedestrians.

Taking all this into consideration, I see a very different picture from "vehicles are murder machines". It looks to me like the major factors causing fatalities are individual choices made by people that put them at higher risk. And it's not like those choices are difficult, or about things that most people don't know. How hard is it to wear a seat belt? To put a helmet on if you're on a motorcycle? To not drink and drive?

<comment><USER33> There seems to be some serious low-hanging fruit here with regard to improving these numbers. Imagine if you took the billions currently spent by the TSA and applied it to road safety?

Given what the rest of world does with airport security, it's possible to maintain airport security while at the same time freeing up massive resources which could be channeled into education (seriously, no seatbelts in 2014? ), policing of drunk driving, zero tolerance for speeding and so on.

Of course this won't happen. Regardless of the fact it is waay more dangerous to drive to the airport than it is to fly on a plane - it's easy to do a big song and dance at the airport to "make flying safer" (hint: it's exactly as safe as it is everywhere else where they don't succumb to the TSA rhetoric).

Americans don't care about the TSA at airports precisely because most Americans don't fly. So politically it costs no votes, (and with enough rhetoric some Americans even believe it's making things safer) whereas if you started creating or enforcing speed restrictions or drunk driving there'd be endless Libertarian arguments about the perils of big government, and the "freedom" of motor cyclists to not wear a helmet if they so choose.

There actually could be a really useful agency with the words Trasportation and Safety in the name, but it isn't the one that currently exists.

<comment><USER32> _most Americans don 't fly_

I'm not sure that's actually true. According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, there were 646 million enplaned passengers in 2013. ("Enplaned passengers" means passengers boarding originating flights, i.e., either nonstops to the destination or the first leg of an itinerary with at least one connection.) That's more than twice the population of the US, and about 2.7 times the population of the US that's over 18. Even allowing for the fact that many business travelers take many trips per year, there are still a lot of people who only take one or two airline trips per year, for vacations or special events, so it's hard for me to see how the percentage of Americans who don't fly can amount to "most"; I'd be surprised if it was half.

BTS link: [http://www.transtats.bts.gov/](http://www.transtats.bts.gov/)

 _if you started creating or enforcing speed restrictions or drunk driving there 'd be endless Libertarian arguments about the perils of big government, and the "freedom" of motor cyclists to not wear a helmet if they so choose_

I think you're seriously underestimating the costs of enforcing driving regulations to the extent that you would need to to improve the numbers significantly by that means; I suspect that a more realistic estimate of those costs is what would lead most people (including me) to oppose such regulations. Whatever one's opinion about airport security, the amount spent on it is still a small fraction of government budgets and an even smaller fraction of GDP; and even for business travelers that take many trips per year, the overall cost in time of security screening is not that much compared to the time spent on the flight itself, particularly since most business travelers are easier to screen since they're familiar with the process and so get through it more quickly than people who only fly occasionally. (Note that I'm not arguing here that what is spent is justified by the benefits; I'm merely trying to compare the cost of airport security, in both time and money, with the cost of the sort of traffic regulation you're proposing.)

On the other hand, the kind of regulation you would need to have in order to, for example, make a serious dent in the rate of speeding, would be extremely draconian and would have huge costs. You would need traffic police on every major road, stopping people left and right; and you would need to do this continuously, or at least often enough that people would have a fairly high probability of getting caught if they speed. After all, most people do not speed just for the fun of it; they speed because it benefits them, because they get to wherever they are going faster. (I would also argue that most speed limits on highways are set too low, particularly given how the performance and handling of cars has improved over the years.) To make people not speed, you would have to raise its costs, in money and time lost, enough to outweigh the benefits, and that's a very tall order. Plus, you would have to hire all those traffic police, and pay them, and all the time they spend catching speeders would _not_ be spent dealing with other issues that might actually be more important.

Similar remarks apply, although possibly with less force, to other types of regulations: for example, trying to enforce seat belt laws, or motorcycle helmet laws, or drunk driving laws. I say "possibly with less force" because the "benefits" to people of doing these things are less clear than the obvious benefit in time saved of speeding. I don't understand any more than you do why anyone would fail to use a seat belt; it only takes a few seconds to buckle up. (I don't ride motorcycles so I won't try to speculate on why people would not wear helmets.) People obviously derive pleasure from drinking, but that doesn't mean they necessarily derive pleasure from drunk driving; that seems more like bad planning than anything else. So it might not be quite as costly to try to regulate these behaviors as it would be to try to regulate speeding. But I think it would still be a lot more costly than airport security is.

Education is a different matter; but I'm not sure there's much that can be done with education that isn't already being done. Are there really many people who haven't been told that seat belts are a good idea?

The only other suggestion I have is to impose more severe consequences on the kinds of decisions that can significantly affect risk. For example, consider this modest proposal: if you are involved in any accident and you are found to be driving drunk, even if no one is injured or killed, you lose your driver's license, _forever_. Or consider this: allow auto insurance companies, and health insurance companies to the extent that their coverage extends to injuries suffered in auto accidents, to make you pay a higher deductible, or possibly even deny part or all of your coverage, if you are injured in an accident and are found not to have been wearing a seat belt, or you are found to be at fault and to have been driving at a clearly unsafe speed. (This would have to be explicitly stated in the policy, of course.) That would make people stop and think.

<comment><USER34> Speed enforcement is a political issue these days, not a cost issue, it is quite cheap to put speed cameras everywhere and many countries do. We could eliminate speeding if we wanted to, Americans just don't want to. So what if a few more people die every year...freedom!

<comment><USER17> Oh shut up with half-baked emotional arguments, if a 'few people' dying in accidents was always a good enough reason to slow down traffic there wouldn't be a road in the world faster than 20mph.

At any rate, speed limits are set extra low with the _expectation_ that people will go faster than the number on the sign. Trying to 'eliminate speeding' by itself is a nonsense goal.

<comment><USER34> I'm not making any arguments. Is it ok to go 90mph when the speed limit is 75mph? Even if its straight I90 freeway in the middle of Central Washington? I'm not sure, but today we have that choice as enforcement is choppy.

Anyways, we'll be into self driving cars in 10 or 15 years regardless, the question is almost outdated.

<comment><USER17> "So what if a few more people die every year...freedom!" is the emotional and clearly-wrong argument I'm referring to.

As to your question, it depends on the road and 15mph is an unusually large number. I'm used to things more like '70-72 in a 65 zone' and '39 in a 35 zone'. On a straight freeway 90 is probably safe.

But my point was that the current system is broken in such a way that rigorous enforcement of the exact numbers on speed limit signs would make things even worse.

<comment><USER34> Do you go to Canada often? There speed limits are more strict than ours and they have pretty sophisticated enforcement (speed cameras). The world didn't come to an end there. It is even worse in Europe and Japan; I think our American ideas of "broken" is a bit warped, but I actually like going 90 mph to get from Seattle to Spokane; once you get across the mountains it is a boring trip. Europe and Canada annoy me. But then maybe we could have something like the German Autobahn.

I don't drive anymore. In my city, people barely get up to 80 kph given the traffic, but sometimes I get a crazy Beijing taxi driver who knows where all the cameras are, then I fear for my life.

<comment><USER35> You don't drive, and yet you make a lot of claims about how driving should be.

<comment><USER34> I did drive back when I lived in the states, got my license at 15 (in a state where that was possible), you have to drive there as a matter of reality. I live in a city right now where driving is very expensive, and taxis are very cheap, so it makes sense not to. I get that America is completely different than the rest of the world.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> The article says a lot about the politics and legal aspects of car deaths but the way forward is through engineering. With existing technology you can make a big difference by segregating fast traffic from pedestrian areas. Slow the traffic in towns and residential areas by speed bumps, closed streets, 20mph limits and the like and build multilane pedestrian free roads for people to get from A to B.

In the future self driving cars and similar safety systems are the way forward and probably the only practical way to drop the death toll from 30,000 to below 10,000.

</comment><comment><USER37> I've always seen this as "30,000 deaths and 120,000 permanent disabilities is the price we pay for allowing the sale of cars that can go faster than 25 mph."

</comment><comment><USER38> Some Context: in 2010 the 121,000 annual US accidental deaths are roughly evenly split between vehicles (35,000), unintentional poisoning (33,000), falls (26,000) and other causes. Collectively accidents are the 5th leading cause of death after heart attack, cancer, respiratory disease and stroke.

[http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER39> I really like the design on some of the posters from the article: [http://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/wp- content/uploads/...](http://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/wp- content/uploads/2014/03/AAA-posters-1024x434.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER40> jeez, they make it sound like every driver on the road is probably going to kill someone at some point.

</comment><comment><USER41> "99% Invisible" by Roman Mars did a very good, 24-minute radio show on this:

[http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/episode-76-the- modern-...](http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/episode-76-the-modern- moloch/)

</comment><comment><USER42> First, our attitude toward speed in the U.S. is self-contradictory and bizarre. It's far worse to drive 35 mph on a city street in Manhattan than 90 mph (assuming no or low traffic) on the highway. The first is "only 5 over" (the NYC speed limit is 30, which is way too high) and might get you a small fine; the second can put you in jail, in some states.

The issue with cars is that the vehicle that is best for highways (capable of speeds up to at least 80 mph) is not great for city driving. Automatic transmissions make it even worse, because there are now idiots who have no idea how fast they're driving (yeah, I'm a stick snob).

Second, the car did a great job of something in the 1950s. It was a rent/house-price control mechanism that actually worked-- without causing a shortage. It scaled back the power of landlords by allowing development of low-value land. Suburbia turned into something ugly-- racist, detached, gluttonous, environmentally harmful, and ultimately (paradoxically?) expensive-- for a variety of reasons, including increased specialization in the economy (more driving, more scaling problems with traffic) and a Parkinson's Law effect of consumer capitalism. Isolated people turned out to be _more_ needy, confused, and liable to overspend, making a market for gigantic houses, ridiculous cars, and tons of low-quality consumer dreck (bought on credit) that no one really needed. Slowly, the tyranny of the landlords crept back in, and things people actually needed (healthcare, education, and finally housing) became again expensive, then extortionate. That's where we are now.

The car is actually a huge money-hole for most working families, and auto loans a "gateway drug" to yet more unnecessary consumer debt. The car was supposed to liberate them from landlords. Now, it's a white elephant they can only afford because they have no choice: the jobs are all 10-50 miles away, public transportation is expensive and emasculated in most places-- even Amtrak is unaffordable for most; and the roads are unsafe to bike or walk (highways and ghettos, both products of suburbanization). So people drop hundreds of dollars per month on car payments, fuel, insurance, parking, tolls, and repairs (plus the involuntary payment through taxes, but that could be argued to be a win for most; if you eat, you use the roads). For people out of cities, the car has become the new landlord.

In the 1930s to '50s, however, no one saw all these unintended consequences. Now, it's an open question whether the benefits of widespread automobile usage merit the risk to public safety and the slashing of public spaces. I'd say "no". On the other hand, if you were a working-class person in the 1940s and this new invention had the promise of liberating you from the landlord so you could send your kids to school and actually retire, you might think differently. They didn't have the foresight to see all the negative unintended consequences or car-reliance.

</comment><comment><USER43> In Romanian 'car crash' is called literally 'accident' [0]. Something that's always baffled me is how friggin' thin the metal plates that make up the car are. Why the fuck does a whole industry consider this normal?! [1]

Edit: thanks for the info (and for the downvotes <3)

0: [http://translate.google.com/#en/ro/car%20crash](http://translate.google.com/#en/ro/car%20crash)

1: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhCXFsQ6kKQ](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhCXFsQ6kKQ)

<comment><USER44> Car crashes are often called "accidents" in America too. I found it interesting and insightful when my driving instructor back in highschool spent a good 10 minutes ranting about there not being any such thing as a car 'accident' (students mentioning the word "accident" later in the course were scolded, to drive home the point). Obviously you can dream up scenarios that you might be able to _really_ call an accident, but the point was that even when legal blame or liability cannot be found, nearly all car crashes could have been prevented by both drivers driving more defensively and being more alert.

Edit

 _" "You can do things to reduce your risk of accidents" is a vital message, using words in an atypical way can be a pedagogical tool to drive it home"_

That was the instructors intent. He wasn't trying to propose a new way for insurance companies or the courts to look at liability, but rather trying to combat thought terminating cliches like _" shit happens"_ (by arguably introducing his own).

<comment><USER45> In firearms circles there's a saying "There is no such thing as a firearms accident. There are only negligent acts."

SOMEONE is always responsible, and should be held accountable.

<comment><USER44> Similarly _" the gun is always loaded"_.

On it's face, it is a silly thing to say because obviously a gun can be unloaded. The point however is to drive home a respectful attitude towards guns, for the sake of safety.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Please Review My Web App: A Nigerian Imgur - <AUTHOR> http://meme.africa <comment><AUTHOR> Hello HN,

I built this website because: 1.) All meme apps(Imgur, 9GAG..) out there lacks Nigerian content. 2.) I want to learn a new technology(Node.js).

I need your feedback on how I can make it better. This is basically v0.1.

Thanks.

<comment><USER2> Wow. This looks like a real deal. You just need more contents and you are good to go. Keep it up.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the comment, Josh.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Search doesnt seem to work but I dont think thats useful in a site like 9gag.

Otherwise cool idea, if a content would be in english I would like to visit it sometimes

</comment><comment><USER4> Nice app. Hopefully, you will add more contents and publicize it more to get users.</comment>


The 37LOC Rails Blog  - <AUTHOR> http://vimeo.com/6377199

<comment><AUTHOR> A short video on some of the upcoming Rails 3 features like inherited resources in controllers, polymorphic associations and named scopes.

It is full with magic, those 37 LOCs are not 'raw code' just simple instructions setting up Rails to perform as a blog engine responding to both HTML, XML, JSON and Atom requests and sending notifications via AJAX.

Can you do faster and with less coding?</comment>


The curious case of a commercially successful public domain game - <AUTHOR> http://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=5479 <comment><USER2> Sounds to me as if he picked the wrong license by placing it in the public domain. No attribution, no name protection, confused consumers - if he cares about these things then public domain isn't ideal, as is obvious in hindsight.</comment>


The Magical Art of Selling Soap - <AUTHOR> https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/roundtable/magical-art-selling-soap <comment><USER2> Is it just me, or does it seem silly that the man in the first advertisement is going to walk around with wet jean cuffs all day because he wanted to see his soap float.

<comment><USER3> Realistically, the gentleman would be without clothes, but because of the times and the fact that the company did not sell smelling salts, they chose to keep the model clothed.

<comment><USER4> He could have just not been standing _in_ the water.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What is an effective method to index logs? - <AUTHOR> Consider a service that archives logs from several clients, such that you should be able to search the logs.<p>Sometimes you will want to search using a partial match, but more often you'll likely be searching for an exact match on a long string. What kind of indexing method would be effective for these kind of searches? <comment><USER2> Elasticsearch is often used for this, which is Solr under the hood

<comment><USER3> Where Solr is actually built on top of Lucene.

In general, ELK Stack (Elasticsearch, Logstash, Kibana) is fairly popular and has pretty solid documentation and tutorials online but does require some tinkering if one is to self-host it. Some basic JVM maintaince and system administration is required if You want to do it on the cheap and not pay some SaaS for hosting ELK for you.

<comment><USER2> Yes, this is the better answer. I sub'd Solr for lucene :facepalm:

EFK (fluentd) is gaining popularity as a slightly different, but essentially the same stack</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What book are you reading? - <AUTHOR>

I recently discovered a book from Jessica Livingston, one of the Y Combinator founders. I'm finding it to be a great source inspiration (especially when I get frustrated with coding).
I thought I'd to share it with the hackers on here and also ask:
1. What books are you currently reading?
2. Which book has helped you the most?
Jessica's book is called "Founders at Work: Stories of Startups' Early Days"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1590597141 <comment><USER2> >> 1\. What books are you currently reading?

Well, I'm one of those people who has a bookmark in about 15 different books that I'm "currently reading" but some are higher priorities than others, and some will never be finished (probably) and others I'll have to start over since I've forgotten what was happening when I sat it aside, etc. But offhand, I can think of:

 _Crossing The Chasm_ \- Geoffrey Moore - re-reading this one

 _The Prime Solution_ \- Jeff Thull - 3rd Jeff Thull book on selling that I've read lately, and I'll probably reread the entire series when I finish this one

 _The New Solution Selling_ \- re-reading this - can you tell I'm starting to try and move into sales?

 _Selling to VITO_ \- more sales stuff.

 _How to Create A Mind_ \- Ray Kurzweil

 _Godel, Escher, Bach_ \- Douglas Hofstadter - set this aside over a year ago; about halfway through, will probably finish it, but FSM only knows when

 _A New Kind of Science_ \- Stephen Wolfram (see above about GEB)

 _Madame Bovary_ \- Meh. May finish one day, may not. Would have to start it over at this point.

REAMDE - Neal Stephenson - set this aside a while back, but intend to finish it eventually. Will probably restart from the beginning.

 _The Four Steps To The Epiphany_ \- Stephen Gary Blank - I'm kinda in a perpetual state of reading and re-reading sections of this book.

 _The Dispossessed_ \- Ursula K. LeGuin - sat this aside quite some time ago, will have to start over at some point.

 _The Man In The Moss_ \- Phil Rickman - another one that I sat aside for a while, and may or may not ever bother finishing. Weird, because I usually really enjoy Rickman's work and just tear through his books, but I got stalled out on this one for some reason.

>> 2\. Which book has helped you the most?

 _The Four Steps To The Epiphany_ \- Stephen Gary Blank.

Also, _The Art of the Start_ by Guy Kawasaki and _Crossing the Chasm_ by Moore.

Of all these sales books I've read lately, I'm really starting to buy into this "Diagnostic Selling" stuff by Jeff Thull, so I'd endorse _Mastering The Complex Sale_ , _Exceptional Selling_ and _The Prime Solution_ by Thull. Also, _The New Solution Selling_.

</comment><comment><USER3> Hacking - The next generation. I'm in the middle of developing my first web app, so I'm desperately trying to get up to speed with security. I find that there is a lot of 'I don't know what I don't know' for me with regards to security and crypto, so I'm using this book as a springboard to get a feel for the different areas of security I will need to dive into to make some informed decisions about the tech I use. (I already know not to roll my own security, but I am sick of making cargo cult decisions re sec, so I am trying to get a good foundation set up, any recommendations will be appreciated, I may even do a ask HN post about it)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Other books that I've found helpful are the many socioeconomics books out there:

Malcolm Gladwell - Tipping Point, Blink, Outliers Tim Harford - The Undercover Economist Nassim Taleb - The Black Swan

I enjoyed the Steve Jobs book too, I liked the fact that he believed in what he was working on (no matter how crazy or disruptive) and saw so much beauty in perfection. There's a lot we can learn from his persistence and attitude towards persevering in the face of failure.

And for entertainment, I like profound books: The Alchemist, The Little Prince

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm on this Buckminster Fuller: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckminster_Fuller#Bibliography](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckminster_Fuller#Bibliography) kick lately. Reading everything of his that I can get my hands on. Pretty insightful and prescient stuff considering he died 30 years ago.

His insights from the 1930-70s seem to apply more to the world we live in today than the way things were in his time.

</comment><comment><USER5> Cipolla's _Before the Industrial Revolution_ (again).

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey Paul,

Do the lessons economic history that these books teach still have relevance today?

Technology (as a term to describe innovation) back then would have a very different meaning to technology today.

<comment><USER5> See the last section of [http://paulgraham.com/wealth.html](http://paulgraham.com/wealth.html).

<comment><AUTHOR> Thats an interesting read. Getting a technical developer to think as holistically as you laid out in that essay is a challenge. Its a challenge that I find very difficult, when I just want to dig into code, I have to continually tell myself to step back and see the bigger picture.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Finished James Altucher's _Choose Yourself_ over the weekend.

Currently working on _The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness_

</comment><comment><USER7> Currently, the old testament.

I am not church-goer or anything, and still I find it quite impressive the amount of surprising stuff (good and bad) you can find in there. It's actually as cool as the Iliad, and you may even find some good advice in there :).

Hey, who said everything had to be around software/startups.

<comment><USER8> I've read some Plutarch, Seutonius, Tacitus (in translation) and always wondered how the Old Testament measured up as a work of ancient literature.

<comment><USER7> I read lots of old greak and roman records too (among others, Sun Tzu was chinese :)). I am amazed every night how much the old testament can be different from what I was taught back in school.

Like the "eye for an eye" saying for example. Never taught it would be cited in the book.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Currently: 1\. Javascript: The Good Parts 2\. Eloquent Javascript 3\. The New Testament and the People of God by NT Wright

</comment><comment><USER10> I'm currently reading these books:

1\. Journey through Genius

2\. Principles of Uncertainty by Kadane

3\. The Golden Ticketprint

</comment><comment><USER11> Taking a break from tech books and stumbled across...

This Book Is Full of Spiders: Seriously, Dude, Don't Touch It.

</comment><comment><USER12> Code Complete second edition

</comment><comment><USER13> 1\. Axiomatic Set Theory by Suppes 2\. Solar Lottery by Philip K. Dick

</comment><comment><USER14> How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie

</comment><comment><USER15> The Design of Everyday Things by Donald Norman

</comment><comment><USER16> Diamond Age - Neal Stephenson

</comment><comment><USER17> Moonwalking with Einstein.

</comment><comment><USER18> The Great Gatsby

<comment><USER2> A woman next to me on the plane yesterday was reading that. I vaguely recall reading it (or at least being assigned to read it) in 11th grade, but I can't remember a damn thing about it now. Is it any good?

<comment><USER17> Yes.

<comment><USER2> Cool. Maybe I'll go back and re-read it. I'm pretty sure I actually _did_ read it back then, but I'm drawing a blank on the story.

That reminds me, I started _For Whom The Bell Tolls_ in 12th grade and never got around to finishing it. I guess I need to revisit that as well, at some point.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Incredible Vine Compilation Video - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbaIas710xM

<comment><USER2> Music @11:18 is cool! Wish I knew it.</comment>


XBMC Unveils an Official Beta for Android Devices - <AUTHOR> http://lifehacker.com/5965435/xbmc-unveils-an-official-beta-for-android-devices?tag=android-downloads

<comment><AUTHOR> Good news for Android set-top hopers out there. Anybody try the Pivos Xios yet? I'm not quite-ready to ditch my XBMC box, but when the time comes: <http://www.pivosgroup.com/xios.html></comment>


Postgres game schemaverse owned: how it happened - <AUTHOR> http://schemaverse.tumblr.com/post/51779902332

<comment><AUTHOR> i can't find the fix in the schemaverse github repo. i am curious how it was fixed.

<comment><USER2> It was fixed by either specifying the schema in the sql statements (public.player instead of player), or by setting the search path at the beginning of the function (SET search_path TO public;).

The method used was dependant on the procedure language and attributes.

Sorry, my repo is a mess :( SQL code management is annoying.

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks for your reply.

i am interested what you have to say about sqitch. i'm interested in using it myself, but don't have complicated things in postgres to do :D so i'll hardly see its possible shortcomings.

<comment><USER2> I haven't actually tried it but I will be giving it a shot on my next project. The concept is certainly needed, I just don't know how much I will actually enjoy working with it yet.

I wouldn't worry about not doing complicated things within postgres though. Change management, even of basic database structure alone, would be a great thing.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Vivaldi add green search engine Ecosia as default option - <AUTHOR> https://vivaldi.com/blog/vivaldi-1-9-plant-trees-as-you-browse/ <comment><AUTHOR> Ecosia uses ad revenue to fund tree-planting projects around the world. Is Vivaldi the first browser to include the "green" option as default?</comment>


Viv: Voice-controlled personal assistant from the team behind Siri - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/31/viv-artificial-intelligence-wants-to-run-your-life-siri-personal-assistants <comment><USER2> Yaaay, yet another PA that requires me to allow a company to see what I do with my devices and record what's going on in my house.

<comment><USER3> I wish the toolchain for setting something like this up with open source tools, on a server that you own was better.

<comment><USER2> Hell, I'd settle for just some nice hardware. I'm sure I could rig something to detect a hotword and then recognize things from a restricted set, but a small microphone at the other end of the room won't cut it. I wish there existed an Amazon Echo clone that I could run my own software on.

<comment><USER3> I wonder how far we could get with an rPi setup..

<comment><USER2> I think pretty far. Since I wrote that comment, I got a PS3 Eye camera for $5 (can you believe they're so cheap?) and it has a four microphone array! I'm going to try to write some code to do echo cancellation using the array, hopefully it will make for much clearer sound.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why work in San Francisco as a foreign developer? - <AUTHOR> http://www.getajob.io/why-work-in-san-francisco-as-a-foreign-developer/ <comment><USER2> "At the time of this writing, yearly salaries of $100,000 per year for a junior developer (with around 1 year of experience or right out of college) are common."

Good luck living in SF with that.

"If you overhear a discussion in a restaurant, it's very likely it'll be about software or a software company."

This is actually the main reason I'm so glad I don't work in SF. Seriously, how boring is it to walk into developers everywhere?

<comment><AUTHOR> I lived on about that amount the first year there, and it was comfortable. Let's be honest, SF is expensive, but on $100k it's not bad. If you pay $24k rent ($2k/mo) that's still a whole lot after taxes. And this is an entry level salary these days.

To your other point, that's preference of course. If you're not interested in walking into other devs, then maybe SF is not for you. But for many people who've never been in such an environment, it can be very cool.</comment></comment>


How to build a Linux PC for less than £180 - <AUTHOR> http://howto.techworld.com/personal-tech/3224643/how-to-build-a-linux-pc-for-less-than-180/&utm_source=ycombinator&utm_medium=sb&utm_content=schapman&utm_campaign=SB <comment><USER2> why do you keep spamming this junk ?

<comment><AUTHOR> )-;</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Please provide feedback on Sponty | be hangoutable. - <AUTHOR> http://www.thesponty.com/hn Sponty facilitates casual social gatherings among friends.
We have been in closed beta since last fall. We were at the MIT TechFair on 2/2/2009. Here are some of the pitches we used at the table:
"Hi, we're Sponty and we want you to be hangoutable. You should see your friends more".
"Unlike other social networks that want you to sit in front of the computer to look at photos and comment on rants, we're trying to use the internets to get you off the internets so that you'd see your friends more. You know, the old fashioned way where you sit with them and gossip over dinner. That way you'll actually be in their photos."
"We're different. Social networks want you to sit in front of the computer all day. We think that's wrong. You should be spending face time with friends."
"We sure are all busy. But we all have to eat at some point. It is more fun to eat dinner with friends".
We're still in closed beta, so here is an invitation link: http://www.thesponty.com/hn
Please let us know your thoughts! <comment><USER2> As a non-english speaker, I actually Googled for "hangoutable" because I didn't know what it means and mentions of Sponty came on top :p

On the site itself:

\- I have no idea how you're eco-friendly (sorry, the leaf conjures this emotion)

\- Underlined blue words are links: I thought I could click on the main page "Katie" and "Dave"

\- The logo on <http://www.thesponty.com/about> is different than on the main page (the beta word)

\- About page "Got it." on the question list. Got what? None asks "Got it. So how..."

\- "Speak your mind" is a poor choice of words indicating where I can send you feedback for a service that lets me type anything. It looked like I could click there and some page would come up that would let me do something.

But anyway, let's login!

\- Can't you put your logo on the Google Account login page? (I honestly don't know). Like, "<logo> Sponty uses Google..."

\- Can't you redirect to the main page instead of the /hn doorway? I logged in and had to go somewhere else to use the site. One extra step is bad :(

\- I had to delete "Your name here...". onclick delete the input contents. (Firefox 3.0.6)

\- My timezone is -3 gmt! Nowhere before it said the site is for USA people :( But let's fake and say I am Eastern;

\- Network, same as above.

\- Clicked Save, reloaded profile edit. I guess I have to click again to go to the home page?...

\- Make your friends hangoutable: <http://www.thesponty.com/Inerte_82> But I am not Inerte_82.

\- Cliked on Post, form came up: You should put something like a datepicker on "When". It's 02:15 AM here, and 12:00 AM appeared on default. Clicking too much arrows...

\- When I submitted the form, a spinning circle appeared on "12 - 3 am" box, but my entry appeared on "3 - 6 am". Spin the cirle on the time I've selected.

\- The calendar opacity is too high, showing elements behind

Overall I liked the concept! But I am grumpy tonight I guess :p

<comment><AUTHOR> Very useful. Thank you sir.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> 1) The front page has screenshots of HTML components. They look like you can interact with them, but you can't. This is almost always a bad design choice.

2) I don't want to use my Google account. I always use a site-specific email address when registering for a new site. I'll never give one of my actual gmail addresses.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Sponty has been in closed beta since the fall. We were at the MIT TechFair last week. Here are some of the pitches we used at the Sponty table (we also had chocolates!):

"Hi, we're Sponty and we want you to be hangoutable. You should see your friends more".

"Unlike other social networks that want you to sit in front of the computer to look at photos and comment on rants, we're trying to use the internets to get you off the internets so that you can see your friends more. You know, the old fashioned way where you sit with them and gossip over dinner. That way you'll actually be in those photos"

"We're different. Social networks want you to sit in front of the computer all day. We think that's wrong. You should be spending face time with friends."

"We sure are all busy. But we all have to eat at some point. It is more fun to eat dinner with friends".

Your feedback is greatly appreciated.

<comment><USER4> How I'd refine those pitches: Look to identify the problem to the consumer, and answer how do it better. Compare the following - "Hi, we're New York Pizza, and we want you to be satiated. You should eat good food." to... "Man, you ever get hungry and you're not sure exactly what would hit the spot? We're New York Pizza - we make good pizza, at a good price, 24 hours, that always hits the spot."

I'd kill the word "social network" from your pitch - people roll their eyes when they hear "another social network" - there's got to be ten million would- be social networks online now. Pitch yourself as the first, and only "..." that's completely unavailable on the market. Don't try to carve into someone's "social network space" - I'm at my friend's house right now. He has Facebook and Myspace and checks both of them. He has a dead Friendster account. He won't use another social network... but he DOES use Evite, because that scratches a different itch.

Something like - "It's easy to get lost online, and miss out what really matters - like eating good meals with good people. I founded Sponty because I remember back when it was simple and easy to get pizza with your friends, and you'd get together with people you cared about to watch a favorite TV show now and then. We're drowning in info with Myspace, Facebook, Friendster, and a million other tech things that keep us apart from our friends and zombies in front of the screen. Sponty makes it easy to meet up and hang out with your friends, and do what really matters in life. Join as at Sponty and get back to the days of great times, with great people, with no hassle. It's easy to join - all you need is a Google account - and you'll be using Sponty like a pro within 10 minutes. Just don't feel too bad that you'll be away from Facebook doing cool things!"

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> When you click to add an item on the calendar, the set of icons appear without any indication to what they stand for until you click on one and see the description in the "what" field. I know some of them are obvious, but you should think about clearing the ambiguity by having the "what" field populated appropriately as you hover over the icons.

</comment><comment><USER4> On the design: I love the clean aesthetic and color scheme. I would try to to make the page vertically a bit more compact, so the entire "Login using Google" is above the fold. I have a relatively large monitor, and yet only the top of "Login using Google" shows on my screen.

Then I'd test some descriptive instruction above "Login using Google" to explain why they should - the value to them. "Take a test drive and see how your social life improves - all you need is a Google account to get closer to your friends" - something like that, just make it shorter. Test different variations that answer the question, "why should I go to the next step?" It might seem obvious to you, but you're intimately familiar with your site. Me, why should I log in? The site looks nice, but what's the value here? What's the learning curve? Will this be a pain in the ass to get running? Mention how easy and fast they can do something cool, and then deliver on that promise once people log in.

Cheers mate, and best wishes.

</comment><comment><USER4> Toss a small (TM) on either Sponty, "be hangoutable", or both. TM means trademark - but anyone can use it whenever they're using new descriptive language that doesn't infringe on someone else's mark. You don't need to register anything - the (R) in a circle means Registered Trademark, and you need to register that.

Kellogg's has a registered trademark, they paid the USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office), and had a search done to make sure it didn't infringe on anyone. They have a very strong legal standing if anyone comes after them:

<http://www2.kelloggs.com/>

But look at Google - they just use (TM)!

<https://mail.google.com>

TM adds a bit of credibility. Split test it if you're not convinced, but it shouldn't hurt, and makes you feel like a real company. I'd definitely throw the TM onto "be hangoutable", because that's a cool phrase, and I'd want to own that after coining it.

<comment><USER6> You actually don't need a sign. It is yours by use (when you first publicly display it), the sign is optional.

<comment><USER7> It is true that you don't need it (and the poster never said you need it, btw), but the sign does help add additional evidence in the event you need to show a court that you were taking steps to protect your mark.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is cool. Sorry don't have time to do a detailed test drive now, but I see others have done that, and I just wanted to add that YES this is a great concept and something I have been wishing for. Dodgeball was close, Twitter is OK for this but too noisy and not always followed closely enough, but this gets right down to a core use case that is near and dear. One nice thing is that since the use case is narrow, getting updated via SMS would work, at least for people with good SMS quota plans.

Also both the name and the subtitle are great, and I won't be surprised to see them inspire other -able and -onty names shortly.

A money maker? I don't understand how, but you have thought about it way more than me, so maybe you have a way.

</comment><comment><USER8> Difficult to say if this will catch on, all I can offer is my own reasons why I would not use this. I wouldn't play Mob Wars either, but that hasn't stopped it from being a success.

\- I'm not in USA.

\- My friends are really reluctant to start using new services. It took ages for them to start using Facebook.

\- My friends probably do not have Google accounts. In fact they would probably be more likely to use this if this was a Facebook app.

\- As you say everyone needs to eat, so it is safe to assume that each of my friends will have dinner anyway. So if I want to have dinner with a particular friend, can't I just SMS them? I think they would find this more natural than me trying to talk them into signing up for something.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi bemmu, Thanks for the feedback!

1\. We plan on offering Sponty in many different languages. 2. It also works great on the iPhone (and similar phones) and it doesn't require a time commitment like social networks do. We really want you to be in and out in three seconds. 3\. Soon we'll add more authentication options. 4\. Sure, SMS works great for one-to-one. However, it really does'nt scale if you'd SMS all your friends to see if any of them are up for grabbing a bite.

<comment><USER9> _However, it really does'nt scale if you'd SMS all your friends to see if any of them are up for grabbing a bite._

Not trying to sound mean but I often read arguments like that for the next big social web thingy and I find them very contrived. Coordinating group events is certainly an interesting application but I think you should find a better use- case than "grabbing a bite".

Remember people are just animals and strongly conditioned on taking the path of least resistance - especially when hungry...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Interesting idea, but you're gambling on a huge network effect there. I'd need to get a whole group of my friends using this for it to be worth it, and I can't be bothered to do that. Even if I could, each one of them would need to remember to update it before they went anywhere... what a hassle.

An idea: why not exploit an existing framework that people use for frequent updates? Add a facebook app (150m users), add twitter integration (another 800k users or so), and you're off to the races. I'd be much more easily convinced if instead of having to update your service I could just update my twitter with "eating at joe's diner tonight 6pm, hangoutable".

Also, do you have Google Calendar integration yet? If not, what are you doing? That's where I keep my calendar. I even have it set up to send me reminders and everything.

I like your hangoutable branding - there's not currently a good word for an ad-hoc social event, and you've picked a descriptive one that's also pretty catchy. Sponty is halfway between silly and awkward. Maybe you should consider rebranding?

Lastly, while I commend your Google account integration, I'd make it an "...or log in with your Google account" and get your own logins. Much as it pains me, the world's not ready to have all their services nestled in Google's ever- expanding bosom just yet.

Anyway, best of luck.

</comment><comment><USER11> This may sound paranoid, but I don't want to enter my Google passwort on a site that I have been forwarded to from another site.

I tried logging in to Google and then to login via your site, too, but Google still asked for my password.

</comment><comment><USER12> A few little things:

\- don't capitalize by username in my URL (i.e. <http://www.thesponty.com/Tlrobinson_94>). Also, do you really need the "_94", can't it just be the username?

\- clear the placeholder text from textfield when it's clicked

<comment><AUTHOR> 1\. The URL is actually an invitation link. When someone clicks it and signs up, Sponty sends you a friend request; which you can choose to ignore. Hence, this is a mild obfuscation to make invite links less guessable.

2\. Thank you for catching this bug. Will do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Very cool. As someone who is about to move into a new city (Montreal) I really like things like this because it makes it easier to get to know people.

I really have nothing to add that hasn't been said (damn!) but I figure a bit more kudos isn't going to hurt.

</comment><comment><USER14> Very similar to <http://www.mixin.com/>.

<comment><USER15> Yours is cleaner and that mixin thing made me dizzy just looking at it and after going to Sponty first, I was taken aback by how mixin looked so complicated, had so much text and wanted to inundate me with words and junk. Doesn't matter if it's true, that was my impression.

I think you've got a good core, you'll need some other "hook" to draw a critical mass of folks, I think...but the basics are there in my mind. Easy to use, simple and cool.

Thanks for sharing.

<comment><USER14> You're right - mixin has been around a little longer, I think, but Sponty definitely has the simplicity thing nailed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> well most my friends and i already use google calendar for this type of thing. If we really want to schedule a day out or something. But I can see how this might be popular with like college kids. Try making it a facebook app instead, might be much more useful

</comment><comment><USER17> Very confusing. I have no idea what I'm supposed to do.</comment>


RightGIF – a Giphy replacement for Slack teams - <AUTHOR> https://rightgif.com/ <comment><USER2> Even better if it would show a different gif if the keyword is used again...

<comment><USER3> Then it wouldn't be the "right" gif.

Giphy is aweful in returning irrelevant, often downright weird or creepy gifs, even after "pre-screening" the phrase.

I turned it off in our company slack, but it looks like I'll be turning on this instead!

<comment><USER2> So it might depend on the use case ? I was thinking having the same gif over and over again for something like 'lunch' is a bit boring. But I agree its better then having some random gif that has no relation to lunch...

<comment><USER4> /giphy #1 gets you the first result for your search so pretty much the same thing that this rightgif bot does. i guess they have a bunch of secret commands like #weather and #echo? i found them here. anyone know of other secret commands?[http://thenextweb.com/apps/2015/10/14/these-secret-giphy- com...](http://thenextweb.com/apps/2015/10/14/these-secret-giphy-commands-for- slack-will-change-the-way-you-gif/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> looks all "right gif" does is pull the top animated GIF results from google image search. meh. to top it all off it doesnt filter porn (try /gif porn in your work slack for fun times). doesnt seem very right at all.</comment>


Two arrested for alleged card skimming at Sunnyvale California gas station - <AUTHOR> https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/10/12/two-arrested-for-alleged-card-skimming-at-sunnyvale-gas-station/ <comment><USER2> card skimmers are getting more and more complex. so far i've stuck to Exxon/Mobil where I can use Apple Pay and not have yet another credit/debit card stolen. :|</comment>


"Web 2.0 Is On The Ropes... Kleiner Perkins Has Halted Investments" - <AUTHOR> http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2007/11/web_20_is_on_th.php

<comment><USER2> KP halted? Really? What good investments have they actually made in the last 3-4 years? KPCB completely missed out on the Web2.0 while their competitors made billions. Look at their portfolio... it's devoid of anything that made it big in the last few years.

As for Randy Komisar, he's a new VC who hasn't had a SINGLE exit! He's been trashing Web 2.0 for a while now and has contributed to KPCB's decline. KP used to be a tier-1 VC firm that "got it" and in the past two years, they've become a tier-2 firm. I routinely tell entrepreneurs to go and practice their pitch at KP since they will ask tough questions and not make an investment because they won't get it in the end.

Look here how he's trashing Web 2.0 earlier this year:

[http://www.venturebeat.com/2007/01/03/with-web-20-its- easy-t...](http://www.venturebeat.com/2007/01/03/with-web-20-its-easy-to-get- muddled/)

And look at his portfolio: <http://www.kpcb.com/team/index.php?Randy%20Komisar>

ALL duds.

Sour grapes, Randy?!

PS: No wonder Vinod Khosla left KPCB.. he probably got sick of slowness and influx of people who suck at envisioning the future and investing based on a vision.

<comment><USER3> I may not be into web 2.0, silicon valley or all these website stuffs but when I checked their website: <http://www.kpcb.com/portfolio/> , I think they did okay with Google and Amazon(doing a bit well this year) in the web arena.

After all are there any startup within 3-4 years that got bought out and the VC won big time other than YouTube? Remember, all Facebook has is "valuation".

Maybe Randy is looking at the real world and he's thinking that none of these web companies that he invested are going to give him a big payout (in the area of hundred millions) so he prefers to move to a bigger industry: energy and oil. It's understandable.

On the other hand, Vinod seems to have his own venture now. Maybe that's what he wanted: his own.

Go to his venture website and check the Renewable Portfolio section: <http://www.khoslaventures.com/> , I don't see any web company (even though I knew Vinod invest in several web companies within 2-4 years since 2002/2003 ish). Khosla ventures is investing in Energy companies too.

<comment><USER4> The Khosla Ventures website leaves a lot to be desired. I nearly told Vinod this one day before his partner told me that it was designed by Vinod's daughter.

Truth is KV has invested in many new web companies including big guys like Slide and RingCentral. Maybe they just don't want a ton of inbound slide decks from web 2.0 companies making sticky note apps.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This article is all based on an off the cuff remark by a single (often deliberately controversial) partner at Kleiner. And it's nothing new that people in SV despise the term "Web 2.0."

If Sequoia or Benchmark announced, as firms, that they were no longer investing in web startups, that would be meaningful.

Randy Komisar saying that "Web 2.0" companies are a lose is different thing.

<comment><USER6> It may not be significant what this particular VC says, probably without giving it much thought. But there is a justified disappointment with many things that go by the Web 2.0 token. I found it very convincing when you wrote this:

"One of the most valuable things my father taught me is an old Yorkshire saying: where there's muck, there's brass. Meaning that unpleasant work pays. And more to the point here, vice versa. Work people like doesn't pay well, for reasons of supply and demand."

How many of those Web 2.0 startups are actually tackling unpleasant, hard, messy problems in your view?

<comment><USER5> I don't think there's any correlation at all between whether a startup gets called a "web 2.0" startup and how hard the problems are that they have to work on.

Look at Loopt. Seems like a classic, frothy social app. And yet beneath it are very difficult technical problems and horribly tedious negotiations with carriers. Or Justin.TV. What could me more frivolous, right? And yet to get it to work they had to build their own CDN for live streaming. They spent 6 months working round the clock building infrastructure (including custom hardware) before they could even launch.

<comment><USER7> I agree that there are several web applications that require solving hard messy problems. I'm not sure if I would call Loopt a Web2.0 startup, but I agree with the point about Justin.tv

The problem however is that a good number of startups that call themselves web2.0 companies are building facebooks apps, Yet Another Social Network, or roll your own web app with Ruby on Rails in 15 minutes.

<comment><USER5> _a good number of startups that call themselves web2.0 companies are building [things with no substance]_

That's no different from Web 1.0. In 1998, people thought all they had to do was create a "portal" for some special interest, and it would be a company. Replace "portal" with "social network" and it's 2008.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I wonder how much of this supposed non-investment in "Web 2.0" companies is because traditional VC's like KP can't get the terms they need (or are used to)?

In the 90's to start even a web-based company, you would spend $1MM+ just on things like office furniture and snacks.

These days a $500,000 investment can get you a working "beta" prototype with users (or even paying subscribers) and much more infrastructure than it ever could in the past.

You can get your "Web 2.0" company rolling with less than a dozen people, in temporary (or no) office space. That doesn't need "Kleiner Perkins" level investments, so I can see why they maybe can't find any Web 2.0 deals worth investing in.

When $500,000 gives you something that you can start to make logical extrapolations from, you're in a better position to negotiate a lower percentage for the investors. This is good for founders, but not for VCs.

</comment><comment><USER9> This comment/article aside - how many web startups have KP invested in recently? They've not had a major hit since Google and have spent their time investing in a bunch of other sectors.

There's nothing new here.

</comment><comment><USER10> Ok, If I'm correct, this has been hashed a hundred thousand ways. People in the industry get excited about some new technologies, and a couple of new ideas, (portals, social networks, semantic web...there will be more) and a few somebodies make it big. Lots of other people say "x and y market could also use that idea" and soon it's a paradigm with buzzwords.

Now there is a group of developers and entrepreneurs equipped with some good ideas, some buzz words, and some drive, they all take these things to the VCs of the world. VCs are smart people, and I'm sure that they get tired of seeing 20 different angles of the same box.

Business principles haven't changed since the 1890s. You have to either do something new, or do it much much better than everyone else to make it big.

I think that the message that he's trying to give is "Give me something new, and show me that you don't need to bank on the success of somebody else to do it"

</comment><comment><USER11> "At the end of the day, there is a deep, long term trend towards the network as platform, and to applications that leverage the true strength of that platform. That's what _I_ call Web 2.0, and I know that KP is still investing in that trend."

The network is the computer bromide #38,323.

</comment><comment><USER12> To me Facebook and all the social networks stuff are clearly Web 2.0. Are these guys incredibly superficial or am I an idiot?</comment>


Show HN: A toy ray tracer in Rust - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Twinklebear/tray_rust

<comment><USER2> I didn't know that Physically Based Rendering was introduced as a book, and that book is a literate program (as in, you can compile the book and get a physically based renderer as a binary) that was so influential that it received an academy award(!).

There's a video of two famous actors announcing them, being professionals they explain exactly what the book is about convincingly despite not having a clue what they are talking about:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d9juPsv1QU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d9juPsv1QU)

In their receiving speech they give a shout out to Donald Knuth for pioneering literate programming.

</comment><comment><USER3> Path tracer. Ray tracer implies a Whitted Ray Tracer. This is clearly using Monte Carlo sampling and BRDFs to scatter rays using multi-bounce lighting (hence paths instead of rays)

<comment><USER4> Ray tracing is just colliding a line with some other goemetric primitive. It doesn't imply Whitted ray tracing at all. Basically all offline rendering now in toy renderers to high end production renderers is some sort of physically based ray tracing, so it is the norm rather than the exception.

<comment><USER3> The point is definitely pedantic but the differentiating factor in my mind isn't whether the ray is physically based or not. The important fact is that the ray undergoes multiple bounces, so at the end, a pixel isn't lit with a single ray, but many rays that meet end to end.</comment></comment></comment>