Ask HN: What consultancy/freelance skillsets are paying the most /hr and where? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Throwaway to rid clients ever discovering this, but I operate glorified UI freelance in the mask of an agency and charge by a day rate of $1,050. Internally I'm factoring that on five hours a day at $175/hr. – on the surface, using a traditional work week ideology that rate looks reasonable. The question never arises on how many hours per day I'm factoring. That said, design is different than coding obviously. Being created by someone with ten years of experience doing so (me) can charge lots more than a newer freelancer. I hit in between that and what the big agencies charge.

<comment><USER3> There's no need to feel guilty about that as long as you're providing the value your clients are paying for.

Although I see why you used a throwaway. I'm always astounded how much consultants will publicly share about their pricing strategies and clients, many of whom likely read the posts themselves.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Well, there a lot of specialized consultancies that pay well but with a high barrier of entry (I don't think you'll become a, say, Guidewire consultant overnight, or replace with whatever specialized field you know).

If you mean with a generalist's knowledge of IT, the place to be is San Francisco Area. This report might help you:

[https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/blog/linkedin-workforce- report...](https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/blog/linkedin-workforce-report- january-2018-san-francisco-ca)

I guess IT Infrastructure and Systems Management is not sexy :) . I wonder if it pays the bills though.

</comment><comment><USER5> Interim CEOs make a fair penny.</comment>


How Facebook Gets You to Test New Stuff on Its Mobile App - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2014/01/facebook-airlock/ <comment><USER2> I've had some really good versions of the Facebook app for Android until they decided to ship me a different version. One day it's a really snappy version with a useful navbar at the bottom, the next it's laggy and navigation makes no sense.

They move my cheese all the time. I must be just lucky.</comment>


Self-publishing helps POD take the lead in US - <AUTHOR> http://www.thebookseller.com/global/global-news/85891-self-publishing-helps-pod-take-the-lead-in-us.html

<comment><USER2> 560K new titles in the US last year, more POD than regular publishing. That is mind boggling. POD == Publishing On Demand.

<comment> barry-cotter Yeah, but the modal number of copies sold on e.g. Lulu.com is 1 (repeating hearsay seen on 2blowhards.com, I'd check it out but posting from phone)</comment></comment>


Deep, Deep Trouble - <AUTHOR> https://sinews.siam.org/Details-Page/deep-deep-trouble <comment><USER2> I am glad to see this topic is moving from a debate to a realization/complaint. A friend of my was saying the same sorts of things about Visual Basic when it really started getting popular. "Computer Science will be lost because all these people have no clue what they are doing and still are making a useful product." I think the reality was "I got this job to practice computer science, and I am quite annoyed because I have to use someone else's software rather than write my own." I hate when this happens, but one has to move on.</comment>


Extend robots.txt to specify session variable names? - <AUTHOR> To cope with visitors who block cookies, we use a query variable in our URLs to maintain sessions. In our case we use "z", because it is short and unlikely to be used for anything else. So our URLs look like www.example.com/contact?z=123456.
However, this confuses most bots because they assume the query variable indicates a distinct resource, fairly enough. So each time a bot visits, it gets a new session variable - and ends up crawling tens if not hundreds of copies of the same page. I'm aware that some bots (Google for example) allow you to specify the name of your session variable, but there are now thousands of bots and informing each one of your session variable name seems impractical.
So would it be a good idea to extend robots.txt to allow specification of query variables that do not indicate distinct resources? "Ignore-query-var: z" perhaps? <comment><USER2> Test for bots (useragent) before adding the variable, requires array of most common bots - if bot don't create a session ...

<comment><AUTHOR> Maintaining a list of bot useragents would be a pain, but I guess testing if the useragent contains 'bot' would work for most.</comment></comment>


In SF and Rooting for a Tech Slowdown - <AUTHOR> http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/09/technology/in-san-francisco-and-rooting-for-a-tech-slowdown.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fm.facebook.com&_r=0 <comment><USER2> Well, if we all start feeling the Bern, they won't have to worry: silicon valley will be gone.</comment>


Discover Messenger Bots - <AUTHOR> http://www.chatbots.today/ <comment><USER2> Nice little list. Would love it if each bot had a short description of what it does</comment>


Japanese Breakthrough Makes Wind Power Cheaper Than Nuclear - <AUTHOR> http://wakeup-world.com/2012/01/19/japanese-breakthrough-makes-wind-power-cheaper-than-nuclear/

<comment><USER2> _One downside often cited by advocates of coal and gas power is that wind turbines require a lot more maintenance than a typical coal or gas power plant. But in a lagging economy this might just be wind power's biggest upside — it will create lots and lots of permanent jobs, sparking a new cycle of economic growth in America._

And if that doesn't work, we can just break a bunch of windows and hire people to fix them.

</comment><comment><USER3> South Australia has one of the highest wind penetrations in the world, they recently had a peak of 60% electricity being supplied by the wind.

Though with the higher wind penetration levels wind farm operators in South Australia are facing a problem with the current electricity market design. When the wind blows, there is a surplus of electricity supply. The price for electricity dives, sometimes to -$1000 / MWh. Yes that is correct, the price goes below zero and consumers are paid to use electricity.

And conversely when the wind is not blowing, traditional fossil fuel power stations are able to bid much higher prices without fear of competition.

An interesting challenge for electricity market designers to solve.</comment>


Medicalising everyday life doesn't help anyone's mental health - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/24/medicalising-mental-health-ilnness-nhs <comment><USER2> Interesting read addressing something that is certainly a problem, I think.

I would comment on the following, however:

 _" The proportion of sickness benefit claims made in relation to a mental health problem more than doubled in the period from 1995 to 2014 (from 21% to 46%), while more than 40% of absences among the employed are attributed to mental health problems."_

The author uses the cited figures to show how much of an increase we have had in mental health issues, despite the increase in anti-depressants. One facet not mentioned, however, is the changing culture and reduction in stigma in relation to mental health.

The conclusion of the article cited says, in part, this:

 _" Claimants with other conditions fell by 35%."_

Which would lead one to believe that perhaps a significant portion of the "new" mental health related sick leave may _always_ have been mental health, but now instead of having to lie about the reason, people are more willing to admit that they need the time for mental health.</comment>


How to escape North Korea - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/world/2017/09/09/escaping-north-korea-we-had-already-decided-to-kill-ourselves-rather-than-be-sent-back <comment><USER2> I wonder why Thailand sends them to South Korea, where other countries along the way are sent back to NK... in any case it reminds me of how I miss living in Thailand :>

</comment><comment><USER3> > the journey will first pass through China, Vietnam and Laos, where they must > be on the alert for police who might arrest them and send them back the way > they came — to certain and brutal punishment in North Korea.

uh...the chinese gov. says it's 'helping' to get NK to the right mind, but... guess there's some big inconsistency between what it does & what it says...

edit: lol sorry for the wrong idea

<comment><USER4> >uh...the chinese gov. says it's 'helping' to contain NK

Well they're certainly helping to contain NK citizens to NK.</comment></comment>


Untidy beds may keep us healthy - <AUTHOR> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4181629.stm <comment><USER2> Dust mites are a bitch.

Although I was pretty skeptical, I noticed a marked difference after I encased my bedding (mattress, pillows, comforter) in special dust-mite proof sheets. Dust mites can't get in (or out, if they're in there), and the proteins that actually cause the allergic reaction also can't get out. So you have less bugs producing allergens, and the allergens don't get into your lungs. I hardly ever wake up coughing uncontrollably anymore. (Air filters and powerful allergy/asthma drugs were pretty effective, too, but the combination is best.)

Anyway, I had no idea I was allergic to dust mites, even though I often woke up in the middle of the night coughing uncontrollably and woke up in the morning almost drowning in my own phlegm. I thought it was post-nasal drip or bad sleeping posture or something. A 15-minute skin test later, and now I know for sure what I am allergic to, and can be on the right drugs (and immunotherapy). So if you have similar symptoms, get tested, and get your body fixed. Dust mite allergy can be _cured_ , and there are nonsedating side- effect free drugs that can help you while your body is being fixed. (Singulair.)

I hate to make preachy public service announcements, but a lot of people are probably unnecessarily tired today simply because they spent most of the night not being able to breathe and didn't even realize it. And if you don't sleep, you can't hack!

</comment><comment><USER3> Unfortunately, you might be less happy as a result: [http://www.happiness- project.com/happiness_project/2009/08/m...](http://www.happiness- project.com/happiness_project/2009/08/make-your-bed.html)

<comment><USER4> She also mentions that not making your bed could make you feel more happy, because it is resistance against your parents rules.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Interesting idea. But it seems trivial compared with laundering your sheets in hot water regularly

<comment><USER6> They don't just live in your sheets, they live in the mattress too. You can launder your sheets all day and they can still come out of your mattress onto your clean sheets.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> > In the next stage of their research, the scientists are putting mite pockets > into beds in 36 houses around the United Kingdom to test their computer > model and will investigate how people's daily routines affect mite > populations.

I realize I already have dust mites in my bed, but I would still have a hard time volunteering for this. Ignorance is bliss.

<comment><USER2> If you're not allergic, you're not allergic. Then they're just there, eating your dead skin cells. You shouldn't worry too much about microorganisms unless they cause you problems -- they are everywhere, and you can't get rid of them.

<comment><USER8> In fact, each and every one of us has billions of microorganisms hanging out on our skin and inside our bodies. Many of them are our friends, helping us digest things we can't otherwise digest and warding off infections.

<comment><USER2> Incidentally, one theory as to why allergies are so prevalent these days is because chlorinated water killed off a gut parasite that hooks into the intestine and excretes an immunosuppressant. Without that suppressant action that we evolved with the "expectation" of having, we now all have more potent immune systems than "designed". The result is that it reacts to things that pose no harm, like pollen and dust mite debris.

On the other hand, dirty water has killed a lot more people than allergies have.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> As someone with dust mite allergies this is what I'm going to start doing: 1\. Leave blanket rolled up at end of bed 2\. Turn fan on to blow over the bed, drying it out

Much cheaper than buying those fairly pricey dust mite cases that seem to have dubious effectiveness.

<comment><USER10> Or you could invest in an electric blanket.

As a bonus you will get more sleep in winter (because it takes time for your body to warm the bed otherwise).

<comment><USER11> Electric blankets are also a classic money-saving measure if you're trying to save on heating bills.

<comment><USER12> On the other hand, an electric blanket plus a cold house is guaranteed to make you not want to get up in the morning. You may lose enough productivity to cancel out the money you save on heating.

<comment><USER13> What about if you had a laptop next to your bed and worked from home?

Sure, there's muscle atrophy, but it's a small price to pay for comfort! </sarcasm>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I haven't made my bed in a week. Now i am feeling +much+ better. :)

</comment><comment><USER15> On a side note: Am I the only one who struggles reading these articles made of one-sentence-paragraphs? I completely lose the flow and the structure of the argumentation (Is there any?).</comment>


I'm visiting the Bay area this week- What should I see? - <AUTHOR>

I'm going to be visiting the Bay area this week, and I'd love some advice on what to see.
Darkened Sky is Boston based, so I've never spent much time in SF.. I thought that while I'm out there it might be worth the time to stop by a few places to get the lay of the land.
I know there's a lot of news.yc folk who have lived there before, or have moved there to work on their Startups- What would you recommend?
Are there any interesting startup events going on this week? What places should I be sure to stop at? Any hotels you'd recommend, or recommend avoiding at all costs? Are there any bars or restaurants that are worth patronizing?
-Colin <comment><USER2> I stayed at this hotel when I was in SF recently. [http://travel.yahoo.com/p-hotel-358053-travelodge_presidio_s...](http://travel.yahoo.com/p-hotel-358053-travelodge_presidio_san_francisco-i) It was just about the cheapest hotel in SF and it was surprisingly decent, other than the thin walls and unfriendly front desk person. It's in a nice neighboorhood and was very close to a bus line that goes downtown/to the Caltrain. Near that hotel we ate we here which was great for an inexpensive meal. <http://www.yelp.com/biz/PuOsLglHAg0kpHVvGj2new>

Thanks for the advice last time everyone, it was a great trip!

<comment><USER2> that hotel is also very close to the Exploratorium, which is as good as interactive science museums get and the Palace of the Fine Arts, which is worth seeing if you're in the area.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Computer History Museum in Mountain View has a pretty cool 1.5 hr tour. You can see parts of a Babbage Difference engine, ENIAC, CRAY 1, 2's, One of GOOG's early server racks, washing machine sized hard drives, etc... It's a lot of fun.

<comment><USER4> ..and all the other goodies that was located at the _Boston_ Computer Museum. Someone decided to plow it over when they were just so happening to put an interstate underground. Oh well. The commute to the airport is wicked fast now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Avoid the Cable Cars. Unless you like standing in line for 3 hours to have someone's crotch in your face while the "conductor" yells at people not to lean out.

</comment><comment><USER6> I was just in Palo Alto for a couple days. I stayed in Dinah's Garden Hotel in a "Deluxe" room with patio facing a pond. (El Camino Real). Quite nice for the price I paid.

Ate some breakfasts at Peninsula Fountain & Grill (Emerson/Hamilton). Classic American diner.

Drinking at "Old Pro" (great mini burgers) and other bars in the area which are more difficult to remember. (University/Ramona). Pretty good.

</comment><comment><USER7> The labyrinth at Grave Cathedral is cool.

<http://www.gracecathedral.org/>

Definitely visit a beach: <http://www.sfguide.com/sports/beaches.htm>. This is a lovely time of year to watch the waves.

If you have time take a win tour of Alexander Valley. You'll fall in love.

</comment><comment><USER8> The Marin headlands is nice to see. Sausalito has a cool bar called the "No Name" that has live Dixie Jazz most days. Muir Woods is a nice walk. Pt. Reyes area is purty. Maybe drive from SF to Monterey on the Pacific Coast Highway and see 17 Mile Drive in Pebble Beach.

</comment><comment><USER9> Startup Events:

SF Beta Holiday Bash (10th)

Lunch 2.0 - Mozilla (4th)

Lunch 2.0 - Loopt (7th)

</comment><comment><USER10> Watch Paul Graham from afar.

<comment><USER2> Where does Paul Graham eat breakfast these days?

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Golden Gate Bridge, Fisherman's Warf, Alcatraz, etc if you're into the touristy stuff. The hotels around Union Square are nice and centrally located.

</comment><comment><USER12> I'm a huge fan of Michael Mina for seafood, though it's rather spendy. It's definitely one of the finest seafood restaurants you'll ever visit.

</comment><comment><USER13> Check out: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=67460>

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, that's a good resource, I'll take a look.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> <http://www.toronado.com> for the best beer selection ever

</comment><comment><USER15> If you like views: twin peaks in SF, the Berkeley hills, the Marin headlands and lookouts around the GG bridge are some classics among many.

If you are considering further education, seeing the Berkeley and Stanford campuses might be interesting.

If you like electronics and shopping, Fry's (esp. flagship store in Sunnyvale) is worth a look.

Fisherman's Wharf is a tourist trap; best reason to go there is to catch a bay cruise/Alcatraz tour.

Upcoming is a great source to find relevant events; see [http://upcoming.yahoo.com/search/?type=Events&q=&rt=...](http://upcoming.yahoo.com/search/?type=Events&q=&rt=1&loc=San+Francisco+County%2C+California%2C+United+States&Search=GO) for a prospective SF-centered search.

<comment><USER16> > If you are considering further education, seeing the Berkeley and Stanford > campuses might be interesting.

Drive down University Ave in Palo Alto. Absolutely gorgeous, in a way that you normally don't see on this coast.

<comment><USER17> Better yet. Park the car and _walk_ down University Avenue.

<comment><USER2> Take the free shuttle from Palo Alto to Stanford though! Stanford owns a decadent amount of land between the too, it was a much longer walk than I expected.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Sounds corny, but try out one of the tour bus deals. It's a good way to see a lot of stuff quickly. Then you can do other stuff at your leisure.

I have great memories of neat stuff to do -- try taking a tour in the floatplane over the Bay. Or take a day and do Napa. Or check out the great restaurants. Or some of the great live music joints. Lots of fun stuff.</comment>


Ask HN: How much traffic to expect if your project hits HN front page? - <AUTHOR> This is the same question from 2 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8107658<p>HN has become much bigger since then, so I am interested to know what has changed for you.. <comment><USER2> I answered a similar question here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12008384](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12008384)</comment>


In Germany, Uproar Over a Doctoral Thesis - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/books/merkels-possible-successor-resigns-in-plagiarism-scandal.html?src=me&ref=homepage

<comment><USER2> I wonder if his supporters would be so enthusiastic if they found out their family doctors had cheated to pass their medical exams.

Credentials matter. That's why we require people have them. So we can be certain (within reason) that they possess the capabilities their degrees imply. In the case of a politician, the degree could signify a level of critical thinking, diligence, and knowledge. The only thing plagiarism tells us is that he is a liar, and a cheater.

Wait a second, he has the perfect credentials for politics...

</comment><comment><USER3> What a boring national controversy.</comment>


Show HN: Arduino Controlled Christmas Lights - <AUTHOR> http://timleland.com/automated-christmas-lights/

<comment><AUTHOR> Please leave a comment if you would like to know more about the project!</comment>


'Very, very pink' tap water in Alberta town - <AUTHOR> http://www.citynews.ca/2017/03/08/pink-tap-water-residents-alberta-town-tizzy/ <comment><USER2> A lot of the posts here seem to be missing something important: permanganate is an EXTREMELY vividly colored ion in solution. The bright colors of the water in the pictures is about in line with what a 20 ppm permanganate solution looks like. Considering manganese is an essential trace mineral (although it is neurotoxic above a certain point, the amounts in the water are minimal), I doubt there is any real toxic effect caused by drinking the water. Permanganate is a very strong oxidizer, but it is not much stronger than the commonly used chlorine and chlorine dioxide to be of concern (and it's weaker than ozone anyways).

The whole reason permanganate is added in the first place is twofold: it oxidizes simple organics all the way to carbon dioxide (think nail polish remover, denatured alcohol), and it oxidizes soluble ferrous iron to insoluble ferric iron. The byproduct of the oxidation, manganese dioxide, is insoluble and if balanced correctly the treatment does not increase manganese levels in the water.

<comment><USER3> There is probably not "any real toxic effect" with a small dose taken over a few months in an isolated study.

But what about a small dose taken over years, and interacting with the thousands of small doses of synthetic chemicals we have in our body because of processed food, hygiene products, clothes, surface treatments and medicine ?

This we have no way to know.

There are already so many reasons to get in contact with synthetic chemicals. I think it's sane policy to limit them a much as we can when we can, especially in something as ubiquitous as water.

Yes having drinkable water is essential, but some cities manage to have it with much less additives. It should be the default goal for anything related to public health.

<comment><USER4> >There are already so many reasons to get in contact with synthetic chemicals.

Such a pointless distinction. There are many chemicals that occur naturally and will kill you.

<comment><USER3> Anything can kill you. You can kill somebody with a piece of wood, a nuclear device, gaz, light, shock waves, a baby, a golden coin...

And any matter is a chemical. Using "synthetic" as a qualifier allow me to distinguish "fructose" from "paracetamol". You will less likely see important traces of cobra venom in the water.

It's not perfect, but I fail to find a better term.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I love potassium permanganate. Growing up in Soviet Union, we used to add potassium permanganate to bath, supposedly to clean your skin. But I love it for its oxidizing properties. Mix potassium permanganate with magnesium shavings, and you have a pretty powerful explosive mixture. Put a drop or two of glycerine into potassium permanganate and glycerine spontaneously burns. There are tons of interesting experiments you could do with potassium permanganate... So many wonderful memories...

<comment><USER2> When mixed with sulfuric acid, it forms manganese heptoxide, which does lovely things like ignite paper on contact and detonate if heated above 50 C!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> We used to gargle water mixed with potassium permanganate as children after cleaning our teeth to see if we did a good enough job. It would colour plaque pink, so it was very obvious if you hadn't cleaned properly!

<comment><USER7> A shot of its stronger solution was also routinely used as an anti-diarrhea remedy back when I was a kid. Tasted awful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Not the end of the world. You can buy potassium permanganate tablets to purify drinking water.

<comment><USER9> What's the concentration of that vs the concentration here. Note that we also use chlorine to treat drinking water (e.g. on canoe trips), but you don't want to be drinking that unless it's very low concentration.

A quick google search suggests that they are used to "improve water clarity" [0], so at a guess you don't use enough of it to turn the water pink.

There's also the fact that they think it's concentrated enough that you should avoid bathing in it if you have sensitive skin. That certainly doesn't inspire confidence that you should drink it (exposing some very important skin, that's usually more sensitive).

[0] [http://www.livestrong.com/article/71333-use-potassium- perman...](http://www.livestrong.com/article/71333-use-potassium-permanganate- water-treatment/)

<comment><USER10> I would not use livestrong as a source.

If the pictures are true to the situation, the concentrations are tiny. You can look up videos of people putting less than a teaspoon into water to get the same result.

IIRC, PP can be a precursor to chlorine. But, you're comparing two different chemicals here and what applies to one likely doesn't apply to another.

There is a chance your skin will feel like it's burning if it's not fully dissolved in water. I wouldn't advise touching the dry powder. The shards will embed into your skin and it will feel like an open wound filled with Tabasco for a long time.

Fun-fact: If you mix it with glycerol it combusts, so don't use any lotions with it if you get some on your skin.

ETA: I don't know what's going on, but there's a lot of low-effort responses in this thread. Is it the hours?

<comment><USER11> > IIRC, PP can be a precursor to chlorine.

Converting KMnO₄ to Cl¯ would require a nuclear reaction. Chlorides are generally soluble, so it's not going to cause an insoluble salt to slowly dissolve as a permanganate salt precipitates instead. It does appear to be a stronger oxidizing agent than Cl₂ (and Cl¯ and ClO¯ and ClO₂¯), but there are likely better reducing agents in most water than dissolved chlorine ions.

<comment><USER2> For what it's worth, permanganate is an extremely strong oxidizer (probably the second strongest stable solid oxidant known, after persulfate), but at neutral pH it is unable to oxidize chloride to hypochlorite and beyond. (The electrode potentials are too close, and anyways the maganese dioxide byproduct turns hypochlorite to chloride and oxygen.) Instead of reacting with a reducing agent in water, (the main possibilities are simple organics and ferrous iron, and these turn to carbon dioxide or insoluble ferric oxide [sidenote: this is why permanganate is added to water in the first place]) permanganate tends to break down to oxygen and manganese dioxide, which settles out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Almost completely unrelated, except for the pink water bit: [http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/lake-in-melbournes- westgat...](http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/lake-in-melbournes-westgate- park-turns-bright-pink-20170308-gutp26.html)

<comment><USER13> Happens literally every year, and someone writes some clickbaity news article about it every year.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Not a big deal. But it does underline the need to trust public water systems. Worse mistakes have been made.

</comment><comment><USER15> At least it's not phenolphthalein -- [https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/phenolphthalein](https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/phenolphthalein)

</comment><comment><USER16> "She said the water is clear coming out of her cold water taps, but not the hot water taps."

Do people really not know where their hot water comes from?

<comment><USER17> They said "adding property owners may need to run their water for a few minutes to clear their service lines." I would think that their hot water tank got some of the pink water into it and unlike the cold line the pink will slowly dissipate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> > "Could the town have done a better job of communicating what was going on > yesterday to our community? Absolutely, without a doubt,"

This must be from Zootopia =))

</comment><comment><USER19> Am I the only one thinking about the slime river under NYC in Ghostbuster 2 ?

Same colour, but not the same texture

</comment><comment><USER20> It's because of the electrolytes. It has electrolytes in it, which is good.

</comment><comment><USER21> I have always wanted to buy a countertop water distiller for home use. Guess I found another reason to justify the purchase =)

<comment><USER22> Piggybacking on this a bit: does anyone have a good recommendation for learning more about home water distillers and RO systems? Both for just certain faucets and maybe even the whole household? I know filtering all the water at home is likely overkill (in most places!), but I'm curious.

<comment><USER23> Under sink RO is not a big deal, you can buy a system for relatively cheap at Sams or probably Costco, and there's not much that you have to know, just change the prefilters when you are supposed to. Depending on the bladder and how much usage the RO system gets, it can take a while to fill a glass, 15-20s maybe? Filling a pot of water is infuriatingly slow.

RO systems waste water as that is how they work, expect your water usage to go up (how much depends on a lot of factors, for us it did not impact our water bill).

Whole house RO systems are probably a non-starter, keeping the water pressure up high enough seems like it would be very expensive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Yikes! Apparently its been used (Vaginally) to cause abortions... [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium_permanganate#Other_u...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium_permanganate#Other_uses)

<comment><USER25> From your link: "These incidents only result in damage to the vagina from the corrosive action of the chemical, since _potassium permanganate was proven to be ineffective in producing abortions._ "

<comment><USER26> Yikes, what the hell?!?

<comment><USER27> Basically a textbook reason for having abortion services available for all...

<comment><USER28> Or just... education?

<comment><USER29> "Don't try to flush out your vagina with potassium permanganate" is...very specific education. And horrific folk remedies like this show up all the time where abortion isn't legalized - "educating" would be a game of whack-a-mole.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> It will regulate itself, as always. Right? Right?!?

</comment><comment><USER30> Have you seen the other articles on this site? It should be called dailymisery.com. Who reads trash like this?

</comment><comment><USER31> If they did it for International Women's Day they were a little early.</comment>


Leaked document reveals UK plans for wider internet surveillance - <AUTHOR> http://www.zdnet.com/article/leaked-document-reveals-uk-plans-for-wider-internet-surveillance/ <comment><USER2> This will only get worse if Theresa May actually wins the vote / public approval to be PM. As Home Secretary she came up with fantastic ideas such as:

* Let us monitor every single call, email, text and website to catch terrorists and peadophiles (1)

* Let us ban apps like Whatsapp and iMessage because terrorists might use them (2)

* Let us use tax payer money for a fleet of vans to drive around areas with a high % of non Brits telling them to "go home". Which to be fair did result in 11 people leaving the country. (3)

(1)[http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/04/03/theresa-may- inter...](http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/04/03/theresa-may-internet- snooping-gchq--ian-huntley-paedophiles_n_1398644.html) (2) [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and- tech/new...](http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and- tech/news/investigatory-powers-bill-could-allow-government-to-ban-end-to-end- encryption-technology-powering-a6725311.html) (3) [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/31/go-home- vans...](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/31/go-home- vans-11-leave-britain)

<comment><USER3> It's scary. People will vote for her in their millions, despite current Tory policy being much to the right of, and even less pleasant than, UKIP's 2015 manifesto. Right wing nationalism has arrived.

<comment><USER4> I wouldn't rush to call right-wing nationalism "has arrived". The reason she will win a landslide is because she's the only credible-seeming candidate. As such, it's hard to equate her winning with an extreme shift in public attitudes. She would likely win without many of the stances we consider extreme, given the current political landscape.

While I won't vote for her, I have to concede that the alternatives do not instil any greater confidence despite being vastly more ethically aligned with my views.

i.e., she just _happens_ to be a horrible person; she isn't winning _because_ of it

This is an important distinction, as we are (in my opinion) still a far cry from the abyss of divisiveness currently entrenched in American politics, and the best way to keep out of that abyss is not to demonise a majority of the country for this coming election's outcome.

<comment><USER3> _" still a far cry from the abyss of divisiveness currently entrenched in American politics"_

I think we're in a _worse_ position. Trump will, all being well, go away in 4 years. The results of Brexit will last for decades.

Corbyn is dreadful in many ways, but ultimately I wonder who I could defend voting for to my future grandchildren. An inept and eccentric beardy socialist or a sly operator stoking up right wing nationalism? _That_ choice is easier.

May's "credibility" is hard to pin down. She changes her opinion often and shows herself to be a sly and shrewd political chameleon than someone with real convictions (other than for damaging civil liberties). Even where Corbyn's convictions get kooky, at least he seems to stick with and believe in them.

<comment><USER5> > Even where Corbyn's convictions get kooky, at least he seems to stick with > and believe in them.

You mean except where he (poorly) pretends to follow Labour policy and claims he will support things against his own beliefs... :p

Brexit is a God Damned mess, but it won't get any better by allowing negotiations to be managed by a weak Government. I can see two likely scenarios right now:

\- Non-Tory coalition government, high levels of capitulation and a deal that is worse in every way that our pre brexit relationship.

\- Strong Tory government leads to a game of brinksmanship with the EU and eventual no deal hard crash out.

It doesn't look great either way imho >_<

<comment><USER6> I can't believe it.

The strategy of repeating "Strong and stable" at every single opportunity actually works.

Theresa may constantly u-turns and contradicts herself, but hey, she's strong and stable so we'll have a strong and stable brexit and become the greatest britain there ever was.

If we somehow manage to get a non-tory coalition, we will very likely negotiation for remaining in the EEA (aka soft brexit) which will be much better than any kind of hard brexit, not to mention much cheaper

<comment><USER5> Strong refers to strength of majority, I'm making no comment on her quality as a leader (but arguably I'm happy to posit that she's got better credentials at it than the opposition).

> _If we somehow manage to get a non-tory coalition, we will very likely > negotiation for remaining in the EEA (aka soft brexit) which will be much > better than any kind of hard brexit, not to mention much cheaper_

Right, I'm not arguing against that - just that it's far far worse than no brexit at all would have been. We will be paying more and getting less on every useful metric. It would also ignore basically all of the core rationales for those who voted Brexit (which Labour has asserted it wishes to respect).

It sounds like you agree with me on the likely outcome of the election results though, so cool?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> And of course it's a Statutory Instrument which means these amendments to the Investigatory Powers 2016 Act will be implemented with little or no opposition. Parliament doesn't get to debate SI's and in the past 20 years they've been abused by both Labour and the Conservatives to pass legislation with little or no oversight.

Further reading:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_instrument_(UK)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_instrument_\(UK\))

[http://www.politics.co.uk/comment- analysis/2015/01/14/a-war-...](http://www.politics.co.uk/comment- analysis/2015/01/14/a-war-on-democracy-how-statutory-instruments-replaced- acts-o)

<comment><USER8> More to the point, they've already made plain that the EU repeals will be done by statutory instruments in their thousands. Doubtless this one will find a hiding place among them.

<comment><USER7> I know, it's madness:

[http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2017/04/11/great-repeal- bill...](http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2017/04/11/great-repeal-bill-anatomy- of-a-brexit-power-grab)

<comment><USER8> I wish it was madness. It's terrifyingly rational. It is being done deliberately.

<comment><USER9> Was the UK ever really much a beacon of democracy in recent years? It's seems like they have just gone open with it and now have the opportunity to rule by decree explicitly. Back to a monarchy for the Brits...

> [..] the great repeal bill is a very good name for it, because what this > thing does is provide government ministers with extraordinary new powers to > change or eradicate nearly half a century of law with almost no scrutiny > from the press or parliament. It is shaping up to be the single biggest > executive power grab in Britain's post-war history.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I am a British citizen. There will not be any significant public opposition to this, a few articles in The Guardian and a small mention on the news between Trump stories. I have only experienced apathy when I discuss mass surveillance with people in this country. "I have nothing to hide, why should I care?". There is a fundamental disconnect between real world privacy and online privacy to most people in this country. At this point it is too late anyway, May has gone full frontal assault on the internet and privacy advocates and security experts don't have a hope. I just want her to go full-on now and implement maximum surveillance, maximum snooping and maximum data retention and profiling. All of this can only blow up embarrassingly in her face. It is just a question of time. Sadly I have come to the conclusion this is the only way that such powers will ever be opposed by the public.

<comment><USER11> The public also have very little recourse in fighting such creep.

It's not politicians of one particular party or another who have an 'EUREKA!' moment in the bath and rush into Parliament with ideas for new surveillance powers. They are persuaded / cajoled / wearied in backroom conversations and presentations by career civil servants who can outlast any uncooperative Government ministers.

Teresa May might have a front-line political career of 15 to 20 years. A senior civil servant is just starting his rise to power by then.

> "I have nothing to hide, why should I care?"

Alternatively "There's nothing I can do about it, why waste my energy fighting it?".

That reminds me to update my archive of crypto source-code.

<comment><USER12> The only real recourse is the Human Rights Act and the European Court of Human Rights.

Both of which, of course, Theresa May wants us to get rid of, so UK citizens will have /no/ constitutionally-entrenched rights.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It is not enough to develop technical solutions to circumvent the privacy erosion, as these will soon be branded as aiding crime or the enemies of the state, and eventually regulations like these will be passed almost everywhere.

Companies standing up for the privacy of their users should be held to a higher standard than simply imposing limits on their own data collection.

They must band together to _actively lobby_ to counter these kind of policies to not run the charge of moral hypocrisy.

Another problem is that the party leadership on all sides is often more or less in favor of these policies.

If there is to be any effective political opposition to this it must be organized from the bottom up.

<comment><USER14> I think I'm just going to leave in the next decade.

GF is Hungarian, speaks fluent German and I have a reasonably in demand skillset (and frankly I'd rather wash pots in a free country than program in what this one is terrifyingly rapidly becoming).

<comment><USER15> And what's the name of that magical place? The UK may be more extreme than other countries at this point in time but "free countries" are a myth of the past. Even the privacy conscious Germany is heading in the same direction. For instance, many politicians of the current administration want to limit the legality of encryption or demand video monitoring with face recognition in public places.

<comment><USER16> Aiming for a perfect solution doesn't mean you can't start with one that's good enough and work on it.

<comment><USER15> I don't mean to be snarky but where exactly would you start to work on it? Every major scandal so far has shown that society by and large doesn't care about privacy (or isn't even willing to learn about the implications which could result from reduced privacy) and these very same people go to the polls.

<comment><USER16> I'd start at home - that's New Zealand for me. Unfortunately it doesn't seem that easy to change the government but I wouldn't say I'd given up on it. Quite how the current government got in with the scandals revealed during the election is beyond me, but says a lot about their opposition.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I will literally vote for anyone to get the converatives out.

I have several usually fairly liberal friends saying they are going to vote Tory because we need strong government for the brexit negotiations. This is complete and utter nonsense. We are screwed when it comes to brexit whatever happens at this general election. The EU have zero insentive to give us anything (we are a small and insignificant minor annoyance to them), the government we have will make no difference to what they offer, and we have no cards to play to make them budge.

What will make a huge difference is the government we have in place after brexit completes, and how that government takes us forward from there. May and the conservatives completly terrify me. Do you know the very first EU bill they announced to be repealed from UK law will be the human rights bill that protects citizens from their own government. Just stop for a minute and consider that this is the number one most important thing the conservatives decided needed to change when we leave the EU... Our protection from them. It is literally the very definition of abuse of power. We need a more middle ground government to bring some sense back to the UK for after brexit completes. Not 5 more years of Tory profiteering.

I urge everyone being swayed by the conservatives waffle to really think about what a long term Tory government will mean. Look into the strongest competitive party in your local constituency and vote for them.

</comment><comment><USER18> There is absolutely no reason for any government to have this capacity unless it is to target potential dissidents and critics of their political agenda (as well as training "pre-crime" tech).

Intel regarding terrorist-attacks and crime comes almost exclusively from HUMINT, not SIGINT.

This type of installment (which is basically already in place) reverses, in effect, the principle of a person being innocent until proven guilty (by due process) by deeming anyone a potential criminal as default. This is highly unacceptable in a society claiming to be free.

This reminds me of East-Germany's Stasi police - on steroids.

</comment><comment><USER19> They already do a lot more than the US do, Edward Snowden even said GCHQ do metadata and data collection wholesale.

Not to mention the random SSL downgrades that happen when you're going via UK transit links. (Which I have experienced myself!)

The UK should be considered dangerous. And the current government is only going to make it more dangerous.

There is also little to no hope of the current government being ousted during the next election.

I'm quite upset that my home country has to be so anti-freedom and anti- privacy.

<comment><USER20> It's also quite sad that a big majority of the country is ambivalent of this. Despite having access to this news, many still feel this is okay. Why are people not outside parliament protesting? Why are there no big campaign/organisations in the UK trying to get people together to protest this? Are we already too late and the government is now censoring and breaking apart potential protest groups.

People have got to get away from this idea that they should trust the government. Maybe this government is mildly democratic however it doesn't mean in the future it always will be. Protections need to be implemented now to protect from future governments not just the current.

<comment><USER21> > It's also quite sad that a big majority of the country is ambivalent of > this. Despite having access to this news, many still feel this is okay. Why > are people not outside parliament protesting?

People sometimes volunteer to have their DNA taken and matched against the police DNA database when there's been high profile crime of sexual violence.

People just don't care. They think (mostly correctly) that the Government knows everything about them anyway, what does it matter if they get metadata too.

RIPA made things a bit more complicated - it meant that in theory everything now had controls and checks and balances on it. But we know that those were boken, and that the oversight of GCHQ / MI5 / Special Branch / etc was rubber stamping stuff that should not have been happening. But because of RIPA people vaguely think "they get it all with a warrant".

It's important to recognise that approximately zero people care about this, and it's not going to feature in any election manifesto (except for niche parties such as the greens).

Many people don't care that the NHS is being destroyed, and that's a much bigger problem.

<comment><USER22> What I wonder about is what people are going to do when they find out that maybe it wasn't the EU or immigration that has been causing the problems with the NHS but straightforward bad management by a succession of governments and not so subtle attacks from right wing that can't stand that we have a much loved and successful service that is explicitly socialist.

The crisis in the NHS is _intentional_.

<comment> mike-cardwell I'm 36 and I don't remember a time when NHS wasn't about to collapse, or be destroyed by the Tories.

Meanwhile, the NHS has been around for about 70 years, and nearly two thirds of that time was under the management of the Tories.

I'm pretty sure, 50 years from now, when I'm 86, people will still be telling me that the NHS is about to be destroyed by the evil sinister Tories.

<comment><USER21> There's a clear difference between the problems in the NHS today and the problems in the NHS 5 / 10 years ago.

No one who works in health and social care is asking for unconstrained NuLabour style funding sprees. But now that they've made the NHS ruthlessly efficient, and we have NICE, it'd be a good idea to pay for what we know works, rather than weird ideas like 8 - 8 GPs, or 7 day services. (Especially since the information used to push 7 day services is a lie, and we've seen people die as a result.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I know it keeps being said that we can't produce technical solutions to the problem of state surveillance but the political changes we're advocating for that would fix this are akin to the "re-write the product" arguments.

The people you want to change are such a vast system of people, views, beliefs and incentives that changing them will take an inordinate amount of time ( _this is an assumption_ ).

Though the effort required to build an environment frustrating enough to make technical state surveillance infeasible is perhaps huge it would seem that the impact any individual can have in that area is vastly larger than in the former ( _also an assumption_ ). This would suggest to me that more could be achieved to frustrate the process of automating state surveillance in a shorter time span through technology than can through government reform.

<comment><USER24> This is the result of frustrating their efforts, strong encryption is being used enmasse so now they are outlawing it. Unless we take a massive stand and keep using unbackdoored encryption enmasse they will win. However most people don't know that they are using strong encryption, they just know they are using whatsapp. So unless these companies try and take a stand these people will slip into backdoored encryption without knowing and be just as happy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Is this a "leak" or a "let's test the reaction and amend" leak?

<comment><USER26> Yep standard practice thesedays. Got a controversial bill? 'Leak' it and see what the reaction is. Get a bad reaction? "I've never even heard of that bill!.."

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> What about cost analysis? To what extent would such surveillance actually enable the forces of law and order to reduce or stop terrorist outrages and thus death and destruction in society? We would at least have an balance to consider. My guess - zero. It's not that difficult to imagine that those intent on mayhem can plan and execute an attack without using electronic media at all.

<comment><USER28> Fighting terrorism has never been about saving lives or reducing human suffering.

It's part of an ideological war between democratic and totalarian ideas, backed both by coporate interests (the "defense" industry) and Russia.

It's all about power and it has always been that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I wonder about the full story. Are any UK ISPs already cooperating? I mean, the NSA has many^N intercepts. So maybe this isn't about interception, but rather about how intercepts get managed and queried.

<comment><USER30> Yes, and it's been going on for at least a decade. It's why they rushed through an emergency bill with support from both parties in 2014 to retroactively grant immunity. [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/07/10/uk_government_rushes...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/07/10/uk_government_rushes_through_emergency_law_on_data_retention/)

<comment><USER29> It's funny how the NSA doesn't seem to worry about immunity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> The highlighted part in the doc on the zdnet site. (italic emphasis my own)

"To provide and maintain the capability to disclose, where practicable, the content of communications or secondary data in an intelligible form and to remove electronic protection _applied by or on behalf of the telecommunications operator to the communications or data_ , or to permit the person to whom the warrant is addressed to remove such electronic protection."

Sounds to me that it applies to what the telco's apply. Now does the term "telecommunications operator" apply to services running on top of the internet (iMessage, WhatsApp, Etc). Because to me "telecommunications operator" are the people running the networks that connection people to the internet (Sky, BT, TalkTalk, Virgin, etc) not the companies that provide services on the internet.

I'll have to have a read though it in full later to see if I can get a better understanding of this document.

<comment><USER32> The definitions are in the original act here: [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/25/section/261/enac...](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/25/section/261/enacted)

It's very broad:

A 'telecommunications operator' is somebody who "offers or provides a telecommunications service to persons in the United Kingdom". A "'Telecommunications service' means any service that consists in the provision of access to, and of facilities for making use of, any telecommunication system ". And a "'Telecommunication system' means a system that exists for the purpose of facilitating the transmission of communications by any means involving the use of electrical or electromagnetic energy."

<comment><USER31> Cheers

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> The UK doesn't have the pesky Constitution we have in the US; however its only a slight obstacle if they can keep it out of the real justice system. I think the banning of encryption is the real kicker; if they can accomplish this (not sure how that would work) it will only wake up the people once they realize their bank accounts and other important personal connections are being stolen by people who have hacked or stolen the backdoor keys. Once people lose their money then it will dawn on folks that this is wrong. Without such a personal connection its just "I have nothing to hide".

</comment><comment><USER34> Apple stops iPhone sales to UK due to encryption backdoor requirement.

What would happen? Would the government back down? No doubt if Google, Microsoft and Google joined it would be easier. China wouldn't care but UK is different politically and much smaller to have it's own replacements.

<comment><USER35> Google, Microsoft, and Google?

<comment><USER34> Google's so big it needs to be mentioned twice :)

I meant Facebook. If they all stopped their UK services for a few days, they /us might win. FB + Google want to spy on us to sell ads, but I doubt they want the gov to do so. So we have a common enemy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> > which critics called the "most extreme surveillance law ever passed in a > democracy".

When a Government of a country takes such steps it's no longer should be called a democracy. It doesn't matter that they were democratically elected, what matters is what they do to their citizens, NSDAP was also democratically elected and I wouldn't call Third Reich a democracy.

</comment><comment><USER37> Politicians medaling with technology rarely ends well..

If they force ISPs to keep detailed logs and ban encrypted messaging Apps, more people will just start using VPNs.

RE: Brexit, there where so many lies during the referendum, if they ran it again the result would be very different. This whole thing feels like a death march.

The EU cannot let Britain exit cleanly as it will destabilise the union.

Don't get me started on May or Corbyn.

</comment><comment><USER9> If I'm reading this right they basically want to set up ISP survillence system similar to Russia? Installing some black boxes for a direct backdoor into the raw data.

Beats having to tap cables/backbone, plus they don't need to look for metadata identifiers in the data to ID each user.

</comment><comment><USER38> But what can they do exactly? Most of the https websites I connect to from the UK are based outside of the UK. My ISP won't be able to MITM this traffic.

</comment><comment><USER20> I think the title's wrong here. This is North Korea implementing the policy, right? Not the UK?

All sarcasm aside, this is horrendous. But let's not pretend this is to curb "terrorism", for whatever that means. It's simply a way to slowly erode the peoples democratic rights. Very sad times to be in.

<comment><USER39> > slowly erode the peoples democratic rights...

Yes

> ...until we become a socialist (possibly communist) state.

Erm, what?

There's nothing about socialism (or even communism, in principle) that precludes democracy. "Dictatorship" is the term you're looking for.

<comment><USER40> Hmmmm, I come from a former socialist republic(Poland) that definitely wasn't a dictatorship, and yet the survailence was extremely widespread(each telephone call would begin with the operator announcing "this conversation is being monitored"), you had secret police keeping secret files on citizens along with the doctrine of "no one is innocent, you just need to gather enough data about someone". Protesting the ruling party? We'll find this one time you did something 6 years earlier and put you in jail for it. Completely unrelated to the protest, of course.

I live in UK now and it's absolutely terrifying how every move by the UK government reminds me of the stories told about the communism back home.

Sure, communism itself might not be about reducing democracy, but I guess it would be very hard to find an example where it didn't.

Edit: ok, according to wikipedia, I'm wrong:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_United_Workers%27_Party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_United_Workers%27_Party)

"Until 1989, the PUWP held dictatorial powers"

<comment><USER41> Loving the correction! The world needs more people like you!

I believe there are two separate axes. You can have a free market without civil liberties (i. e. Singapore, or Germany ca. 1933-1945), or a less-free market with civil liberties (maybe the Nordic model). "Dictator" is really only concerned with the latter, apparently, although I have always associated it with the political right.

You're right in thinking that it appears hard to be truly democratic without (some form of) a free market. At least I can't think of an example. And I've met many eastern Europeans with an aversion to even slightly left-of-center economic policies because of their history. But communism doesn't have a monopoly on being terrible to its citizens.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What's your pick of a website with the *worst* UI/UX? - <AUTHOR> something that's so terrible that stuck with you as an exemplar of what not to do. <comment><USER2> Basically you can chose any *.jp site...

[https://www.yahoo.co.jp/](https://www.yahoo.co.jp/)

[http://law.e-gov.go.jp/cgi-bin/idxsearch.cgi](http://law.e-gov.go.jp/cgi- bin/idxsearch.cgi)

[http://www.rakuten.co.jp/](http://www.rakuten.co.jp/)

[https://fc2.com/ja/](https://fc2.com/ja/)

[http://kakaku.com/](http://kakaku.com/)

[https://tabelog.com/tokyo/](https://tabelog.com/tokyo/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Time Warner Cable/Spectrum for paying my internet bill.

How do you: 1\. Make it that hard for me to give you my money. 2\. Don't even immediately process payments, leaving me confused as to whether I paid you.

But, they have a monopoly for my building, so that's life.

</comment><comment><USER4> Twitter's UI is fundamentally dysfunctional after iterations of poor design and conversion optimization. I mean, I use the damn thing everyday as a reader and it still confuses and annoys me.

<comment><USER5> Pretty crazy that the header UI still breaks on desktop Chrome for me when I try to scroll up with a video playing, and when my window gets too wide, the banner image stops expanding and just attaches to one side. These are core components of their most important product surfaces. I'm actually completely baffled as to how they have stayed like this for so long.</comment></comment>


Elon Musk Has an Awkward Problem at Tesla: Employee Parking - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-has-an-awkward-problem-at-tesla-employee-parking-1491926275 <comment><USER2> ...Really? I'm more willing than most to be skeptical of Musk and his ventures, but this is just silly. Tesla is in a make-or-break phase of their business, and I'm sure that employee parking, while important, can't be at the top of what must be a very long list.

<comment><USER3> It may seem non-essential, but it's an increasingly important issue that could throw a wrench..</comment></comment>


Schools Struggle with Vaping Explosion - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/02/health/vaping-ecigarettes-addiction-teen.html <comment><USER2> >The 2017 Monitoring the Future survey on adolescent drug use found that 11 percent of 12th graders, 8.5 percent of 10th graders and 3.5 percent of 8th graders had vaped nicotine in the previous 30 days. Of those high school seniors, 24 percent reported vaping daily, which the study defined as vaping on 20 or more occasions in the previous 30 days

I'm sorry, but is <10% of high schoolers an "explosion"? Obviously e-cigarettes are more appealing than tobacco products, but regular cigarette use was 15.8% in 2011 [1]. Marijuana use is at close to 6%, so not that big a gap from the apparent "explosion" of kids vaping.

[1] [https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/yout...](https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/youth_data/tobacco_use/index.htm)

<comment><USER3> Yes. That means that in a school of of 360 kids (30 students * 3 classes * 4 grades), ~36 of them are now nicotine users through vaping. You may as well dedicate an entire classroom to holding detention.

The US was slowly reducing the number of middle schoolers who smoke cigarettes. According to the CDC, cigarette use dropped from 4.3% in 2011 to 2.2% in 2016. [1]

This would be a 5x reversal in less than a year. That's huge.

[1] [https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/yout...](https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/youth_data/tobacco_use/index.htm)

<comment><USER4> Cigarettes cause high rates of lung cancer, killing tons of people. It makes sense to heavily discourage teenagers from using them. As far as I am aware (I am not an expert about or user of any of these products) the risks from vaping are much less severe.

Is the concern just that the activity is nominally unlawful? Or that it will be a "gateway drug" (is there any evidence of that)? Or that it is a waste of students' time? Or ...

Or are we worried about stimulants in general? Or is there still some significant cancer risk from vaping? (Are people freaking out about high school students drinking too much coffee?)

If students are just replacing cigarettes with vaping, that seems like an unambiguously positive development.

<comment><USER5> It's less severe, but nicotine alone is carcinogenic.

<comment><USER6> Could you please source this claim? A quick google search is revealing a lot of contrary evidence.

<comment><USER7> Nicotine is considered a nootropic that increases cognitive ability. Perhaps the kids are using it to up regulate their brains?

Studies here: [https://www.selfhacked.com/blog/28-proven-health-benefits- ni...](https://www.selfhacked.com/blog/28-proven-health-benefits- nicotine-4-potential-risks/)

<comment><USER8> From what I recall of being a kid, kids are using it to get social validation.

Also, because once you get addicted, nicotine withdrawal is bloody awful.

<comment><USER9> I'm always surprised that the main reason people smoke is not cited first.

For all you that haven't done it: smoking causes pleasure. A fast, intense and repeatable pleasure.

<comment><USER8> As someone who's never smoked, but has stood next to people who have, I would guess it does quite the opposite. I imagine most people who don't smoke think this.

<comment><USER10> The first times you do it, it feels pretty good. Really good, in fact. However, like any drug, you develop a tolerance and a dependence. Before long, you require it to feel normal, not to feel good.

<comment><USER9> That's not my experience and that's not the experience of any smoker I've known.

I quit smoking years ago and of course I strongly discourage people from smoking, it's very bad for the health, etc.

But spreading disinformation is not the way to fight it.

Edit: BTW, the first times you do it are the worst. While you get used to the smoke.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think it is very important for everyone to keep in mind that vaping is probably safer than smoking. But it might not be, we don't know for sure. And it is certainly worse than not consuming any tobacco product. So trying to encourage active smokers to switch to vaping is probably beneficial, but increasing overall tobacco consumption rates is bad.

<comment><USER12> My father's been smoking for over 50 years. I got him to switch to mostly vaping last year. The difference in his health has been profound. It almost eliminated his coughing, increased his ability to walk distances. His doctor was amazed at his last checkup. She said she couldn't recommend it to patients due to the uncertainties, but encouraged him to keep doing whatever it is that he's doing.

Edit: I bought him the vape after a friend that's been smoking for a long time made the switch and raved about the benefits. I don't doubt that the best course of action is to quit altogether, but a 50+ year addiction is pretty difficult to quit. It can be done but you really have to want it. I don't think my dad really wanted to quit. I know that seems silly, but given his circumstances I can understand.

<comment><USER13> Another benefit I've seen a number of times is that people seems to have an easier time quitting. (Based on my sample of < 5 coworkers that switched to vaping.)

The pattern, as explained to me and IIRC, was as follows:

Started vaping insteadof smoking.

Tried vape with less nicotine. Worked equally well.

Tried with half strength.

Tried with even less. Also worked.

At this point it just felt silly so they just stopped.

(Note that these where young people.)

<comment><USER12> I also think it's kind of a controlled dose thing. When one smokes a cigarette it tends to be the whole cigarette, whereas with a vape you can take a couple of hits, get a fix and put it down.

<comment><USER14> When looking for this I think it's useful to note that immediately after switching the amount of vaping can be huge. I was actually experiencing nicotine rushes and nausea in some cases when I first started

The problem I had was that a cigarette has an obvious stop point - it runs out - whereas a vape will go on as long as you have juice and power.

Over the 6 months or so getting used to it I've been vaping it's started to fizzle out. I know, n=1, but I think it's something worth noting in case people see an increase in nicotine intake immediately after switching

<comment><USER15> When I first tried a disposable cigalike this happened to me. I was previously smoking just under a pack a day, but without an obvious stopping point I found myself using the whole thing in a few hours, when it was supposed to be equivalent to a pack. Because of this, when I started using a sub-ohm tank, I only bought 3mg liquids (the lowest available). I could vape it as much a I wanted and it took pretty much constant vaping for 10 minutes to feel slightly unwell from the nicotine, so this worked very well for me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> A generation ago these kids would've gotten busted for smoking old-fashioned cigarettes ("Smokin' in the boys room"). Two generations ago it was legal to buy (at some states at age 16) and legal to possess and use, except on school grounds. Three generations ago it was legal even in doctor's offices and hospitals.

California and Massachusetts (and oddly enough, Mississippi) are stoking up a new hysteria with public health spending in an effort to keep people of all ages from switching from conventional cigarettes to e-cigs.

I see six-figure earners on the sidewalks of San Francisco smoking old- fashioned cancer sticks and very few vaping. I wonder- did my tax dollars dissuade them from upgrading their habit? Second-hand smoke is substantially safer from vaping, but actual health of nonsmokers must not be these states' priorities.

There are rumblings about regulating nicotine content in real cigarettes. If they were to regulate vape juices (like limit the worst precarcinogenic bases), I think that's a much better (and cheaper!) place to devote public resources.

<comment><USER17> Only a generation ago smoking was still allowed at many high schools. It was at mine (1980s). There was a designated outdoor smoking area for the kids that smoked.

<comment><USER18> I wonder if they had one now, only for cigarettes, how many kids would do it and withstand the social humiliation that exists with teenagers around smoking cigarettes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I never understood why anyone young would start smoking. Throughout my K-12 education, I was told every single year that smoking is bad and all that jazz (i.e. shown pictures of what a smoker's lungs look like, shown documentaries on the negative effects, etc.).

It definitely isn't for lack of trying of my school district's part, and yet high single digit percentages of my peers in high school were using some form of tobacco/nicotine when I graduated in 2015.

It's well settled science that using these types of products cannot possibly be good for you. It baffles me why anyone would intentionally create an addiction/habit that, at absolute best, is neutral for your health.

<comment><USER10> "I never understood why anyone young would start smoking"

To look cool.

No, seriously, that's one of the main reasons. To look cool in front of one's peers. You might not have cared about such things, or feel pressure to engage in them. If so, I'm happy for you. But that doesn't mean others don't.

<comment><USER20> Superficial habits are also an easy substitute for personality, something teens are eagerly trying to develop. Everything from hair dying to wearing bow ties are 'normal', vices carry all kinds of extra social signaling.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> A lot of those kids are probably self medicating with nicotine for stress / anxiety / ADHD. I've never been a user myself but it seems like for many people who get nervous and have trouble focusing, a little nicotine helps steady them out.

Edit: To be clear, I'm not recommending that anyone, especially children, self medicate with psychoactive substances.

<comment><USER22> Nicotine is a stimulant, not a depressant.

Do you take Meth to 'even out'?

Me, I just quit smoking entirely 3 years ago.

<comment><USER12> The biggest lie of cigarette smoking: that it relaxes you. When you're a nicotine addict and crave it you get anxious, nicotine fixes that.

<comment><USER23> In my experience, when I had regular or constant anxiety, the nicotine crave blended with it but smoking calmed both. It is very possible that a non- nicotine method of relaxation would have also worked on both, but those are rarer and/or less quick and convenient.

That was one of the appeals of smoking.

<comment><USER12> Interesting. I should have written that was my experience. Anxiety isn't something I typically experience unless I've drank too much coffee or, when I was a regular smoker, needed a cigarette.

I take it you're a non-smoker now. I wonder how a vape would affect that.

<comment><USER23> Yeah after 20 years smoking, I had minor (unrelated) surgery and had to stay at home for a couple weeks, so I just cold stopped smoking and that was that. I am curious too but I refrain from experimenting.

<comment><USER12> Congrats, it's a hell of a habit to quit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Smoking per se has been a behaviour for thousands of years. As much as there will always be effects on health, vaping has been a god send for me. I have been smoking 1+ pack a day for nearly 20 years, until I switched to vaping 9 months ago. I feel incomparably better. My resting heart rate went down by 20%, I breathe better, am way less tired, and it doesn't stink . Plus, there is a geeky aspect with what we call RDAs ( rebuildable vapes ). Yes, we do not know the long terms effects, but the chances to be worse than cigarettes are close to 0. Also, this article is full of references to studies that have been flagged as partisan and not seriously conducted. Not smoking / vaping is better, but for an ex-smoker, this is a godsend.

<comment><USER25> I always find it interesting to remember that smoking tobacco was unknown in Europe until the colonization of the Americas.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I think we have a bigger problem with stimulant abuse in general. The perception of caffeine and nicotine (and god forbid the various amphetamines) as "safe" is incredibly deceptive. I have seen the differences in myself in terms of productivity, sleep quality, etc. which cannot be fully-quantified on some medical study or quarterly performance reviews. We have an entire generation of young people entering the workforce who cannot go 30 minutes without taking a vape break outside. Sure, this doesn't directly impact the individual's health or immediate perceptions of work effort, but over time the impact is gradually discovered. The individual cannot sit still in a chair and focus on a complex/deep-dive topic long enough to reach an actionable conclusion. The other extreme is the individual is hyper-focused on one task (usually the amphetamine users) to the extent that they begin to ignore all sense of context and lose focus on the bigger picture. For most employment, this is usually not a concern, but for those who have to dive incredibly deep into complexity on a daily basis (engineers, programmers, architects, etc.), I feel it can be the difference between getting something done in 4 hours and getting it done in 4 weeks. This perception is also something incredibly hard to quantify, but I have witnessed several anecdotal examples (some in myself) which I am confident can be attributed to excessive use of stimulants.

<comment><USER27> > We have an entire generation of young people entering the workforce who > cannot go 30 minutes without taking a vape break outside

This is the most absurd hyperbole I've heard so far this week. Granted it's Monday so you had a lot working against you. An entire generation? Every thirty minutes?

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Who does this stuff even benefit? The seemingly arbitrary lines drawn between marijuana, alcohol, tobacco and other "drugs" is so weird. So much moral righteousness.

<comment><USER29> The people selling it... (often illegally) to kids, who then have trouble getting a basic education and develop habits, which are long term destructive to their ability to operate within society.

<comment><USER30> Mid 30s adult here who used an e-cigarette for a year or two when alone in the car for funsies (flavors smell nice).

What, exactly, is the problem with kids vaping/using e-cigarettes if they don't contain a controlled substance (THC or nicotine, in these cases). We don't ban kids from consuming caffeine, so what's the problem with inert vapors? I agree that the liquid to be vaporized needs to be regulated to prevent health issues, but that's no different than the FDA regulating food safety.

<comment><USER11> The problems that I see with that are. 1\. Vaping still isn't that healthy for you even if everything is ideal. Heating something up and inhaling it is never going to be that healthy. Add in possible contamination in the liquid, issues with not cleaning the vape etc. and you are always going to have some health problems. 2\. It makes it easier to then switch to nicotine once they have the vape pen since the psychological and financial switch is less to just try it out once. 3\. It makes it harder for schools/parents to know who is consuming a banned substance vs. an unbanned inert vapor.

I think a blanket ban on vapes for everyone under 18 and a ban on tobacco for 21 and older would probably have beneficial public health impacts.

<comment><USER30> > I think a blanket ban on vapes for everyone under 18 and a ban on tobacco > for 21 and older would probably have beneficial public health impacts.

That's a fair compromise, although I'd like an outright ban on cigarettes. If someone wants to vape to get their nicotine, or chew gum, fine (I am a supporter of safe recreational drug use). But smoking has been proven to be downright ruinous to your long term health.

Disclosure: I am putting a Kickstarter together to use GMOs to eliminate tobacco long term.

<comment><USER31> > Disclosure: I am putting a Kickstarter together to use GMOs to eliminate > tobacco long term.

Could you elaborate on this? It sounds interesting, but it also sounds kind of "Scorpio-like" [0] like you are some Bond villain plotting to take over the world's tobacco supply with a genetically modified super-tobacco that will strangle other tobacco at the roots unless farmers pay you for weed killer. [1]

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tnod9vtB4xA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tnod9vtB4xA)

[1] [https://www.roundup.com/en-us](https://www.roundup.com/en-us)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I'm pretty against the pro-vape movement because I believe there are plenty of kids now who now choose to vape who would have _never_ smoked anything in the first place previously. It seems a lot easier to convince someone to vape because it appears safe and they already know all the risks of cigarettes which eliminated that of being a possibility (good!).

</comment><comment><USER33> Reading these comments its obvious that Vaping is forcing us to confront an uncomfortable truth.

Vaping might not be that much healthier for the _consumer_ , but its widely popular because its so much nicer for the _non smoker_.

How much of the campaign to stop smoking was out of concern for the health of future generations? And how much of it was out of the annoyance of second hand smoke?

Even if Vaping proves to be equally dangerous to cigarette smoking, our desire to stop it just isn't in the same ballpark.

<comment><USER34> I'm OK with that. I believe people have a fundamental right to make their own decisions about what to put in their bodies, but not to expose others to harmful or unpleasant substances.

I'd like there to be more information on the health effects of vaping so that people can make better-informed decisions, but I doubt it would have a big impact. The health effects of smoking have been well-known for decades, but I think we didn't see significant declines until it became less socially acceptable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> One problem I think the industry has right now is the "gas station disposable" ecigs, like Blu, Vuse, Juul pods, etc. These things have _massive_ amounts of nicotine, sometimes as high as 30mg/ml which puts the hit right up there with cigarettes. Combine it with the fact that they taste like candy and can be vaped indoors with no ill effects, and its a recipe for addiction.

More traditional e-juice can range in nic content from 0mg/ml to as high as 40-50mg/ml, but the most common variants you see are 3mg/ml and 6mg/ml. Relatively low compared to the gas station stuff.

Its also worth saying that the two aren't directly comparable due to the action of vaporization. Gas station ecigs are pretty bad at generating vapor, which means you get less vapor on each inhale, which means less actual nicotine. Reusable, higher tier vapes that you use with usually lower nic juice produce significantly more vapor. So its hard to compare.

Which comes down to the biggest problem in the world: regulation and standardization. Its a complete wild west. You have no idea what standards the e-juice manufacturers hold themselves to. The "brands" on many juices are hidden behind flashy flavor names like "Quadruple Laser Berry". There's an advertised nic content, but who knows if that's actually what's in there. Often you can purchase nic strengths that are _absurd_ , like 40-60mg/ml, that would make any reasonable person instantly puke. Physical stores will often card, especially if you look young, but there are many online retailers where you can buy whatever you want with no verification. There are states where you can't legally buy this stuff online, but most online retailers don't care.

<comment><USER36> Seeing as nicotine is a known risk, but the carrier fluids and flavorings are a mostly unknown risk, isn't higher nicotine concentration better? You can get the same dose with less exposure to the unknown risks.

<comment><USER35> Not really.

Nicotine wears off very quickly. While it can remain detectable in your system for days, the feeling it gives only persists for 10-15 minutes after inhale, if that. Varying the dosage only really affects the intensity, not duration.

Speaking of intensity; if you don't have a tolerance, high levels of nic can be physically and mentally uncomfortable. Someone who can comfortably inhale 3mg/ml of nic might get slightly nauseous and uncomfortable even at 6mg/ml, definitely at 9mg/ml, unless you have a counteracting agent in your system like alcohol (which is why "leveling out" is a thing).

The chemically addictive properties nicotine has is only one part of the story. There's also the "throat hit"; the feeling of inhaling something warm and slightly uncomfortable. That's a _major_ part of the addiction.

It also tastes great. And its "something to do"; kind of like a fidget spinner, it keeps you busy.

<comment><USER36> >Someone who can comfortably inhale 3mg/ml of nic might get slightly nauseous and uncomfortable even at 6mg/ml, definitely at 9mg/ml

That only makes sense if there's a standardized inhalation size, which there isn't. I've seen people using vaporizers specially designed to make huge clouds, and they're obviously using low concentration. If they used a stronger concentration they could get the same effect with a smaller inhalation size.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> > In his four years at Cape Elizabeth, Mr. Carpenter says he can't recall > seeing a single student smoke a cigarette.

Golden age syndrome. It happened, you just forget about the negative parts.

Anecdote: when I was in highschool quite recently (2004-2008), many students were regular smokers or dippers (chew tobacco). At this point, the health effects of smoking (and to a lesser extent, chew tobacco) were obviously well understood. Nevertheless, students picked up smoking etc.

Picking up vaping nicotine probably isn't great, but it beats cigarettes (and probably chew tobacco).

The important thing to remember is that overall drug and alcohol use among American teens is down, and trending down. "According to a major longitudinal study of teenagers called Monitoring the Future, high schoolers' use of alcohol, cigarettes, and drugs (other than marijuana and vaping) have dropped to the lowest levels since the survey began in 1976."[0]

Notably, from the above December 2016 article:

> E-Cigarettes (Vaporizers): The rate for e-cigarettes among high school > seniors dropped to 12.4 percent from last year's 16.2 percent. _Of note: > only 24.9 percent of 12th graders report that their e-cigarettes contained > nicotine_ (the addictive ingredient in tobacco) the last time they used, > with 62.8 percent claiming they contain "just flavoring." (emphasis added)

> Attitudes and Availability: This year, more 10th graders disapprove of > regular use of e-cigarettes than last year. For example, 65 percent of 10th > graders say they disapprove, up from last year's 59.9 percent. In addition, > more 10th graders think it is harder to get regular cigarettes than last > year; 62.9 percent said they are easy to get, compared to 66.6 percent last > year. This represents a dramatic shift from survey findings two decades ago, > when 91.3 percent of 10th graders thought it was easy to get cigarettes.

[0]: [https://www.drugabuse.gov/news-events/news- releases/2016/12/...](https://www.drugabuse.gov/news-events/news- releases/2016/12/teen-substance-use-shows-promising-decline)

</comment><comment><USER38> Schools are for educating, not for prohibiting or judging. If you believe vaping is bad for kids or whoever - educate them about why do you think so and let them decide for themselves.

When I was a schoolboy everybody believed kids that smoke don't grow as they get older, nobody wanted to become a gnome :-)

If there is a real health threat we are to be able to explain it to the children, if there isn't - we probably should just let the do what they want.

</comment><comment><USER39> Why not just set the minimum birthdate to buy nicotine products at 2000, so only 18 year olds can buy it this year, and future generations cannot? Seems like that would sidestep the whole "removing people's rights" argument and gradually just phase it out completely? Has any jurisdiction done that?

<comment><USER40> Sure I mean a minimum age to buy cigarettes definitely kept teens off smoking for the past 50 years

Sorry for the sarcasm, but, like, what?

<comment><USER39> I'm not suggesting a minimum age, I'm suggesting a minimum birthdate. So the minimum age will advance automatically - this year it will be 18, next year 19, etc... Put another way, people born on or before 2000 will continue to be able to buy nicotine, but people born after 2000 will never be able to buy it. Over time the percentage of the population which can buy nicotine will gradually dwindle to zero, and there will be no more excuses for stores to stock it.

AFAIK that approach hasn't been tried anywhere. I think I heard a while back it was discussed in Russia but never actually happened? I don't see any good argument for not doing this.

<comment><USER40> Thank you for the clarification. Amusing idea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I wonder how accurate these surveys are. In high school, kids I knew who _actually_ did drugs wouldn't admit to it (even on an anonymous survey), and some other kids would answer that they do meth every day because it sounded funny to write that.

</comment><comment><USER42> "Young hormonal teenagers seeking to rebel perform risky behavior with addictive substances"

Maybe they should just sit in the chair and do what they're told instead

<comment><USER43> Too true.

"ABC is a gateway drug/activity/event. It leads to XYZ, which is way worse!"

Sure, so educate them on real consequences and safety and not the external imposed consequences. Also, don't lie about ABC since they'll assume you lied about XYZ as well.

Seriously, who still doesn't see the same 5-10 year pattern at this point?

<comment><USER42> People like to control others and everyone loves a sensationalist national epidemic for the headlines is what is at the heart of it. I like vaping though. Doesn't appear to do any lasting harm compared to everything else and smart kids will wise up and quit eventually.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Looking past the safety concerns, I personally have zero interest in vaping nicotine as an ex smoker.

A lot who have smoked and quit probably understand the pschological aspect; the constant need, the schedule, the loss of enjoyment from taking a deep breath of fresh air.. I don't want to be addicted to inhaling nicotine in any form.

</comment><comment><USER45> > Schools Struggle with Vaping Explosion

I find this title confusing - I thought it meant that vapes were physically exploding.

<comment><USER14> Yeah that is exactly why I clicked into the comments

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> For years it was obvious to me vaping was backed by an astroturfing campaign on Facebook/reddit/HN/etc. Same for many other things the online techie in crowd things they came up on their own.

Let's fix this recurring problem.

<comment><USER47> If you're right that might explain why this article was just flagged so much it went from near the top of the front page, to near the bottom of the second.

Edit now the third page.

8 min later, 4th page.

<comment><USER46> And we got downvoted to hell. Yeah, this was by "fans" alone.

<comment><USER47> Credit to the mods who brought it back to the front page though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> What should the vaping kids do instead of vaping?

<comment><USER49> There was a golden era about 10 years ago where it looked like smoking was finally going to be conquered. The cessation aids were working. Smoking rates were plummeting. It wasn't cool anymore. It was no longer an impossible problem - people could quit and never look back.

Then vaping screwed it all up.

I hate the myth - which I assumed is being propagated by the companies that profit off of it - that vaping was a replacement for smoking, and that people who vape would otherwise smoke. No. There was a clear period of time between when smoking was on its deathbed and when vaping exploded.

<comment><USER50> But vaping isn't smoking. It's a similar looking, but significantly different activity that carries almost none of the health risks associated with smoking, both firsthand and secondhand.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> To me, vaping appears to be a significantly less harmful to the body than smoking: vaping is just inhaling steam infused with nicotine where as in smoking the fumes of combustion are being inhaled. I also think with vaping there also no risk of passive smoking. I am in amazement of WHO and other health bodies dragging their feet in declaring vaping almost harmless compared to smoking.

<comment><USER52> I've used the odd vape here and there to stop smoking and I 100% agree with you that it's safer than cigarettes but it's way to early to say that it's wholly "safe". The problem is that if you declare it safe then everyone and their dog will start vaping, (which then amplifies any outlier problems as there are more data sources. Aka teens). The unfortunate thing is we likely won't see any declarations one way or another for a few years now. The only way to see the true costs associated with vaping is to let time take its course. 15 years from now we will have a better idea of what daily vaping does to the human body and how safe it really is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> Semi-related, maybe there are some nicotine experts here that can help me:

I smoked ~4 years light/social post high school. Dipped Copenhagen Pouches for ~10 years. I've tried to quite with some success with the longest streak being 2 years. It is incredibly hard and all in the mind.

I found ZYN pouches last year and they have replaced my needs. It "... is a tobacco leaf-free nicotine product. The nicotine salt used in ZYN is derived from tobacco leaves, but once the salt is extracted, no part of the leaf remains." The rest of it is says its food-grade.

Obviously the best would be not to use anything. But would anyone happen to know if this is still leaving a lot of risk exposure? My thought is its probably about as safe as I'll ever find, and really just giving me the nicotine I've become used to without the bad stuff, as nicotine itself is not what causes problems. But if anyone has more informed opinions that would be helpful.

<comment><USER54> Well done you.

In terms of recreational nicotine, Swedish snus has the most established, long term evidence base for very significantly reduced risks.

It's reasonable to expect that a product like Zyn would fare even better than Swedish snus in long term studies because of the lack of tobacco specific nitrosamines. Although Zyn doesn't have a long term, formulation specific evidence base like Swedish snus, there is good evidence for its components.

Pharmaceutical nicotine replacement therapy products like nicotine gum could be options too. Guessing you've already tried that though... but even the FDA now says NRT can be used indefinitely.</comment></comment>


Rant: Compilers != Parsers - <AUTHOR> http://ayende.com/Blog/archive/2009/10/19/rant-compilers-parsers.aspx

<comment><USER2> I'm sorry, who the heck actually thinks they are?</comment>