Arrington : "You're Welcome, You Bastards" - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/13/youre-welcome-you-bastards/

<comment><USER2> This sounds like someone at Fortune trying to do something industrious and then getting smacked by the higher-ups.

I wonder how many good ideas are quashed simply because of policy.

<comment><USER3> a better technique would probably have been to apologize to techcrunch for telling them the wrong thing, and then asking to take it down. as opposed to telling arrington that he misunderstood.

<comment><USER4> That would be admitting you are wrong. You can never admit you are wrong, it makes you look weak. If you look weak, you will not get anywhere.

This is really how some people think.

<comment><USER5> If you admit you are wrong in paper/email, isn't it entirely possible that you can then be quoted on it later in an accusation of negligence?

In this specific instance for example, wouldn't admitting you are wrong in an email to Arrington immediately give him a solid case to defend himself with in the event he chose not to take it down?

<comment><USER6> Quite possibly… but which course of action is the most likely to succeed in getting the post quietly pulled?

"Hey Michael, sorry about this, but some wires got crossed on our end. My bad. Apparently…"

or

"Hey Michael, you screwed up. You better pull that post or else."

?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Personally, I like that he is standing up for himself.

Playing chicken with Arrington might not be the best idea. From what I've seen in the past (posts like this) he is more than open about what people say in (assumed) private e-mails/phone calls.

My guess is they back off shortly. No one likes having their dirty laundry airing to the public. Thought they could push him around behind closed doors.

<comment><USER8> He's rather open with things that are assumed public but also assumed to likely stay within the relatively small communities whence they germinated. Not technically a violation of anything, but morally inconsiderate without asking first.

I'll make no secret of my own grudge with Arrington. Back in December, I wrote this comment - <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=998318> \- on Hacker News, rather critical of loud web acquisitions by Russian investors. Without so much as a heads up, to say nothing of a polite request for permission, this earned me a TechCrunch post: [http://techcrunch.com/2009/12/20/are-hot-u-s-startups- the-ne...](http://techcrunch.com/2009/12/20/are-hot-u-s-startups-the-new- bling-for-rich-russians/) ...

Perhaps obviously but perhaps not, as a native Russian, and given what I had to say in that comment, I am not particularly interested in the kind of magnified exposure or attention that being linked on TechCrunch provides. It was a genuine statement of opinion that I more or less intended for the general HN audience. I don't really need it rubbed in the faces of these barons' hit-men that I, uh, slandered them. Sure, it's part and parcel of posting something to the public Internet, and, certainly, anyone searching Google can find my comment easily -- fine. But a little bit of consideration from Arrington's yellow journalism machine might have been helpful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm going to side on Arrington on this one, even though sometimes, he likes to make a big deal out of something small like removing a few words from his post.

<comment><USER10> Why? All he had to do was select a few sentences from the excerpts and edit his post.

There's greater reward in the long run from acting like an adult, working well with others, and not being a complete douche.

<comment><USER11> Actually, I think you're wrong on both accounts. Fortune is jerking him around. Calling them on it is not a bad thing, because a working relationship on those terms will likely cost more than it will benefit.

Additionally, bloggers (and others in Attention Media) often make more from douchebaggery than from evenhandedness. (And I honestly don't think Arrington is being a douche here.

<comment><USER12> _Fortune is jerking him around._

I don't see how: at least in the emails posted, Fortune never authorizes Arrington to post the full excerpt: they talk about writing a post "on the book excerpts".

In any case, I think it is more likely to be a simple miscommunication. It would be more mature for Arrington to simply concede that -- the excerpts are their copyrighted material, and they have the right to control its distribution. Getting all peeved about being woken up at 6:30 AM is silly.

<comment><USER13> Why is neilc's post getting downvoted ? - it seems a perfectly valid contribution to the discussion.

<comment><USER14> On the one hand, yes, he has a valid point, but I'd guess the downvotes are from people who feel that being unclear in your communication, then calling repeatedly over and over to have you take down a post full of glowing praise and preorder links on a hugely popular blog, then, when you refuse to edit what is probably the best PR the book's had so far, threatening to sue you to have you take it down.

Fortune could have said 'Sorry, we miscommunicated, could you trim down your excerpts? Here are some example quotes you might want to include instead.' They could have called him, and when they didn't get an answer, e-mailed him instead. They could have asked nicely, or even looked on the bright side of this amazing PR. Instead, they're being the biggest assholes they can be.

So yeah, there's a point to be made there, but I think Fortune's dickery is overshadowing it.

<comment><USER15> 'Sorry, we miscommunicated, could you trim down your excerpts? Here are some example quotes you might want to include instead.'

Didn't they do that, minus the example quotes?

I'm honestly confused here.

<comment><USER16> Expecting immediate action at six AM is a bit silly, as is calling three times at that hour especially when you know the guy was up as late as 2 AM. I realize it's a priority, but expecting 24-7 service when someone's doing you a favor is a bit unreasonable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I don't support everything Michael Arrington does, but I love how he's never afraid of a fight. People who think they pwn you just because they have a couple of lawyers on retainer need to have threats like this shoved back in their faces. Whether it's a bluff or not, kudos to Arrington for calling it.

</comment><comment><USER18> "I'd love to chat with you about FORTUNE's exclusive excerpt of David Kirkpatrick's book on Facebook"

"note that the story stems from an exclusive excerpt in FORTUNE of David Kirkpatrick's new book The Facebook Effect."

"once you've read the excerpts, please let me know if you choose not to post on one and not the other or both"

The use of the words "exclusive" and "on" seem to make it pretty clear that he was supposed to post ABOUT the excerpts. Their intent may be antiquated, but I think it was clearly communicated.

<comment><USER4> Ask yourself, could they have been clearer? I mean, the fact that you are looking for clues like certain words suggests that they certainly could have written those emails better.

I don't enjoy trying to ascertain what someone is trying to say, I guess I am not a fan of mysteries. Say it plainly and clearly, and these sort of mistakes do not go on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Arrington has a law degree, millions of dollars, and a massively popular platform. He don't scare easy.

<comment><USER15> "Arrington has a law degree, millions of dollars, and a massively popular platform."

It's just sad that is what it takes to be able to stand up to legal bullying.

(Not sure that legal bullying is happening here, but certainly Arrington can stand up to it, and most people can't.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I've always felt that Arrington is a pragmatist and rationalist working in a field made up of antiquated policies, back-stabbing PR people, and bizarre ethics that it would take a lifetime to learn. As a pro-blogger, of sorts, I can certainly sympathize.

</comment><comment><USER21> That Simon & Schuster got involved says something. Fortune probably paid to run the excerpt -- a subsidiary right in the original book contract -- and then goofed in asking for free pimping from Arrington in the manner that they did. In other words, from the publisher's point of view, Arrington was getting a free ride that S&S believed he should have paid for. Fortune's mistake.

</comment><comment><USER22> The huge problem here is that they provided him all of this content and neglected to say, "Slim this down and use no more than 115 words." They neglected to give him a guideline to follow - and better yet, they should have just given him what he needed to create the post and nothing more.

If someone comes to me and says, "Create a post based on all of this content," I am not going to take the time to pick and choose selectively what the reader sees. Why should he take the time to inconvenience his readers?

</comment><comment><USER23> Sometimes shit just happens. Let it go, move on.

The mistake here wasn't a miscommunication, it was in not realizing the cat was out of the bag and just cutting your losses.

Just like you can't get unpregnant, you can't retract stuff once it's posted on one of the web's top blogs. Fortune's type A control freak lawyers still need to learn that it seems.

The correct response from Fortune:

"Oops, that's not what we intended, but oh well, lesson learned - next time be more specific. Fuck it dude, lets go bowling."

<comment><USER24> > Just like you can't get unpregnant

Um. There are several legal and safe-enough ways to get "unpregnant".

<comment><USER25> Yes, but often there's no way to entirely remove the effects thereof from your life thereafter.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> It's a douche-douche situation.

</comment><comment><USER27> Actually, all this hoopla got me to _read_ the excerpts, and I'm thinking about getting the book (when it comes out).

so... then I wonder... Is this -- all of this -- clever advertising?

</comment><comment><USER28> This looks like a routine miscommunication that happens all the time in business. Usually you just patch up the misunderstanding and move on. I think Arrington loves to fight, so he escalated it. So what? Why is this on Hacker News?

<comment><USER29> He didn't escalate it, he was just stubborn. The S&S lawyer escalated with threats of a lawsuit. Then he countered by making the disagreement public.

<comment><USER28> He escalated it by refusing to comply with a simple request to shorten the original excerpts. Sure, it was not his fault that he would have had to fix the blog post, but that would've been the civil and practical thing to do, in my opinion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Arrington is clearly wrong. It's clear that nobody told him to copy paste the whole content, or gave him the permission. He just trolls now for more hits. But he'd just lose if he'd come to court.

<comment><USER31> Maybe I misread the article, but it looks like the Fortune PR person never, ever states that TechCrunch is only supposed to post portions of the excerpts. This is the closest I could find:

> And if you don't mind, once you've read the excerpts, please let me know if > you choose not to post on one and not the other or both, which of course we > would love.

Now, IANAL but nowhere in there does it say to not post the excerpts.

<comment><USER32> Copyright is reserved unless explicitly given. That is, what you have said may be perfectly true, and Arrington could still be in the wrong. All they have to have done is to not give him explicit permission.

<comment><USER33> Practically speaking, he is not in the wrong at all. What exactly do you think Simon&Schuster can do, sue him? Can you imagine going up to a federal judge and seeking an injunction for infringement for a guy who posted excerpts of a book that were already online? What exactly are the damages?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Arrington's just being Arrington. Nothing to be done about that.

Characteristically, he is ebulliently and abrasively assertive--indeed, at times belligerent--of his right to publish whatever he feels like publishing that day, and often frames it as a freedom of speech issue in a commercial context.

This is a trait of, on the one hand, some of the world's most venerable investigative journalists and insightful commentators, but, on the other hand, also of the sleazy yellow press and fraternal unprincipled viewership/readership/ratings whores with more ignoble motives.

As far as I can tell, TechCrunch is a slightly less toxic kind of Daily Mail. It should not be controversial to any reasonable person that there is merit to both sides of the issue insofar as lack of initial explicit prohibition on publication of whole excerpts does not necessarily mean it was categorically acceptable, nor does it mean that any demands for retroactive remedies from Fortune are irrelevant. On the other hand, they are obviously both trying to bully him and do something quite stupid.

</comment><comment><USER34> I once had a friend who never forgot a birthday or holiday. I always got a card from him. The problem was that it was always a card _that someone else had sent him_. He scribbled over their message and wrote his own, then added a lame message, "I'm doing my part by recycling."

This went on for years and I hated it. It wasn't funny anymore and I didn't want to read what others had written to him.

Then it hit me... Who was reading all the cards I had sent him?

Michael Arrington is like that friend. I will probably never send him an email because I don't want anyone else (much less the whole world) reading it.

<comment><USER35> That's a nice anecdote, but apart from the slanted attack on Michael Arrington (which is obviously proving popular, looking at how many upvotes you got), I'm not sure what it's got to do with the article at hand.

Michael Arrington might act like a douche sometimes (maybe even lots of the time), but that's no reason not to treat this story on its merits, rather than responding with a cute character attack.

<comment><USER34> _slanted attack on Michael Arrington_

 _cute character attack_

Not an attack, just an observation. And not of his character (which I am hardly qualified to judge), just of his behavior in this particular post.

I dunno, posting word for word emails from someone else in a blog just seems a little over the top to me, regardless of the reason. I don't know the merits of this case, nor do I care.

The antecdote was to make a point (as antecdotes are usually meant to do). It's the same as the office gossip. If he's saying/doing that to someone else, what's he saying/doing about me?

<comment><USER36> Thank you for introducing me to "antecdote". Brilliant word!

I suppose it is half anecdote, half antidote, which must be highly useful. Or is it maybe an ante-anecdote, an amusing story in advance (a.k.a. prophecy)?

Not surprisingly, such a useful word is in widespread use, apparently. 33,200 uses to be exact, according to Google. But no clear definition, according to antecdotal evidence.

<comment><USER37> ITYM "the available antecdata" (the plural of anecdote is anecdata, doncha know ...)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Yeah, this seems like an unbiased account. I bet there's NO information he left out of this story... Michael Arrington would never shade the truth.

</comment><comment><USER39> Er, that's not an excerpt, that's like 4 (book) pages of text there.

Someone screwed up at Fortune and tried to backpedal.

</comment><comment><USER40> "today the book's publisher Simon & Shuster got involved and is threatening legal action."

Thanks. I needed a little more juice for my "death to the publishing industry" mission. grrrr

</comment><comment><USER41> The reality is that TC posts 30+ articles per day. Articles from may 6 are now part of a very, very long tail of TC articles that will barely dribble in pageviews.

</comment><comment><USER42> I'd bet that F O R T U N E wasn't legally in a position to offer the excerpts for republishing.

</comment><comment><USER43> Reminds me of the kinds of posts we saw after the whole CrunchPad/JooJoo thing fell apart.

<comment><USER44> Those were ugly in comparison.

And also ruined what could have been a very nice tablet platform.

<comment><USER14> A lack of quality control certainly didn't help.

<comment><USER44> I believe it became harder to secure funding after what Arrington published.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> He has clearly quoted a lot of material, and so what if they made a mistake. This is not how a blog post should be composed from the contents which are not yours. I say TC is in error again and is just whining.

</comment><comment><USER46> Whatever you say, Arrignton has a point in this one. Web publishing is NOT the same as Paper publishing. No wonder News papers are dying; they refuse to merge and be innovative. Last cry always is 'copyright, copyright'!

</comment><comment><USER47> There was a copy write problem with the excerpts of the excerpts. Easy.

</comment><comment><USER48> Reprints are contractual matters. Draw one up.

This goes double if you're calling yourself a publisher and you're working with major print entities.

<comment><USER49> _Reprints are contractual matters. Draw one up._

Email is wonderful because people don't understand that an agreement _in writing_ doesn't have to mean _ink on paper_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> This really shouldn't have 80+ votes. Someone please tell me why this is interesting.

</comment><comment><USER51> It really does appear that no good deed goes unpunished.

</comment><comment><USER52> This is kind of a pissy, spiteful post. Why would anyone ever take this kind of conflict public ? What does Arrington have to gain by going around jamming his thumb in "old media" eyes ?

<comment><USER53> > What does Arrington have to gain by going around jamming his thumb in "old > media" eyes ?

Pageviews?

<comment><USER54> This.

Arrington plays the game every bit as much as the rest of them. But he's willing to expose how it works, from time to time, in order to make money for himself. I find it entertaining, which is the point.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> This has such a linkbait headline. This is some completely uninteresting drama about, at least to me. But the headline is such that my impulse is to click on it. I guess that makes me weak. But why do people upvote shit like this in the first place? Do people really care about some squabble TechCrunch are having with some other crowd? Is this really actually interesting to hackers? I really hate when I come here and I see headlines like this on the front page. This is not what I come here for.

<comment><USER56> Although you are at -2, I'll answer you anyway. It's interesting to me because it shows me how things really work inside.

Deconstructing stuff to find out how it works is part of hacking. Now I understand better how Forture gets an exclusive and how they go around and ask blogs to cover and promote it, and how bloggers think when they receive such offers.

<comment><USER55> Well, thank you for responding anyway. I knew I was going to get downvoted for that comment, I just felt I needed to say it. To be honest I have no idea who Fortune are or what any of this is about really, so I was never in a position to comment on whether or not this is interesting. Fair enough if it is actually something interesting.

I just find linkbait headlines like that in really bad taste and it disappoints me when I see a lot of them on the frontpage.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Arrington's post with excerpts is exploitative of Fortune. Once you've read the TechCrunch post, there's no value left in reading the Fortune articles. Sure, it great for selling the book, but the magazine is screwed. On the fortune side, they were not clear about whether they're promoting the book or the magazine, since their editor is the author, so Arrington has a legitimate excuse by arguing that he's just not very smart and was confused by the distinctions.</comment>


Show HN: Side-scrolling 8-bit site using HTML/CSS/JS - <AUTHOR> http://www.awesomecontroller.com

<comment><USER2> This looks great! A nice feature to add would be to map the mouse wheel scroll with javascript to scroll horizontally, so you could also mouse wheel scroll through the site. It's a simple javascript snippet to add, if I remember correctly.

Link to do this functionality: [http://css-tricks.com/snippets/jquery/horz- scroll-with-mouse...](http://css-tricks.com/snippets/jquery/horz-scroll-with- mouse-wheel/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Great performance too, in Firefox especially (Chrome seems slightly choppier). Browsers put a lot of effort into optimizing scrolling these days (buffer rotation in desktop Gecko, tiles on mobile Safari/Chrome/Firefox), so structuring your interactions around it is an easy way to get excellent performance out of HTML.

</comment><comment><USER4> Great idea, cool website, good luck with the project! Looking forward to being able to use my N64 again without expletives due to the brittle controllers!</comment>


Python `select` module - well explained step by step - <AUTHOR> http://www.doughellmann.com/PyMOTW/select/ <comment><USER2> Keep in mind that select basically sucks for handling more than a few sockets -- it's slow and limited to max. 1024 concurrent sockets (unless you change FD_SETSIZE and recompile everything, which may cause unexpected bugs).

An almost always better choice is using epoll -- it's usually faster and can handle any number of concurrent sockets (up to a million and more).

* [http://docs.python.org/library/select.html#edge-and-level-tr...](http://docs.python.org/library/select.html#edge-and-level-trigger-polling-epoll-objects)

* <http://scotdoyle.com/python-epoll-howto.html>

* [http://blog.urbanairship.com/blog/2010/08/24/c500k-in-action...](http://blog.urbanairship.com/blog/2010/08/24/c500k-in-action-at-urban-airship/)

* [http://www.metabrew.com/article/a-million-user-comet-applica...](http://www.metabrew.com/article/a-million-user-comet-application-with-mochiweb-part-3)

<comment><USER3> This is assuming that performance is an issue, which I would guess is not the case for at least 90% of uses. For most cases I'd say ease of use and cross platform makes select "better" than epoll.

<comment><USER4> This is why I like libev, which has bindings to several languages (including python). It picks the best backend for watching FDs on a given system (epoll, select, ...). The support for timers, idle callbacks and so on is also very handy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It is not _that_ well-explained, actually. Checking for output-ready status is quite often a waste of time. An exceptional condition does not necessarily mean an error (TCP OOB messages, though rarely used), and it is likewise unnecessary for many if not most applications.

Python, like many languages, seems to just defer to the OS select(), so a good read for parties interested are the man pages and maybe something like Beej's Guide to Networking.

</comment><comment><USER6> Well written article, I've never used select as Twisted casts a long shadow and has always satisfied my needs.

<comment><USER7> Personally, I stopped using Twisted as soon as I realized that I had just written a factory factory. Your mileage may vary.

Have you looked at eventlet or gevent? They're libraries in Python for doing single-threaded networking (like Twisted) but in a very lightweight and pleasant way. They use coroutines, so you can usually write code as if it were blocking, and you can use the standard library networking functions with non- blocking magic sprinkled on top. I've found it to be remarkably straightforward.</comment></comment>


Mac OS 7  installed and running on the iPhone  - <AUTHOR> http://www.macosiphone.co.cc/ <comment><USER2> That is just more awesome than I can describe in words. Man, what memories of OS7

<comment><USER3> Sorry, I think I just accidentally down-modded you when I was trying to do the opposite!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Classic Mac OS has been 'ported' (that is to say, emulated) on many, many platforms. It can still play many impressive games and the original hardware wasn't terribly beefy, so it's a great candidate for emulation on weaker devices. That's not to say the iPhone is weak (it isn't), just that this has been done more impressively elsewhere.

For example, there's MinivMacDS: <http://lazyone.drunkencoders.com/wordpress/?p=41>

There was MinivMac for iPhone before: <http://namedfork.net/iphone/minivmac/screenshots.html>

Basilisk II for PSP: <http://forums.ps2dev.org/viewtopic.php?t=3741>

It also helps that a lot of the emulation materials are legally free. Apple gives out the disk images for System 6 and 7 on their website, for example.

</comment><comment><USER5> ...And with that, the iPhone gained Copy + Paste capability.

</comment><comment><USER6> Mac OS 7 was the reason I hated mac's from 1996-1998. I am curious what virtues it could possibly have because I just remember having to run around the UCLA computer lab troubleshooting that OS futzing with the network printer daemon.

<comment><USER7> Agreed, MacOS 7 brings back more bad memories than good. I think the virtue here though is not Mac OS 7 itself, but rather the interesting exercise in OS porting.

<comment><USER8> It's neat, but not particularly impressive or interesting. It's an emulator running as a user space application; The iPhone isn't running Mac OS 7 natively (of course, it can't, since they use different CPU architectures, etc).

There have been classic Mac emulators for OS X for awhile now, and porting it to the iPhone was probably quite easy.

<comment><USER9> Reminds me of the current Louis CK meme floating about. System 7 is running on your phone. While it in itself _right now_ isn't the most amazing thing, the series of events leading up to it is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Editor should probably switch link to the much less ad-happy source: <http://www.macosiphone.co.cc/>

<comment><AUTHOR> agreed. Sadly, I cannot change the url, only the title. Editors/PG feel free to change to the less ad happy source RMS provided: <http://www.macosiphone.co.cc/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> The article writer complains about not being able to enter text, but that's what the Key Caps desk accessory was for. It provided text entry via copy/paste for keyboard-less "kiosk" systems, which were common back in the day. (My university used them for printing stations and short term internet/e-mail terminals. Unlike Windows 3.1 (which could to be used without a mouse), classic era Macs could be feasibly used without a keyboard.)

</comment><comment><USER12> Very Nice + here is the first serverside app, that let you watch TV on the iPhone without installing an app: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-RLkfBf4cw></comment>


Things Economists Agree On - <AUTHOR> http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/02/news-flash-economists-agree.html <comment><USER3> 1) Getting answers to collide when there's only two choices, Agree or Disagree, is simple, absurdly simple.

50% represents maximum dissension.

How many other questions were there? How did they coincide with the presented questions? What is the expected distribution if answers were assigned randomly?

2) A question that deals with global or national finance often can't be accurately stated in a single sentence. I look at, say, the minimum wage, or the sports franchise question, and I think, "It depends."

3) There's an assumption in the questions that contain "should". That assumption is that economists all share the same goals. They don't. The ones who do may agree about the methods to achieve it.

<comment><USER4> Agree. It's positively dangerous to assume a simple, selectively chosen set of questions are a basis for public policy recommendations.

Take the argument about minimum wages increasing unemployment amongst the unskilled and the young, for example. It's not too difficult to infer an implicit policy recommendation from the answer to that question...

If, however, you had asked the question "minimum wages increase unemployment overall" you would find a much lower level of agreement (not least empirical observations of the introduction of minimum wages in many jurisdictions have contradicted that claim). There's no inconsistency here since there are plenty of plausible economic mechanisms for believing that imposing a minimum wage leads to a countervailing increase in older, more skilled labourers, but even amongst the subset of economists that believe the actual effect of a minimum wage is to _concentrate_ unemployment amongst the young and unskilled you'll find a large degree of dissent over whether this has good or bad implications for society and the economy as a whole.

It's possible to agree wholeheartedly with Mankiw's simple observation of minimum wages => youth unemployment whilst disagreeing passionately with any policy recommendation against imposing a wage floor, even using narrow economic efficiency criteria.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I find it rather strange that even predictions that should be fairly clear-cut and straightforward (e.g. "A ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available.") only get around 9/10 agreement. As a non-economist, I would have thought that a seemingly simple (and testable!) question like that would be like polling physicsts with the question "Does F = ma?". And I would sure hope that more than 93% of physicists would say yes.

<comment><USER6> Well, unlike with physical laws, economic "laws" rarely describe direct causal mechanisms, but rather generalizations about what happens when you poke a multi-agent system, whose behavior is often rather complex. It's hard to test, tests often throw up quirks, it's nearly impossible to control for all confounding variables, etc.

In the rent-control case, for example, here is one (paywalled and somewhat dated) dissenting view: <http://www.springerlink.com/content/k75072652rkxut61/>. Pointed out mostly as an example--- it's quite possible that particular paper is now obsolete and adequately responded to. It's a common approach to dissenting from economic conclusions, though: you admit that a particular widely held belief is true in a particular model, but then argue that the model doesn't sufficiently correspond to reality, e.g. because it doesn't incorporate certain important effects.

<comment><USER7> Indeed. In particular, I've noticed that nearly all of the cities I've lived in and love (SF, Berkeley, NYC, Montreal) have rent control, whereas many cities that don't have rent control (Dallas, Houston, Phoenix) I've really had no interest in visiting.

The historical justification of rent control is that it allows for security of tenure: hence, even renters can put down roots, and a community can have time to develop. The communities I love seem to have required more time to develop than the cycles of the real estate market would allow. Even if I personally pay more rent, I benefit from those communities.

How do the economists model that? They probably don't. They do answer one question: the housing stock in Dallas and Houston is dramatically more affordable and probably built to a higher standard than the equivalent in SF and NYC, but the quality of life is significantly different (to my personal tastes, sacrificed.) The economists are answering the wrong question.

Rent control does seem to create quite an affordable housing shortage, though. One wonders, however, if ultimately it spurs on a lot of upscale development, since the premium you can charge for new units is so much higher, relatively. (giving you SF's South Beach...)

Edit:

Cato's article on the subject describes the change of Boston and Cambridge from a rent controlled to a free market system, on January 1, 1997.

<http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-274.html>

Can anyone describe the change in vibe from before January 1, 1997 to now?

<comment><USER8> Rent control creates a shortage of affordable housing. Sure, it might make cities nicer because with rent control only wealthy people can afford housing, so all of the low-income people live elsewhere. Think about living in SF on a teacher or fireman's salary, and compare that to anywhere else.

The problem with arguing about economics is that for some people, this is a desirable outcome -- rent control creates nice cities. For others, the outcome is undesirable -- rent control makes it more difficult for the poor to afford housing.

Nobody can argue that rent control is good or bad as a matter of fact; this is an opinion. That's why economists don't model that, it's like trying to calculate whether chocolate or vanilla is a better flavor.

What can be argued is the stated intention vs. the outcome; when a politician argues that rent control will keep housing affordable for low income people, we can state with a very high degree of certainty that he's wrong.

The ugly side of this is that most people don't care whether the politician has got his facts straight. They want the outcome he's promising.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Interesting that all economists seem to be pro-business, anti-tax, anti-worker rights. You would almost think that most economists worked at banks or for university business schools.

In other research naval officers believe in a larger navy with lots of ships

<comment><USER10> Yep, many economists do work for those institutions. And yep, all of them have /some/ particular axe to grind (everyone does -- I do, you do, etc). That doesn't mean that what they're saying isn't correct.

\- Businesses are, in fact, what generates most of the wealth and innovation in a country

\- Taxes, whether personal or corporate, are not economically efficient. Government can be compared to an electrical grid -- the money comes in one place, flows out somewhere else, and there are line losses on the way. (Government overhead, wastage, etc)

\- As to workers' rights: any society represents a particular set of choices about production needs and social needs. Sometimes those needs are cooperative, sometimes orthogonal, and sometimes they are in opposition. When "workers' rights" means "give us the money and the time to innovate and consume outside of work", it's good for society. When it means instead "give us the power to force you to comply with stupid and inefficient rules about who can do what" (e.g. most modern union shops that I've encountered), that's bad for society.

<comment><USER9> But it does suggest that economics is just politics by another name.

A survey of doctors would presumably agree on the function of an organ, a survey of hospital administrators might also agree on the need to cut treatment costs - this doesn't mean the opinions are equally accurate.

<comment><USER11> The labelling that you've chosen "pro-business, anti-tax, anti-worker rights" is politics itself.

The economists are more accurately characterized by 'anti-distortion'. The amount of distortion that should be accepted (for instance, to protect the disabled) is a matter of politics, but the article only addresses consensus issues.

<comment><USER9> True, but the article implies that "economists all agree on these things, economists are experts - therefore these things are correct"

But the same responses would come from US politicians of both types - <USER2> Swedish or French economists have the same views?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I found #4 and #11 to be interesting because it is difficult to spend money, reduce taxes, and not have a deficit. Everyone can agree that it'd be great to have all of those things. Economists are far less in agreement when it comes to what the correct balancing act is.

</comment><comment><USER13> What does this one mean?

"If the federal budget is to be balanced, it should be done over the business cycle rather than yearly. (85%)"

<comment><USER14> This is a Keynesian and Monetarist view of budgets. The idea is that IF you balance the budget (they often don't think this is ever a great idea anymore) then it should be balanced over the ups and downs of the business cycle.

So let's say a business cycle starts up again and somehow the government doesn't spend all that extra money before it comes in and there is surplus. Now booms are followed by an inevitable bust no matter what anyone tells you when the next one starts up.

Keynes argued that you should spend during busts to keep aggregate demand up and let the economy recover. So you run a deficit during this time. If you consider a balanced budget then they might argue that you should balance it with consideration to short term gains and losses.

If you're interested this video is a fun and very accurate way to learn about two different views of the business cycle:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk>

For the record I'm with Hayek in this video :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I would argue that the questions asked are largely wrong. A ceiling on rents does reduce the amount and quality of housing. The question, then, is: how much does it reduce amount and quality of housing, and how much does it lower prices? If we have minimum wages, unemployment will be higher, but how much higher? On the other hand, how much higher will average wage be?

Economics is a cost/benefit trade-off. If minimum wage doesn't reduce unemployment that much (and all evidence is that it doesn't -- the US is at about a natural level of unemployment in the long term, moving up and down with business cycles), we're better off with it in place. If it kills employment, we're better off without it.

</comment><comment><USER16> Interesting that most of these were fiscal and regulatory policies, but no monetary policies held a broad consensus. I would have thought there would be more consensus on interest rates and money supply.

</comment><comment><USER17> #4 is a bit misleading. It states "Fiscal policy (e.g., tax cut and/or government expenditure increase) has a significant stimulative impact on a less than fully employed economy. (90%)".

While that sounds harmless, a lot of people will take that item and extrapolate it to our current situation and say the correct policy response is to stimulate the economy with fiscal policy. That has to be right since 90% of economists agree right? Well, what happens if you add a little context to the quote and add the text "with high levels of debt as a share of GDP". That 90% number would likely come down massively most likely skewed by biases not related to economic theory.

In short, the quote is very misleading if you are trying to use it as a guide to our current mess. What does this imply the right policy response for us is now?:

We have to make major cuts in areas of excess that have little stimulative impact. This means cutting back on government pensions, entitlement reform, and cutting things like 9/11 contracts that don't provide any real increase in safety. It means we can also strategically spend in areas that have been neglected the last 10 years like an energy grid for a more stable energy policy, alternatives to petroleum based fuels, a modernized air traffic control system and infrastructure.

At a macro level this means net spending decreases in very sensitive areas like entitlements but also strategic increases that make our country more able to compete like education, energy independence and infrastructure.

</comment><comment><USER18> "If all the economists were laid end to end, they'd never reach a conclusion." -- George Bernard Shaw

Edit: note that the article only claims a maximum of 93% of economists agreeing on any one of the items.

</comment><comment><USER19> I'm curious about the "Eliminate Agriculture Subsidies" one. I don't know enough to give a good opinion, but it seems to me like that could wind up pricing basic, quality food out of the hands of the poorest people, and they'd either have problems with starvation or be _forced_ to eat junk.

I mean, maybe I'm wrong, but I could have sworn it was The Man that is keeping eggs down at around $3/dozen and milk around $4/gallon.

<comment><USER20> Actually, you'd like federally unsubsided foods. It would mean more locally grown produce and meats. Most of the big agricultural subsidies are for corn and sugar, the really bad stuff. Agricultural subsidies are making the nutrition crisis worse, not better.

<comment><USER21> It's unlikely that the removal of agricultural subsidies would create a significantly large market for locally grown produce and meats.

In fact, it would probably do precisely the opposite, as food could be outsourced just like the rest of our industry to areas with minimal labor laws to hamper cheap food production.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The classic response is "nothing".

That being said, getting 4 out of 5 economists to agree on something doesn't mean it's right. Most economists will tell you that public policy works best when you have the capability/political will to iterate on solutions. Not unlike a startup really.

<comment><USER19> I was shocked when I didn't get an empty white page.

<comment><USER11> That's because the media loves an argument, and politicians love lobbyists...

When most economists see a debate between 'experts' on CNN (or Fox) I'm sure they're shaking their heads and sighing.

Imagine seeing a debate on TV about the merits of Java vs Windows - with the two experts being marketing people from Oracle and Microsoft. The whole thing would be a facepalm for HN readers - except that to an outsider, it would sound like a clash of brilliant minds.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Last time I checked, economics was still considered "scientific." That means we should not be operating on consensus basis, but proof. What is the scientific model of these things that economists agree on? Have them be checked against history? Have them predicted future accurately? Have we been able explained whatever deviation they have with reality?

Until such model exists, consensus means nothing but politics. Maybe, just maybe, we should start considering demote economics status to "pseudo- science." Last time I check, fortune tellers also agree on shit, you know.

<comment><USER24> "consensus means nothing but politics"

Actually, why don't you do this if you think it's all about politics. Get your favorite politician, see who their economic advisers are, then understand their views. Mankiw stated economic points that are accepted by a wide political spectrum.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> "A minimum wage increases unemployment among young and unskilled workers. (79%)"

The fair market price for young and unskilled workers would be lower than the minimum wage, yes. Is this a good thing? For young workers, if young is less than 18 (ie, still in school), then this is OK. But, for unskilled workers? That entire class would be in poverty, as if they aren't on the edge of it now.

<comment><USER26> The problem is that the only real way most unskilled workers have to increase their skills is by working. Even those hired at minimum wage usually quickly move up to a higher wage as they get experience. Unskilled workers don't stay unskilled once they actually start getting experience.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Whilst it doesn't really support or refute any points, economists and interested people might be interested in the light-hearted <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVp8UGjECt4>

</comment><comment><USER28> Great article. I fully agree with its findings that 93% of US economists are me-too academics who don't understand economics and whose "consensus" is destroying the world.

</comment><comment><USER29> Surprisingly, I agree with all 14 statements on that list.

</comment><comment><USER30> I am not an economist, but I think economists have been doing a lot of catch up lately. Traditional economists have tended to see people as rational agents, whereas more recent behavioral economists are showing how people are pretty universally irrational.

Sure, in an idealized economic simulation we would consider every possibility and only choose the most optimal one. It only stands to reason in such an environment we should remove barriers and maximize choice. But the reality is people are limited and take shortcuts in decision making that traditional economists never even imagined. Those human cognitive limitations need to be seriously considered before jumping to any conclusions about economic policy.

<comment><USER11> But economists would all agree that the models have limitations - that's not really news. The news here is that the limitations are a 10% slice rather than a 1% slice.

But that doesn't stop the theory being 90% correct.

Incentives-wise : is it easier to get people to buy a book about 'classical economics' or the 'whole new type of economics that makes those classical guys look like dinosaurs'?

<comment><USER30> I would liken it more to elaborate geocentric models of the solar system. Sure, they can explain the data. And they can make accurate predictions within a certain margin of error.

But then there are the cases they can't explain or predict accurately. Not to mention they keep getting more complex and more uncomfortable to believe. At the end of the day it's just the completely wrong idea tortured to give the right answers. The solar system was heliocentric all along.

That's the kind of place I think traditional economic models are in right now. We're steps away from proving out the planets orbit the Sun, but there are still a lot of smart people writing elaborate dissertations about the Sun orbiting the Earth.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Here's one broad way Mankiw and company are going wrong. I start with three preliminary points and then point to the going wrong:

(1) They have _physics envy_. In particular, they want to sit in a small, dark, closed room and with just _pure thought_ , with little to no contact with any real economy, come up with some economics version of Newton's second law F = ma or Einstein's result in special relativity E = mc^2. Nonsense. Incompetent, intellectually bankrupt nonsense.

(2) With their _physics envy_ , they want _mathematical economics_ and to build _mathematical models_. E.g., for some decades after Dantzig's simplex algorithm, they fell in love with optimization. As optimization moved forward with nonlinear programming, the Kuhn-Tucker conditions, nonlinear duality, deterministic optimal control and the Pontryagin maximum principle, and stochastic optimal control, the mathematical economists continued to use such applied math to build their models. A shockingly large fraction of the Nobel prizes in economics are from just such nonsense. The math is rock solid; there are occasional good applications to particular, small problems, e.g., the climb, cruise, and descent of an airplane or what mix of refined products should come today from an oil refinery; an _application_ to a real economy is nearly always just total BS.

(3) To keep their models relatively simple, they make a lot of assumptions. E.g., in finance, they assume _perfect information_ and f'get about the guy on a motorcycle at an airport who asked the guy on the ramp where the plane was going (as in the movie _Wall Street_ ), _naked shorting_ , etc. E.g., they make a lot of Brownian motion assumptions that then say that the LTCM disaster was wildly improbable, which it was not. They make assumptions about which workers are _more productive_ and feed that into their optimization looking for some case of a _non-inferior_ solution or _Pareto_ optimality as if Chinese women had 20 fingers on each hand so could sew buttons much faster than women in South Carolina.

Going Wrong. They take their assumptions of their simplistic models and the corresponding conclusions and say that a real economy SHOULD be like that. So, they want to bend the real economy to their Procrustean bed of simplistic assumptions and conclusions. If physical science had done such a thing, then they would still be saying that the planets should move as Ptolemy said, that falling bodies should still move like Aristotle said, and that we should still be looking for flogiston.

This _economic science_ is intellectually both incompetent and dishonest; it's contemptible, and dangerous.

Once I went through Samuelson's college text: I found NOTHING that made any sense at all except for his chapter on the Federal Reserve; in that chapter, he just described what the laws had established and was clear. All the rest of the book was total BS disconnected from any real economy. E.g., if we buy more transistors, then the price of each transistor has to go up. Right: Transistors used to cost several dollars each, and now, after buying many billions, maybe trillions, of transistors, we can buy a few hundred million for less than $100, retail. Wheat: For years 1800, 1850, 1900, 1950, and 2000, take the quantity in bushels of wheat produced in the US and the price per bushel of wheat, corrected for inflation, see that the quantity has gone way up and the price, way down. Similarly for iron, steel, chickens, and pork. We're talking total suckage. The very first things in academic econ, the _supply and demand_ curves, just do not work in any meaningful way in a real economy; real economies mostly just don't work that way, guys. Total BS.

E.g., the econonuts argue for _free trade_ based on simplistic nonsense. Their idea is that, for some _global benefit_ or some _Pareto optimality for the world_ , it is _better_ if the production is where it is most efficient. So, yes, grow teak wood in Thailand, grow rubber in Viet Nam, mine tin in Indonesia, and pump oil in Saudi Arabia. Fine. Then, sew buttons in China? Sure, if the Chinese women had 20 fingers on each hand. But they don't. And a sewing factory in China has to struggle with bad situations for each of suppliers, legal system, transportation system, communications infrastructure, information technology infrastructure, etc. Still, the econonuts want to conclude that China is _more efficient_ at sewing buttons. No they aren't: Instead, the Chinese government understands what the econ profs don't: China takes their young women and makes each of them "an offer they can't refuse", work for pennies a hour under whatever conditions, or else, period. It's not a matter of being _efficient_. So, businesses, careers, lives, and communities in South Carolina are ruined. So, we pay the former textile workers to do nothing or just let them die. I know: A few of the textile workers get to serve BBQ. From such destructive nonsense, instead of textile workers, I have a better suggestion for who deserves to die. They are doing it, and we should say so: The academic econ profs are KILLING Americans.

Then there's _US competitiveness_ : In the 1950s the US had a great economy. Except for some points of information, biomedical, and materials technology, it's not clear that our standard of living is as high now. Our imports were meager, maybe some tin from Indonesia, etc. We didn't buy much from outside because the other industrialized economies were devastated and, thus, had little to sell us. But we did sell some products: Telephone systems, construction machinery, airplanes, etc. Then the idea is that since we could sell at what were astoundingly high prices, especially for the buyers, that is why our economy was doing well: NONSENSE. Total 100% nonsense: So, Joe went to work at, say, Caterpillar, and made great machines which we shipped to, say, France. France paid us in silly paper which we converted to gold. So, we accumulated a lot of gold. What good did this do Joe or the US? Next to none: In particular, Joe's labor got consumed in France instead of the US. Econonuts are confused. It is easy to see why, say, Japan, Saudi Arabia, or Jamaica needs foreign trade. But the US was doing just fine, thank you, as essentially a self-sufficient economy in the 1950s and, with foreign trade, is doing worse now. We are shipping our _going businesses_ , _market position_ , _education_ , technology _secret sauce_ , and _intellectual property_ overseas, and the econonuts conclude that this is _good_. Total BS.

Now, sure, we want to import some oil: Saudi Arabia has oil and needs national defense, wheat, construction expertise, water and sewer systems, information technology, cars, etc., so we can swap. Fine.

So, why did we give away major parts of the US economy? Sure: Some econonuts had excuses for why this was _optimal_ , and the Foggy Bottom types wanted to _save the world_ by exporting the US economy. Meanwhile, back in the US, the citizens got it in the rear. US citizens were killed, and are still dying.

So, several large US industries got shipped to Taiwan, South Korea, Pakistan, and China, and whole states in the US had their economies devastated. There is a _loss_ the econonuts don't count: The human capital that gets _written off_. Or, the econonuts assume that the textile workers and metal bending manufacturing workers can, of course, just move to Redmond and write software for Microsoft, which has so far likely never happened even once, to sell to China, which, of course, steals software and doesn't buy it.

The econ profs conveniently f'get about market manipulations we learned about in the US in the 1890s -- _predatory marketing practices_ , etc. And they f'get about the _assets_ of a _going business_ , technology _secret sauce_ , market position, etc. The simplistic econ models just don't count such things, so the econonuts assume that we shouldn't think about such things in the real economy and, thus, just give them away.

In school, I knew the applied math MUCH better than the econ profs, and their nonsense and its intellectual dishonesty were infuriating. After the first lecture, I asked the econ prof, nicely, what he was assuming -- continuity, differentiability, continuous differentiability, convexity, pseudo convexity, quasi convexity, or what. Then within an hour he had called my Ph.D. advisor and got me OUT of his class. That was not my intention but was GOOD.

Academic economics has NOTHING important to do with any real economy and is from irrelevant, incompetent, dishonest, and contemptible down to seriously dangerous.

We're talking ordinary crooks way down to the lawyers way, way down to bucket shop operators and from there way, way, way down to the politicians and from there, far, far down where just can't see at all, the econ profs. I know what we should export next: If all the econ profs were lined up on a cargo ship, it would be a good thing. And still better if the ship sank far out at sea.

The real economy is IMPORTANT, way, WAY too important ever to be touched by anything like econ profs.

<comment><USER32> A few points:

(1) Many if not most economists are empirical. Recent John Bates Clark medals ---a good reflection of what academic economists think is the best work being done right now---have gone to economists doing empirical work. Recent examples include what works for development (evaluated with large randomized controlled trials), what are the causes of growing income inequality, how should we structure auctions etc. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bates_Clark_Medal> . To say that most economists have no contact or interest in empiricism is incorrect.

(2) The point about simple models is not that economists fully believe them--- it's that they force everyone to be explicit about assumptions. They also try to identify what are the key features of admittedly very complex phenomena. This is what models do in most scientific endeavor. That the models often perform poorly is a sign of an immature science---not fraud or dishonesty. You'd get eternal fame and become fantastically rich if you came up with a financial model with great predictive powers---do economists not create such models because they are stupid and corrupt? That seems unlikely.

(3) The transistor example completely misses the key distinction that _every_ presentation of the simple supply and demand model always makes - i.e., there is a difference between the short term and long term. If demand doubled for transistors tomorrow, the price wouldn't rise?

(4) You confuse absolute and comparative advantage.

(5) "In the 1950s the US had a great economy. Except for some points of information, biomedical, and materials technology, it's not clear that our standard of living is as high now."

This is where I stopped reading - this is so obviously wrong <http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=GDP/capita+real+US> that it's hard to take seriously any conclusions on the relative merits of different industrial policies the follow from this "fact."

<comment><USER33> In response to point 5. Is it clear that per capita GDP is a good measure of standard of living? Adjusted median income has not risen much with GDP. Do you have an argument for why standard of living should be evaluated as a mean instead of a median?

[http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Median...](http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Median%20Household%20Income.pdf)

<comment><USER34> > _Is it clear that per capita GDP is a good measure of standard of living?_

Yes. This is something else virtually every economist will agree on. ACists, neoclassical, keynesian, Chicago, Austrian, I'm sure there are other major schools I'm forgetting, but this is a very accepted measure of standard of living in the field of economics.

<comment><USER35> > Yes. This is something else virtually every economist will agree on.

A statement which only help to make his point about economists being ignorant crocks. GDP is heavily doubted as a good measure of standard of living in all other social sciences.

Examples of what the GDP measure fails to take into account: ecological sustainability, wealth distribution, non-market transactions, underground economy, non-monetary economy, subsistence economy, quality improvements and inclusion of new products, what is being produced, externalities, sustainability, etc, etc...

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product#Limitati...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product#Limitations_of_GDP_to_judge_the_health_of_an_economy)

<comment><USER34> I don't understand your argument here.

You won't find an economist (or any other person person) in the world that thinks GDP exhaustively covers every aspect of an economy and how it provides a standard of living.

What you will find is that they all agree GDP is the best available measure to determine a standard of living that is derived from some level of economic production.

If GDP is a terrible metric for determining standard of living, I'd like to know why it is still the most often used metric (by economists and non- economists alike) and a coherent argument for some alternative standard.

Any satisfaction based metric means that the majority of the developed world is doing something wrong -- numerous happiness studies show indigenous peoples often have a higher "happiness index" than people in the developed world.

Environmental based metrics have their own problems because environmental benefits and harms are not internalized by nations.

Income distribution based metrics aren't acceptable because the harms of great income distribution disparity are not easily mapped and are rarely agreed upon.

The only thing that might make sense is a metric based on life expectancy and education (Human development index from your Wikipedia link), but even that is problematic. Research created free-riding, regardless of patents.

The second a US company makes a drug that eliminates cancer, any lab that gets their hand on the drug can reverse engineer it with ease. The however many millions of dollars that went into building it (and become a function of its cost) are undercut by countries/people that do not respect the intellectual property rights of such a patent.

The outlay of spending becomes highly concentrated while the company doesn't see the returns that it expects. The drug copier gets the benefits of the hundreds of millions in R&D expenditure while only spending a few extra days of a scientists time.

<comment><USER35> The reason why GDP is still used is because we have a lot of historical GDP data available and it is a fairly simple measure to understand and collect data on. Nor do we have a good enough alternative measure yet. We do have several candidates, but just as you state they all have weaknesses that needs to be understood.

The problem with economic sciences is that the GDP measure is used without critique, without fully understanding its trade-offs or by simply ignoring it deficiencies. That I believe is very careless when you are in the end dealing with the lives of real people.

<comment><USER34> I have a (procedural) problem with your critiquing something not inherently bad with no alternative. You haven't presented any new arguments against the GDP nor have you attempted to argue that any possible alternative is more viable than the GDP. I invite you to respond to any of the arguments I made against GDP alternatives.

> _The problem with economic sciences..._

Honestly, this is hard for me to read.

Lectures on the inadequacies of the GDP are Macro 101 stuff. Throughout college in my different econ classes the shortfalls of the GDP were frequently discussed by several different teachers.

This economic sciences conspiracy to prevent indictments of the GDP you're trying to present as fact is completely fabricated and gives a bad name to economists that do discuss the shortcomings of the GDP (read: every economist ever).</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Russian 'Sully' lands plane on corn field after bird strike - chupa-chups https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/624614-russia-plane-crash-lands-field-after-bird-strike.html <comment><AUTHOR> Reuters news flash: [https://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFKCN1V50DQ](https://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFKCN1V50DQ) (has picture!)

</comment><comment><USER2> Russia has enough of it's own airplane heroes to be not named after other ones

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1963_Aeroflot_Tupolev_Tu-124_N...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1963_Aeroflot_Tupolev_Tu-124_Neva_river_ditching)

</comment><comment><USER3> Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing. Any landing you can fly the plane away from is a _great_ landing.

</comment><comment><USER4> Any elaboration on why the chassis was up?

Is it because they didn't have enough power to lower it or because it was better for landing?

<comment> chupa-chups According to the alleged professionals at pprune, they most likely didn't have enough time for that (gear extension takes time, and according to the reports they were at around 900 feet when the problem manifested itself, which - without any power - does translate to: prepare to contact ground ASAP).

They most probably didn't even have time to go through the appropriate checklist. They just did the most reasonable thing achievable in the remaining time which is: try to land the plane as safely as possible.

<comment><USER5> The Reuters article stated that the flight only lasted 2 minutes. They didn't even have time to warn and prepare the passengers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is awesome! Hats off to the crew!</comment>


Ring brings Viking, Islamic civilizations closer together - <AUTHOR> https://www.sciencenews.org/article/ring-brings-ancient-viking-islamic-civilizations-closer-together <comment><USER2> I'm surprised though that the ring is such a big sensation. Normans (direct descendants of the Vikings) conquered Sicily from the Muslims back in the 11th century. Previous to that Vikings were hired as mercenaries around the whole Mediterranean basin and even served as an elite unit in Byzantine emperor's employ (Varangian guard) at the time of continuous clashes between the crumbling empire and Arabic and then various Turkish invaders.

<comment><USER3> I was more interested in the religious implications of the ring, wondering how much Islam had penetrated Slavic/Scandinavian cultures, and if individuals incorporated the Islamic God into their (personal) pantheons.

Would make for some interesting historical fiction, but this find is at most a footnote in history.

<comment><USER4> You might be interested in reading the travel accounts of Ahmad Ibn Fadlan (full name Ahmad ibn Fadlān ibn al-Abbās ibn Rāšid ibn Hammād), an Abassid envoy who travelled all the way up to Russia in the early 10th century and apparently witnessed a Viking funeral:

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

His account is collected with a few other Arab travelogues in the North in "Ibn Fadlan and the Land of Darkness: Arab Travellers in the Far North"

Someone created a reconstructed map of the possible route: [http://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=e83699d...](http://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=e83699d539a048e4a78be4425896b492)

<comment><USER5> There's a (fictional) film version of this that combines his story with the Beowulf saga[1].

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_13th_Warrior](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_13th_Warrior)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Something strange I find is researchers finding it as new evidence in a new encounter.

In Islamic history this is a well known[1] connection.

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

<comment><USER7> This ring is an amazing discovery, but you're right that contact between the Viking and Islamic cultures was already well known. The Icelandic sagas, for example, document the prestige won by Norse warriors who traveled to Constantinople and served in the Varangian Guard. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varangian_Guard](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varangian_Guard) In fact, if you travel to Istanbul today, you can see Norse runes carved into the stones of the Hagia Sophia. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runic_inscriptions_in_Hagia_Sop...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runic_inscriptions_in_Hagia_Sophia)

<comment><USER8> Constantinople was Christian at the time though. It was the capital of the roman empire, and remained Christian until til fifteenth century. But they did fight Arabs, so there was contact that way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Beside Vikings traveling down Atlantic Ocean into Mediterranean, there were another active, eastern, routes. Even Greek and Romans had amber which was coming from the south of Baltic Sea. Several centuries later Vikings actively traveled down the rivers through territories of modern Poland, Moldova, Ukraine and Russia (where Vikings founded the Kievana Rus - the Russia 1.0 - state as a result (with Russian tzars and nobles proudly tracing their genealogy back to those Vikings - tzars until 16th century and the nobles until they were basically exterminated about 100 years ago as result of Revolution)). From Kievana Rus Vikings also raided South of Caspian Sea (Iran) through Volga river.

</comment><comment><USER10> I recall reading about some Buddhist artefacts found at Viking sites. That could put their travels much older than whats mentioned here.

[http://irisharchaeology.ie/2013/12/the-helgo-treasure-a- viki...](http://irisharchaeology.ie/2013/12/the-helgo-treasure-a-viking-age- buddha/)

The Vikings sure travelled far and wide.

<comment><USER8> Not necessarily, artifacts could have traveled through multiple transactions along a trade route without any single person traveling all the way. So the Buddha does not necessarily mean that a viking traveled to Asia or vice versa. Although it does show that continuous interactions happened all the way, which is itself fascinating.

<comment><USER11> That's the most probable explanation. The ancient trade routes were more A to B to C and not A going to C type affairs. The Americans has seen artifacts from the Arctic make it down to Central America, never mind the Pacific islanders.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> "Scandinavians traded for fancy glass objects from Egypt and Mesopotamia as early as 3,400 years ago "

And believe it or not they were doing the same thing 1100 years ago as well.

<comment><USER13> There are certain stories that remain perennially "surprising" no matter how often they are reported on. For example, "Engineers use nature as a source of inspiration" is still reported with breathless amazement despite every engineer for the past century (at least) being taught to look to nature for inspiration.

Likewise, "Companies go green to save money" apparently astonishes people, decades after Interface became famous for doing precisely that.

And "Old people had sex and porn" will never get old, any more than "Ancient peoples traded over the whole world".

I'm not sure why these stories get the "that's surprising" reaction they do. Simple ignorance won't cut it, because they all get reported on so many times that eventually ignorance would decline, but it never does. It may have something to do with people's stereotypes overwhelming their knowledge, so even though they know engineers are sensitive and thoughtful people or that ancient peoples traded widely, that knowledge never "sticks" to the stereotype of engineers as uncultured and insensitive or ancient peoples as immobile and sedentary.

<comment><USER8> > Simple ignorance won't cut it, because they all get reported on so many > times that eventually ignorance would decline, but it never does.

Well, new people get born all the time. And they are totally ignorant until they learn things.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Not a big Crichton fan (most of his books spend the first half explaining how smart everyone is, and the second half is always those smart people making terribly stupid decisions) BUT, Crichton did write Eaters of the Dead, a book that is about exactly what this article talks about.

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

The story follows a Muslim who is sent as an emissary to the Vikings, and all the craziness that follows. It was also a movie: the 13th Warrior. It's a great story, not terribly well executed. The culture clash is the most interesting part, particularly when the Muslim lead is asked to "draw words," because his people have a system of writing, and the Vikings don't.

I read somewhere the Crichton was basing this on some 10th century writings from some fellow who actually made this journey, but I can find no more references to it online....

<comment><USER15> It's based on the writings of Ibn Fahad, also posted by someone else below:

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

And I love the Eaters of the Dead. It's not high art, but I found it an enjoyable read (once you realise that most of the footnotes are fake).

<comment><USER14> Yeah, Crichton can be fun as long as you take him as pulp, not as some genius expert on the topics he writes about.

<comment><USER15> I think a lot of his books consist of finding something people are anxious about (Japanese Takeover of America - Rising Sun; Sexual Harassment of Men - Disclosure; Prey - Nanotechnology; Westworld - Robots) and then write a book about it.

Plus, he also did ER as well which was pretty entertaining.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> There are lots of Islamic gold & silver coins found in Viking hoards: [http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/middle-east/b-focus- b-v...](http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/middle-east/b-focus-b-vikings- came-in-search-of-dirhams#full)

</comment><comment><USER8> Perhaps even more amazing is the small Buddha statue found in a grave in Sweden from the 8th century.

</comment><comment><USER17> Yeah, basically eurasian continent has been crisscrossed with traderoutes for thousands of years. From Scandinavia to Mediterranean, from China to Italy (romans were fond of chinese silk). I suppose the stereotype of the sedentary medieval peasant is so strong that notions of traderoutes spanning thousands of kilometers being ordinary is hard to grasp.

</comment><comment><USER4> If you ever read the Prose Edda (the Atlakvida or Lay of Atli) or Nibelungenlied (Song of the Nibelungs) and find a mention of Atli or Etzel, that's actually (spoiler) Attila the Hun.

</comment><comment><USER18> Life imitates art.

[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120657/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120657/)

<comment><USER8> Actually it is the other way around in this case.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> The sample size in underwhelming. One single ring can have travelled that distance in any number of ways.

<comment><USER4> Here is something to increase your sample size: [https://www.academia.edu/1722281/Islamic_Coin_Hoards_and_the...](https://www.academia.edu/1722281/Islamic_Coin_Hoards_and_the_Trade_Routes_How_Dirham_Reached_the_North)

<comment><USER20> But that doesn't - the authors in the paper are explicitly claiming that this ring shows direct communication between the Caliphate and Swedish vikings, that the woman recently acquired the ring directly based on the wear of the ring and it's form. The GP is right to question the sample size IMO.

Your citation moves the opposite direction and reinforces the GP's statement that the items can travel far in myriad ways.

<comment><USER4> Not at all, the parent and the article claim it was a unique item, it isn't.

There was a predominance of silver Islamic dirham over any other currency including local varieties, this is strong evidence of direct trade with Islamic countries (as cited in another of my comments: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9214849](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9214849) )

<comment><USER20> I think we're at cross-purposes to some extent. The paper isn't claiming the article is unique [in being Afghan silver jewellery in Sweden] as it clearly mentions not only other silver coins but other rings (IIRC) having come to Sweden from "the Caliphate". The specific details of the physical appearance of the ring they are claiming indicate that this item has a unique story; I challenge that claim being entirely supported by the evidence they presented (see my other comments).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> People traded in the Middle Ages? Not the biggest surprise. And ugh, its medieval, not ancient.

<comment><USER8> In Scandinavian historiographic tradition the Middle Ages is counted from the arrival of Christianity. Being the the 8th century, the find is from the Viking Age which is earlier.

<comment><USER20> From the abstract of the paper itself:

>"an Arabic finger ring, which was found in a 9th c. woman's grave" //

Which by your definition makes this mediaeval, as the GP states.

<comment><USER8> No, according to my definition 9th century is Viking Age. Scandinavian medieval period starts around year 1000 with christianization. Of course these labels are more or less arbitrary. In western Europe, the medieval times are sometimes counted from the fall of the western roman empire, and in that case 9th century is clearly medieval. I believe this is the tradition in England.

<comment><USER20> Ah, OK, I stand corrected. Your error in saying '8th Century' confused suggested you were saying 'as it's 8th and not 9th century.

In Scandinavia is it considered that the Viking age and mediaeval period don't overlap at all? Is there a specific event that marks the start of the mediaeval period - you mentioned Christianisation, perhaps the arrival of an evangelist (aka saint)?

Of course the ring could be C8 - I wonder if they can date it with reference to the comparison of the composition with coins with a known date [though I guess that only gives an upper bound as the silver used in the coins could have been mined much earlier].

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Hmm, a ring binding two cultures together. Do words appear on it when placed in fire?

<comment><USER23> Yep just like JK Rowling said in Game of Thrones, one ring to rule them all and in the darkness blind them.

<comment><USER24> The language it's written in is Assail, too.</comment></comment></comment>


Valley Pioneer Brett Bullington Is In Intensive Care After Biking Accident - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/15/silicon-valley-pioneer-brett-bullington-is-in-intensive-care-after-biking-accident/ <comment><USER2> The injuries sound very severe for a 59-year old man falling from a bicycle. Was he not wearing a helmet? Was he traveling excessively fast?</comment>


War of Currents (Edison vs Tesla) - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Currents

<comment><USER2> I've been wanting to shoot a film about this for some time.</comment>


Instapaper Founder Marco Arment On The App Business - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/01/31/146152273/the-tuesday-podcast-the-app-economy

<comment><USER2> I hate these fluff pieces. There's a huge infatuation with mobile apps these days that's not based on reality. The media either,presents them as super simple projects that are making people rich or gimmicks that can't possibly take too much time to build.

The fact is, no one wants to hear about how Marco's "super simple" service has quite a bit of engineering on the backend to handle load, or that he's not, in fact, a millionaire from Instapaper (even though it seems that he makes a very decent living).

The truth is that apps aren't a gold mine. It still takes hard work, dedication and luck to make it developing your own mobile apps. It just irks me that the public perception of apps are that they're simple and always make buckets of money in exchange for little effort.

<comment> k-mcgrady It's true that making a successful app is hard work. It is, however, simple compared to how the software market used to work. You no longer need your own website and payment system, you need very little marketing, and development time is quicker allowing you to try many different ideas until you find one that sticks. You can create a living with time being the only investment (and you can invest your spare time so you can continue your day job).

Edit: Why the down vote? If you are going to down vote something at least reply with your reason/point of view.

<comment><USER3> > _"...you need very little marketing... development time is quicker..."_

I disagree with this. There's still quite a bit of effort involved marketing if you've not already got credibility/contacts/attention from something previous. Development time may be quicker in general but if you want to craft something unique I expect you still have to spend time on it.

Agree with the rest of your points though.

<comment> k-mcgrady I suppose development time does depend on the app. It is possible to spend a few hours building an app and make a lot of money from it though but this is probably the exception not the rule.

I've always found marketing iOS apps to be very simple. You get marketing in the App Store new releases section, and then I push hard for downloads on social media. You only need to market hard until you get into the top 25 or so and then the App Store does it for you. This is what I have found anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Would Marco make more money giving away his app for free and charging $1.99/month for the service? It's always seemed odd to me that you pay for the web service upfront with a one-time fee, though that seems to be working well for Pinboard.

It may be the case that a one-time upfront cost is the best way to attract paying customers.

<comment><USER5> If lack of a monthly fee made _some_ sense in the early days of Instapaper, it makes plenty of sense now that Apple has "Reading List" installed on millions of Macs and iOS devices.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This interview repeats the common line of thought that Apple having credit cards stored and a frictionless buying experience as key to the success of the App Store, but I don't see why that is a commonly held belief. Doesn't hurt, of course, but simple ease of payment doesn't really strike me as the main hurdle in selling software (more than willing to be proved wrong here). It seems more likely to me that the iPhone was a device that _begged_ for software. Hand anyone an iPhone with just the built in apps and I assure you they will soon be inquiring about what else can they do with it.

A great demand seems to be the real key to the App Store success. After all, how many credit cards that were entered in 2008 are still active today?

<comment><USER7> The difference between having to enter my CC every couple of years vs. every couple of days is huge. I'm guilty of a lot of quick, mindless expenses in the iTunes Store that I probably wouldn't have incurred in if I had to enter the CC every time.

It's all about reducing the friction to buy stuff, when the only thing you have to do is click a button you're most likely to consume (at least on my personal experience).

<comment><USER5> Can't you both be right?

<comment><USER7> I agree with Kyle in the observation that this is not the main reason for the App Store to be successful, but I think it contributes a lot. I'm only speaking from experience though so maybe other people can chime in and give us their opinions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It is a great success story but it is also a story of someone being in the right place at the right time. Instapaper was in the app store the very next day after store went alive. Seems like a typical story described in Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_%28book%29></comment>


Using GCC for automatic C language dependency management with Rake - <AUTHOR> http://www.electronvector.com/blog/using-gcc-for-automatic-c-language-dependency-management-with-rake

<comment><AUTHOR> I encourage embedded software engineers to experiment with modern development tools. There are a surprising number of ways that even low-level firmware engineers can use clever open source tools to increase development speed. You don't have to be a web developer to leverage cool new technologies!

<comment><USER2> If this article is supposed to be showing that Rake is useful for plain C development, it's not doing a very good job of it since this particular thing is quite trivial with GNU Make (just add -MMD to gcc's arguments and `-include *.d` to the Makefile). A more compelling argument would be something that shows Rake easily handling something that is very awkward in Make.

<comment><USER3> This also makes the mistake of requiring a separate -MM step _before_ building the target -- if a target doesn't exist, you have to build it regardless of its dependencies! -MMD with allows the correct behavior of always building the first time, then using dependency information for partial rebuilds.</comment></comment></comment>


Big Content's latest antipiracy weapon: extradition - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/07/big-content-unveils-latest-antipiracy-weapon-extradition.ars/1

<comment><USER2> The article repeatedly mentions O'Dwyer's lack of connection to the USA. Isn't the connection clearly the American ownership of the content he's accused of infringing (I have no comment on whether simply aggregating links to it actually constitutes a crime).

Maybe it's a stretch, but the analogy I can concoct is: someone steals something from an American and a British person assists the thief in fencing the item to some non-American and takes a cut for his services (like the ad revenue).

<comment> buff-a No, the analogy is someone steals something from an American, while the American is in the UK. That gets tried in a UK court.

No, wait. Someone steals something from an American while in the UK. This 23 year old publishes a list of where to buy stolen goods in the UK. That gets tried in a UK court too.

No, try again. Someone steals something from an American while in the UK. This 23 year old publishes a list of where to buy stolen goods in the UK. Someone takes a copy of this list to the US. The US then tries to extradite the 23 year old because someone brought a copy of his list to the US.

If the "make available" doesn't hold water, how does "make available a list of places that are making available"?

(Answer: because it doesn't have to. The DoJ is a for-rent organization)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Don't spend any money on US movies. Not that hard, because so many are terrible these days anyway. There are fantastic European and Asian films as alternatives too.

</comment><comment><USER4> I think that headline sucks. (yes, you arstechnica editors.)</comment>


Morse Keyer for kids / beginners using Ardiuno - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/maharishi/MorseKeyer <comment><USER2> Looks like a Visual Studio project. Which version is required? Is the code C or C++ (I don't know much).

<comment><AUTHOR> either you can use the visual studio 2015 or use the Arduino Code editor from their site and open the MorseKeyer.ino file and pitches.h file</comment></comment>


Smartphones Recycled Into Devices That Detect Deforestation - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2014/06/26/your-old-smartphone-could-pinpoint-illegal-logging-save-the-rainforests/

<comment><USER2> This is interesting because I've often wondered how many people realise that a smartphone has an extremely dense collection of input/output devices that can sense and interact with its environment; most will have a touchscreen, speaker, microphone, camera, compass (magnetometer), accelerometer, gyroscope, light sensor, distance sensor, GPS, maybe even a thermometer and barometer. They also have radios for GSM/CDMA, WiFi, and Bluetooth.

Instead of only listening for chainsaw sounds, they could be watching and monitoring other aspects of the environment too.

The only downside is that the electronics in these weren't designed for continuous exposure to the outdoors, so they probably won't last so long... but if these were going to end up as rubbish anyway, it doesn't matter so much --- as long as they can keep up with installing new ones as the old ones fail.

<comment><USER3> In the Scientific American article[1] it mentions that the electronics are encased in waterproof housings. Regardless, exposure certainly will be a challenge given the environment.

[1] [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/if-poachers-and- il...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/if-poachers-and-illegal- loggers-strike-this-forest-phones-it-in/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This probably qualifies as a shower thought, but if every smartphone just had a tiny solar panel built into it, at EOL, each and every one could be utilized as some kind of periodic off-line sensor in some environment e.g. car GPS tracker or daily photo taker. This would extend each unit's useful life by several years in an interesting way.

</comment><comment><USER5> Url changed from [http://mashable.com/2014/06/26/recycle-smartphone-startup- de...](http://mashable.com/2014/06/26/recycle-smartphone-startup- deforestation/) because the current article seems a little more substantive.

<comment><AUTHOR> This one is even more substantive, perhaps: [http://scientificamerican.com/article/this-forest-listens- an...](http://scientificamerican.com/article/this-forest-listens-and-calls- for-help/)</comment></comment>


What the world eats (2014) - <AUTHOR> http://www.nationalgeographic.com/what-the-world-eats/ <comment><USER2> I really wish they would have separated sugar and fat into different slices. Grouping them makes them seem equally unhealthy and perpetuates the falsehood that fats are inherently bad. A culture can have a high fat intake, with a low sugar intake and still be healthy. You can't really say the same for the opposite.

<comment><USER3> You can click/tap on the sugar and fat pie slice to separate out sugar vs fat.

<comment><USER4> Seems like "fat" in this context just means "vegetable oil", and animal fat goes into the dairy & eggs category.

Weird grouping.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm surprised that China eats more meat per capita (17%) than most of the rest of the world.

Hong Kong is at the top (29%), followed by Argentina (19%), Vietnam (18%), and then China and Australia, both at 17%.

China's lead even holds up in absolute Calorie terms -- 509 Calories vs 469 in the US. However, interestingly, the Chinese eat less mass of meat per capita than the US. I wonder if that's due to eating more energy-rich parts of animals or if their animals are bred to have more energy-rich meat.

<comment><USER6> Fat == 9 calories per gram

Protein == 4 calories per gram

So if a culture's fat : protein ratio is higher, then for a given weight of meat there will be more calories consumed. Anecdotally, in China it seems meat-dishes tend to be much fattier than in the US.

For example: [https://www.google.com/search?q=hong+shao+rou&tbm=isch](https://www.google.com/search?q=hong+shao+rou&tbm=isch)

That's pork belly ; AKA the thickest bacon cut imaginable and naturally very fatty (also delicious).

\-----

Source: I lived in Shenzhen, China for 4 months.

<comment><USER7> _in China it seems meat-dishes tend to be much fattier_

Seems to be a preference thing. At least according to one immigrant Vietnamese family I was close with growing up, muscle is rather bland and boring in texture. They strongly preferred the fat & connective tissue for their flavor & texture respectively, and dishes were always very oily.

As far as I know, Western diets used to be fattier, but out of concern for the diseases of civilization animal fats have been reduced.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> North Korea, Vietnam and India are the ones with over 50% grain consumption (63%, 57%, 57%). Grains here would mean both carbs and protein (pulses). It would be interesting to see the same chart with a carbs and protein split.

<comment><USER5> _protein (pulses)_

That's a new term for me -- Wikipedia says it's another name for the English definition of _legume_ : [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse_(legume)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse_\(legume\))

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Do these calorie numbers not seem high? The US eats 3600 calories per person per day (2800 in 1961?), and the vast majority of countries are running well over 2000/3000?

<comment><USER10> Yeah, they seen high to me. According to typical online weight calculators, a 30 years old, 6 foot high, moderately active male on a long term 3600 calorie/day diet should weigh around 290 pounds. If lightly active, make that 360 pounds. Only an extremely active person should be able to eat that much without being seriously overweight--they would be around 180 pounds.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Nothing changes really that much between 1950 and now, on the world scale.

It would be nice if this would go back further in time, so we could see, for instance, the paleolithic-diet.

</comment><comment><USER12> According to the chart, nobody eats Animal Fats. I think the paleo community might disagree.

</comment><comment><USER13> Great infographics.

</comment><comment><USER14> The Land of Sugar & Fat.</comment>