A Rust Belt Native and Technologist Re-Thinking American Manufacturing - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/initialized-capital/how-a-rust-belt-native-and-silicon-valley-technologist-is-re-thinking-american-manufacturing-b4e0388f8eca# <comment><USER4> EMachineShop [1] has been doing this for over ten years.[1] The guy behind eMachineShop, Jim Lewis, thought he was going to change manufacturing, but ended up just being a very convenient job shop. eMachineShop, which is in New Jersey, had a writeup in Wired in 2005.[2] The 2005 hype reads like the 2016 hype for Plethora: "Designing stuff used to be just for experts. We're bringing it to the masses."

Like Plethora, eMachineShop has a CAD system which can tell you what's manufacturable and how much it will cost. The main difference is that Plethora uses a plug-in to Inventor or Solidworks, so they're aimed at pros who have those expensive packages. eMachineShop has a free downloadable CAD program, which understands what their processes can do and will calculate pricing. It's an impressive program, one which will prevent you from designing unbuildable parts and warn you if you're forcing an unnecessarily expensive operation.

Plethora has the San Francisco location, the cool web site with no pricing info, the guy with the neckbeard, the funding to lose money on the first order, and the emphasis on onboarding potential customers for marketing purposes. Maybe that will help them scale.

[1] [http://www.emachineshop.com](http://www.emachineshop.com)

[2] [https://www.wired.com/2005/09/fablab/](https://www.wired.com/2005/09/fablab/)

<comment><USER5> (disclaimer - Plethora cofounder/CTO here)

Our goal at Plethora is to make hardware as easy as software. One question we ask ourselves is why can a small team of software devs push out an app in a few days / weeks when a hardware product takes a sizable kickstarter/VC round and months / years? It comes down to:

\- great tools

\- fast iteration

\- easy deployment

\- straightforward scalability

To achieve this kind of agility with hardware, this means removing the friction at every step of the product lifecycle.

One half is in the design & ordering of custom parts. CAD packages today are powerful and it's very easy to design beautiful parts that are completely unmanufacturable. The Plethora add-in analyzes parts in a few seconds, provides helpful hints on manufacturability, instant pricing and ordering. We went with a plugin for existing CAD programs because getting people to switch CAD programs is like asking a programmer to switch code editors - <USER2> difficult unless the value of the new tool is orders of magnitude greater than that of the incumbent.

The other half of the friction in manufacturing is when the part enters production. Plethora isn't just a pretty face on a traditional machine shop - we've been working for years to automate the extremely manual process of converting a 3D model into instructions for a machine to produce. This automation enables quick turnaround and no minimum order quantities - <USER3> allows teams to have more iterations and faster deployment of their products.

<comment><USER6> Sorry, Jeremy. Truly, truly sorry. But... Are you fucking kidding me?

Comparing "manufacturing" software products to manufacturing hardware products is as nonsensical as it can get. One has nothing whatsoever to do with the other.

Source: Me.

Background: I've been developing software and hardware for over thirty years. I go back to the days of the 8080 processor. Embedded, system, real time, Windows, Linux, OSX and iOS software development over the years. Commercial, industrial, consumer and aerospace environments.

At the same time I have been designing and manufacturing the physical side of said products for an equally long period of time. CNC, sheet metal, through hole and SMT electronics, TIG and MIG weldments, plastic and metal 3D printing, composites, injection molded plastics. All in markets from consumer to aerospace.

Heck I have a Haas VF2-SS VMC, Bridgeport manual mill, Hardinge lathe, various 3D printers, routers, table saw, half a dozen other saws and metal working equipment and this is only in my house for my hobby and R&D stuff.

I've been running AutoCAD since inception, Solidworks since inception, CAMWorks, SolidCAM and MasterCAM for some time as well as Siemens NX (exclusively for aerospace stuff).

So, yeah, I'll pat my own back and say I know manufacturing. Please stop this Silicon Valley "we are going to disrupt manufacturing by making CNC machining easier" nonsense.

Again, I apologize for being a bit harsh but I have to say you don't have a clue.

OK, here it goes. I can beat anything you can possible put together. How? I can send a model to China and have part back in three days flat. 5 axis. Complex. Detailed. Perfectly finished. And reasonably priced. I don't even have to know how they make it. If you work with reputable contract manufacturers out there you get great product at fair prices. It's isn't that hard. I truly don't give a shit what software they use or what machines they might own. There are great CM's which which you can do $200 to million dollar orders and they treat you just the same.

Between that and Proto Labs, Protocase, Emachineshop and others the problem of CNC machining parts and making plastic or sheet metal rapid prototypes is pretty much solved.

Now, if you want to compete with Proto Labs or Emachineshop and come up with a slicker path to CNC machined parts. By all means, go for it. But please don't say you are going to disrupt manufacturing. CNC machining is a small, very small part of most manufactured products.

Oh, yeah, did some aluminum die casting, custom extrusions and casting as well.

Sorry, I'm pretty tired of the active rejection of experience, existing industry knowledge and existing optimized processes by these Silicon Valley types who are clueless and think everything can be hammered into a software development model. Not everyone is out there trying to get people to click on yet another call to action button.

Here, I'll give you a project: Go design and manufacture a motorcycle from scratch. I mean a real product, not a one-off garage-built prototype. A real product that can be manufactured at a reasonable scale with decent DFM, documentation, certifications, component and system level test engineering, qualification, sourcing, etc.

Do this and I'll bet your view of someone asking "why can a small team of software devs push out an app in a few days / weeks when a hardware product takes a sizable kickstarter/VC round and months / years" will land you right- smack where I started this comment:

Are you fucking kidding me?

<comment><USER7> I was wondering when someone was going to mention Proto Labs.

I don't have nearly as much experience as you, but I think you make a great point. I tried Plethora about a year ago and was disappointed it couldn't make a single part I needed, and that it had such limited materials.

Although I wish Plethora the best, they do seem to have fallen into the mindset of thinking they're different when they appear to be reinventing the wheel (and making it worse). My guess is Animats has it right and they're hoping to get acquired by Autodesk. I'm surprised how many startups today are designed solely to be acquired (I doubt Plethora started with this mindset), and if they fail at that then they have zero chance of going public as they have no chance of sustaining profits.

Of course, maybe I'm wrong and they know something I don't. I always love to be proven wrong by someone succeeding.

<comment><USER6> There's nothing wrong with trying to make things better. There are real problems in manufacturing. Manufacturing is hard and can range from relatively simple to mind-numbing complex.

The solutions to these problems are not going to come from sipping latte's in San Francisco while asking why manufacturing can't be more like software development.

That's misguided Silicon Valley hubris. It's an echo chamber that funds and produces tons of bullshit startups and sometimes gets lucky. When it comes to hardware they almost always seem to be getting it wrong.

This is probably because they insist on rejecting experience and filling their ranks with fresh grads who know nothing about nothing and can, within their version of reality, conclude that software will solve all problems.

Here's a hint: Want to make products that truly serve humanity (whether it's manufacturing or something else) rather than better and more clever ways to get people to click on buttons, get addicted to stupid games or social platforms?

Simple. Hire or fund people older than, say, 40 years of age who come armed with experience and common sense. Yes, give them a team of young hot-shots with the crazy ideas to try and find some of out-of-the-box stuff. Just don't setup startup after startup that looks more like a remake of Lord of the Flies rather than a real business.

You have companies like Google and Facebook who brilliantly showcase how horrible these young, socially untrained, ethically inept and often maladjusted people can be. They think it's OK to do such things as to use an algorithm to completely shutdown someone's business (Google AdSense and FB Ads) and, at the same time, provide exactly zero customer service or the ability to have a business-like conversation to try to rectify whatever might have triggered the issue. This is deranged lunatic territory and it seems to permeate some of the culture coming out of these startups. They know everything and they don't want to hear from anyone who might actually know something. What a waste of human talent.

<comment><USER8> While I'm not sure they are tackling it the right way (haven't really looked in to it), that manufacturers in the west can't competitively run prototyping or other small production runs is a real problem. Unpredictable quotes, lead times, high MOQs, tooling costs in the west or the language barrier and shipping cost/time in asia doesn't provide any value in itself.

<comment><USER6> The problems in the West are far more complex than simply making better CAM software.

Our supply chain is long and expensive. Start there. And by this I mean everything, from raw materials, components and sub-assemblies to tooling, equipment and consumables. The length and complexity of our supply pipe can easily double or triple a manufacturer's costs and impose very high inventory costs.

Our regulations are crippling. For example, try to get a steel weldment porcelain enamel coated. In China, no problem. In the US. Nearly impossible and definitely not even in the realm of being competitive.

Our unions have done of good job of helping kill-off industries. Union leaders (not union members, leaders) succeeded at pressing companies so hard without regards for long term viability that they eventually forced some of them out of business or out of the country.

Taxes are ridiculous. One way to look at it is how much of the year is devoted to, effectively, working for the government. In other words, in order to earn the tax money paid to the government you have to work.

Well, at a 39% corporate tax rate the entire company is working for the federal government for approximately the first 4.7 months of the year. After that they get to keep their profits.

In Ireland, with a rate of 12.5%, the people in a company work for the government for 1.5 months and the rest of the year they get to keep their profits.

So, taxes in the US means you are working 5 months to pay them vs. less than 2 in Ireland. That is horrific.

Liability and tort reform is a huge deal. As a manufacturer you are incredibly exposed to being sued out of existence (or out of being able to compete due to financially crippling lawsuits).

Labor force education and availability is becoming a greater issue every year. Skills development has stagnated over the years. We don't have a modern tech savvy workforce. Schools don't teach any of that stuff any more. As a software guy the "hour of code" is great but as a hardware guy I think the "hour of drilling a hole and cutting wood" is equally important.

So, again, there is so much more to making a product beyond rapid prototyping that at some point you have to wonder if people understand that there are far more pressing areas to be optimized, areas with far more significant impact on the bigger picture.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > For example, there's one machine where you typically need to wait five to 10 > years in machining before touching that piece of equipment. But we let our > entry-level people work with it after 1 1/2 months. There's this guild > mentality in the manufacturing industry, that this person needs to prove > themselves. I do think in certain ways that you should let people document > their skills and earn certifications. But we need a more lightweight system. > You don't need five years to become a machinist.

The guild/apprenticeship model in the 20-21st century has always felt to me like a thin veil over a seniority-based structure that places strong barriers of entry on newcomers to protect the jobs of the senior staff. Want to do that job? Sorry, you can't, kid, until you "pay your dues". Want more money? That's based on how old you are. It's pretty backward and broken for a capitalist system that should pay market rates for providing value regardless of age or guild-proven experience. These types of things irked me as a child.

How much innovation would we have in technology if you had to spend five years on a starter Internet, or were forced to just use phones from the start? What if you were only allowed to program in certain languages and weren't admitted to download a specific compiler?

<comment><USER10> But the cost of failure is much higher with physical machines in a production environment.

It seems realistic to want to prevent beginners from touching expensive machinery that they could break through incorrect use.

<comment><USER9> It doesn't take _years_ to learn how to use expensive machinery. There's a bunch of stuff you can touch at TechShop - and potentially break - with a few- hour class and a review that you actually know how to use the thing.

<comment><USER11> Techshop is a hacker space, not a commercial machine shop. A machinist with a few hours training could bankrupt the average manufacturer within a matter of days, if not hours.

Based on my experience, equipment at Techshop is, on average, an order of magnitude or two cheaper and a decade or two older than what you'd see at a commercial manufacturer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Interesting quote:

> By the way, I actually think that computer programmers are not going to be a > white collar job in the long run. Machinists were the programmers of 100 > years ago. It was a highly paid job, and can still be one even today. My > grandfather had a great job. He was almost a petty bourgeois guy after being > a prototype machinist. That's not true for that job anymore. I actually > think software programming will go the same way.

<comment><USER13> > That's not true for that job anymore. I actually think software programming > will go the same way.

It already did, it is called globalization and outsourcing.

Business love the wonders of Internet and remote working, paying a dime per hour that they would pay back home, without any of those worker rights guys nagging them.

Specially in any business domain that doesn't focus on selling software.

Consulting, architecture (domain, technical, business), integration and customer management is were software development is going to.

Pure code writing has become like factory work on a distant country, connected by an IP address.

<comment><USER14> And the quality of that code is usually crap, so you get what you paid for as the more talented of these offshore workers will go to the US or another country with high salaries. This quality may be "acceptable" in enterprise contexts, but in small business or selling direct to the customer it's still much better to hire local devs.

There is also a project management overhead cost to outsourcing that must not be ignored and is prohibitive for smaller companies.

If we want to get anecdotal, across many different companies the only place I've seen outsourcing work is in a huge enterprise and only with several expensive and highly trained local devs cleaning up the crap. Otherwise it's just not worth it. AI will take our jobs long before outsourcing does.

<comment><USER13> For those doing Fortune 500 consulting, outsourcing and offshore is everywhere, there is no way to avoid it.

I used to be very critic of the quality, specially since I happen to do reviews of delivered code, but then I also have seen the quality of some internal developers at those customers.

All because selling software isn't their core business, so as long as whatever is running on their servers, desktops, tablets, phones, helps to sell their core products (not software), no one cares one single second about code quality and how it is written.

Just like 99% of people don't care how the goods at their local stores are produced.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Nick is a very smart guy, and has been doing stuff in this area for a really long time. Long ago, we co-founded CloudFab, which is mentioned in the article. It was a bit too early for its time. Plethora looks very interesting!

<comment><USER16> Its cool to see Nick is still at it!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I just tried it out in Autodesk Inventor 2016. It installed without difficulty and connected itself up to Inventor as an add-on, appearing in a pane. It wants a login before it will do anything. After login, it will price machined parts.

The minimum price for a machined part (a 2" x 3" x 0.5" piece of 6061 aluminum with no other machining) is about $95. The soonest available delivery date is 7 days away. The price goes down slightly if you select a date further in the future.

The plug-in will detect and report un-machineable situations, such as square- sided pockets and narrow slots into which a tool could not reach. Holes cost about a dollar each, and a machined pocket costs about $10-$20. Adding a pocket on the reverse side of the part, which requires a second setup, added about as much cost as a front side pocket, which leads me to suspect that the program doesn't figure out how many setups are needed.

Chamfering a top edge added another $100. So curved surfaces really cost. The plug-in doesn't give any hints on cost reduction, unlike eMachineShop. You don't get told the operation sequence; that's a black box to the user.

Overall, it seems like a useful basic machining back-end program. Has the feel of eMachineShop circa 2003.

</comment><comment><USER4> Jim Lewis of eMachineShop also tried to do the same thing for printed circuit board design and assembly. The result was Pad2Pad, which would make blank boards and put the parts on them. The assembly part didn't work out commercially, and the board-marking service became one of many such services. Making PC boards is a well-organized industry - you send in files and get boards back without much difficulty. One-off boards are no problem.

Seeed Studio in Shentzen finally got the assembly thing working. They make blank boards and will put parts on them if you pick the parts entirely from their Common Parts Library. You can make most simple digital electronics projects using that library - analog and power, not so much. Seeed Studio has good prices but requires you to release the rights to your design, so others can copy it. Sort of like Github for hardware.

</comment><comment><USER6> >For example, there's one machine where you typically need to wait five to 10 years in machining before touching that piece of equipment.

For good reason. If we are talking real production, not 3D printing a bust of Beethoven for fun of buying a Shapeoko to cut a little bracket. If that's what we are talking about, well, you are not going to take someone who hasn't proven themselves trough years of training and learning on the job to run something like my Haas VF2-SS, VF3-SS or VF4-SS.

One mistake could cost tens of thousands of dollars in damage to the machine and untold losses due to disruption to production. This can include damage to very expensive tools (we are not talking about $0.50 Home depot drill bits here). And then there are such things as optimizing tool wear and throughput.

Despite what is said in this article real machinists don't sit there guessing at what to do. They know because they studied, learned and made enough mistakes.

Fields such as manufacturing highly accurate medical, optical or aerospace parts require real skills.

Can all of this be automated to the point of eliminating both human CAM toolpath programming and the machinist? I'd say in a very limited set of cases and with restrictions that do not make for efficient manufacturing.

This is one of the problems with Proto Labs. They can machine quite a range of parts but they are very, very expensive for what you get. Sure, for quick turn "I just need a part" manufacturing (and, to be fair, more than that) they work fine. For anything else, no way.

Here's an example from a couple of weeks ago. I needed a half dozen copies of a part made out of mild steel. We needed to send it out because our machines are busy. Proto Labs could make them for $300 a piece. I called a couple of local shops. I had them made for $20 a piece and delivered to us overnight (one of the guys from the shop drove them over). They used their waterjet machine to cut the basic shape quickly and then threw it on a VMC to square-up and finish all the other features. Twenty bucks.

Yes, we will eventually succeed at automating the CAD-to-Machined-Part process to a significant degree and with good results. This will require AI, Machine Learning and a lot of the knowledge accumulated out there encoded into these systems. You need to be able to make real parts with real manufacturing problems. Any part. Some parts require designing new parts to make them, whole machines even (fixtures, jigs, clamping and alignment systems). It isn't a simple problem.

And, even as these problems are solved the totality of manufacturing isn't CNC maching aluminum. Not even close.

<comment><USER17> I have had a large professionally equipped CNC shop in my home shop for a long time as well with a similar array of equipment you mention. I use it intensively for product development for my own company and others. I also have an equally electronics fab lab and a range of other work centers. I have also been programming since CP/M days, but I hate coding, so whatever. I do my own injection molds, boards, as well.

I've taught a number of people to use 3-axis CNC equipment more or less safely if not capably in several evenings, including Solidworks introductions. I don't have patience for people telling me how hard it is to learn to use machinery well.

I have less patience for the guild system. It takes something pretty straight forward and whines about how hard things are to keep prices high.

The best tools for learning to make your own electronics, machined parts, code, and actual products is the right attitude, some intelligence, and the right tools that don't require months of intense tolerance to bad tool design that require you to have months of knowledge to make basic models or parts. It takes a while to learn to machine well, but not years for crying out loud.

Rather than expounding on all this experience you have and all the effort and blood and sweat and tears it took you to gain those skills, it might be better to acknowledge that a lot of the hurdles are bad systems. Myself and a lot of other people have gained these skills with a lot less frustration than perhaps many others. There are a lot of smart people out there. They don't need Proto labs. They won't need this offering really, either. But some will, and a broader swath of the product development public will have greater access to more options with good free CAD, automated post processing, or better/easier PC layout tools.

The app kiddies aren't going to take the manufacturing world by storm. But the guilds are basically watching themselves get eaten alive, and that is a good thing. Let product developers do this stuff themselves. The mythology of it being so hard is a fantasy, and a lot of people are starting to realize it. Any young ME who doesn't have strong EE chops and vic versa already has a harder time making a career these days, and frankly, any engineer without strong fab skills now is definitely less valuable.

<comment><USER6> I have no love for what you call "guilds" either. That said, there's a huge difference between learning to run machines casually and through some combination of schooling and supervised hands-on.

Example: TIG and MIG welding. I have both. I can make decent welds. They look pretty. Learned on my own just futzing around here and there. Yet, I would never, in a million years, trust my welding to, say, build even a light aircraft. I, objectively speaking, don't know what I am doing when compared to the aerospace certified welders I walk by every day.

> The mythology of it being so hard is a fantasy

I disagree. Perhaps scale and application is the difference here.

A gadget for a Kickstarter campaign? Sure, anyone can screw around at a maker space and get one or a few done.

Something like a Dyson vacuum cleaner that needs to be designed and manufactured at scale and be safe and durable in the field? No way. This requires experienced engineering specializations from EE, ME design to manufacturing engineers, materials engineers, test engineers, machinists, mold makers, process engineers, etc. Way different reality.

Move up another level to Medical or Aerospace and things get even more interesting.

And some industries are just awe-inspiring in terms of their manufacturing process. One such product are LCD displays. A typical factory for the LCD displays on your computer costs somewhere in the range of two billion dollars to build. Two billion. It's a massive undertaking. Automation, clean rooms, robotics and all kinds of specialized processes designed to optimize quality, cost and yields. To compare that to the software "manufacturing" process is as silly as one can get.

Will AI help streamline some of these processes over time? Sure. Of course. You are still going to need a two billion dollar plant to make LCD's and similarly scaled facilities and equipment to make cars, radios, batteries, ovens, etc.

Look at making cars as another example. Even if the CAD-to-CNC process was completely automated and perfectly executed it would still be less than a rounding error in the context of the cost, processes and complexity of manufacturing a car.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> _" These automation integrators are going to adapt to do the on-boarding and training. I think we'll see more of this — kind of a "blue collar programmer" — as more of the industry digitizes."_

UK: HPGL and a bit of autocad. The lads (and ladesses) with the utility trousers and steel toecapped boots round here (motor vehicle supply chain) all know that. What else can you show us?

<comment><USER4> Looking at this, I wonder if the real plan is to be acquired by Autodesk for the software. Autodesk Inventor is good, but its most available back ends for CAM are not that great. InventorCam is too manual, and SprutCam is smarter but too buggy. (I've used both.) HyperMill is supposed to be really good, but it's over $20K per seat, and unless you're doing 5-axis sculptured surfaces with a tool changer, overkill. Autodesk could use an entry-level fully automatic CAM package that did the whole job from model to machine tool for simple jobs and helped the user avoid fabrication problems at the design stage.

(Here's an example of Hypermill at work.[1] This is what the high end can do.)

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADqDMwQOc2w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADqDMwQOc2w)

<comment><USER19> Is Pro/Engineer still around? I used Pro-E when I was at University (along with Solidworks) at the time it was my preferred package.

<comment><USER20> I'm doing an ME degree right now, and they teach us both Solidworks and Pro-E (now Creo Parametric.)

If I remember the results of googling 'Creo vs Solidworks' correctly, Creo is better at handling really big assemblies and is used extensively in automotive industry. Most of my peers prefer Solidworks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The Washington Post published an interesting take on manufacturing in America: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/manufacturi...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/manufacturing- in-america/)</comment>


Some software cannot be used at Google - <AUTHOR> https://opensource.google.com/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#banned <comment><USER2> It isn't a surprise that AGPL is on that list, as it redefines simple usage to be redistribution.

I'm sympathetic for its goals of closing the "_application service provider loophole_", but you know what, Open Source, nay Free Software means freedom, so when you grant your users freedoms, your users might end up using your software in ways that you don't support. Freedom is never a _loophole_, freedom is just freedom.

In this regard I think FSF has derailed from its own spirit. E.g. GPLv2 just demands for the source code to be available for any distributed binaries, being a simple copyright license. GPLv3 on the other hand extends that with extra clauses to prevent Tivoization, another supposed _loophole_. In the words of Linus Tolvards:

> _If you 're a mad scientist, you can use GPLv2'd software for your evil > plans to take over the world ("Sharks with lasers on their heads!!"), and > the GPLv2 just says that you have to give source code back. And that's OK by > me. I like sharks with lasers. I just want the mad scientists of the world > to pay me back in kind_

When you start noticing _loopholes_ everywhere and closing them, pretty soon you're left with something that is no better than a proprietary, freeware license.

GPLv3 may be acceptable, but AGPL should have never been accepted as an Open Source license by OSI.

<comment><USER3> The FSF simply has one goal: that all users can access and modify the code of all software they use.

If I access photos.google.com, I am a user of photos.google.com – yet I can not access the code. This is a problem.

You are misdefining "user" here.

<comment><USER2> No, you and the FSF have the wrong definition.

If I install Wordpress on my own server and do modifications to it for my own purposes, I am nothing more than a user of Wordpress.

> _If I access photos.google.com, I am a user of photos.google.com – yet I can > not access the code. This is a problem._

If you borrow my own laptop and use one of my applications installed on it, would you also like access to its source code?

And here we have the crux of the matter ... GPL was about _distribution_ as defined by copyright law. AGPL is no longer about distribution, AGPL is an EULA, restricting what users (yes) can do.

<comment><USER4> > If you borrow my own laptop and use one of my applications installed on it, > would you also like access to its source code?

In the FSF spirit: yes.

<comment><USER5> No. You aren't being denied your freedoms on someone else's computer because you have no right to exercise them to begin with---it's not yours.

It's the same concept with the AGPL---I have no right to modify the source code on someone else's server; I'd need to install it on my own.

If you had to have access to the source code for everything you used, it'd be an almost impossible burden. rms takes public transportation in Boston, for example. Those terminals are interactive touchscreens, required for payment and printing tickets. He'd be unable to use the transit system.

From stallman.org:

> However, if I am visiting somewhere and the machines available nearby happen > to contain non-free software, through no doing of mine, I don't refuse to > touch them. I will use them briefly for tasks such as browsing. This limited > usage doesn't give my assent to the software's license, or make me > responsible its being present in the computer, or make me the possessor of a > copy of it, so I don't see an ethical obligation to refrain from this. Of > course, I explain to the local people why they should migrate the machines > to free software, but I don't push them hard, because annoying them is not > the way to convince them.

> Likewise, I don't need to worry about what software is in a kiosk, pay > phone, or ATM that I am using. I hope their owners migrate them to free > software, for their sake, but there's no need for me to refuse to touch them > until then. (I do consider what those machines and their owners might do > with my personal data, but that's a different issue, which would arise just > the same even if they did use free software. My response to that issue is to > minimize those activities which give them any data about me.)

> That's my policy about using a machine once in a while. If I were to use it > for an hour every day, that would no longer be "once in a while" — it would > be regular use. At that point, I would start to feel the heavy hand of any > nonfree software in that computer, and feel the duty to arrange to use a > liberated computer instead.

> Likewise, if I were to ask or lead someone to set up a computer for me to > use, that would make me ethically responsible for its software load. In such > a case I insist on free software, just as if the machine were my own > property.

[https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html](https://stallman.org/stallman- computing.html)

So using someone else's computer is a similar problem to SaaSS---you're relying on someone else for your computing:

[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server- really-s...](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really- serve.html)

<comment><USER6> > You aren't being denied your freedoms on someone else's computer because you > have no right to exercise them to begin with---it's not yours.

How about the freedom to refuse to use someone else's computer unless I can also see the source code?

<comment><USER5> That's orthogonal to the issue. Of course you have the freedom to refrain from use of any technology, unless you're somehow being mandated by law to use it.

<comment><USER6> Well, since we are already orthogonal, lets turn this the other way round. Would you support the idea that any software that you are mandated by law to use, should be required to be open source?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I made a small tool to check the licenses of your installed npm dependencies, which you can execute it by running this on the root of your project:

        npx legally

It will search for licenses in the LICENSE file, Readme.md and package.json (and alt spellings) and make a small report of: what licenses are in use, and some anomalies. The repo:

[https://github.com/franciscop/legally](https://github.com/franciscop/legally)

<comment><USER8> Am I being blind or have you released a tool that checks licenses with no license? I mean, I enjoy a good joke but seriously.

<comment><USER7> It is right here under "license": [https://github.com/franciscop/legally/blob/master/package.js...](https://github.com/franciscop/legally/blob/master/package.json)

Just added it as a separated file as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > WTFPL not allowed. We also do not allow contribution to projects under the > WTFPL.

I am assuming this does not apply to personal projects, but then why would you contribute Google code to something that you cannot use anyway due to licensing issues?

<comment><USER10> Google's contention has always been that there is no such thing as a personal project. You can fill out a form to officially get permission to have a "personal project", however, but I doubt many people want to deal with the bureaucracy.

You will notice 6 missing years in commits to my personal github. That is why. Every "personal project" I did ended up in the Google repository instead.

<comment><USER11> How do they justify that belief? If something is done outside of work hours, not using a work computer, then how would they have any claim over it whatsoever?

<comment><USER12> It is a widely held belief that writing computer code is an intellectual and creative endeavour (IIRC codified so in European law or something†), therefore it is not tied to a specific timeframe within which you work: you are very much able to think about and solve a work problem under your shower, that's why the corresponding intellectual property of that solution is owned by the company you work for, independent of the time of day you thought about it.

So to cover that, typically law basically defaults on granting your company IP rights on _anything_ you create _anytime_ while you're an employee, and should there be need to challenge that, it's up to you to uphold in court that project X has nothing to do with your company business or tech, or to ensure beforehand that your contract has special provisions granting you IP rights in known situations.

† At the very least this is also the basis as to why software is not patentable in EU, unless they are an integral part of a very concrete process that itself solves an issue (e.g say you invent an industrial process that allows you to synthesize molecule X more efficiently, and that process involves a bit of code as an integral and required part of said process because it is deeply tied to it in a fundamental way, then that precise bit of software can be covered by the patent of the process)

<comment><USER4> To extend let's change the field a bit: Imagine you are a scientist working in a lab, employed to develop new technologies. One day you're falling in the shower and scribble an idea for a flux capacitor. Could you patent it? Or the company? What if it happens in the office? If that makes a difference: How to prove? Most employment contracts (at least the ones I have seen) make the assumption clear, that all results of "software development" are treated as work for the company. Many companies than have ways to allow hobby projects info uelds different from the actual work (while that definition is quite unspecific and has to be decided case by case)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Nice to see the new web projects like Mastodon, Owncloud etc being released under AGPL. I hope projects like OnlyOffice, IPFS etc to move to this model

<comment><USER14> > I hope projects like [...] IPFS etc to move to this model

I work on the IPFS project so might be biased, but why do you prefer AGPL over MIT (which IPFS is currently licensed under)?

Personally I prefer short and sweet licences, MIT is so short and simple that even I can understand it. But then again, I don't know enough about AGPL to know why I would prefer it over MIT.

Edit: I also came across this wording: "Using AGPL software requires that anything it links to must also be licensed under the AGPL", that sounds like the opposite of freedom. I don't know much so probably getting something wrong here...

<comment><USER15> AGPL is a very different spirit than MIT. MIT is pretty much "do what you want, but no warranty applies, and you have to give credit". AGPL is a strong copyleft license that requires redistribution and even extends redistribution requirements to indirect users, specifically users of the services you run using AGPL code.

<comment><USER14> So I don't know much about licensing (and don't do any active decisions about it, I pretty much default to using MIT on a personal level) but doesn't "requires redistribution" restrict freedom here? Freedom for me would be "do what you want, but I don't give you any warranty" while AGPL would mean less freedom directly. Forcing people to redistribute the source, doesn't mean freedom to me.

<comment><USER16> The freedom is for the user of the software, _all_ users of the software, to be able to see and modify and use the code not just the developers.

<comment><USER14> The freedom to see and modify code if you're not a developer? Bypassing how that would work, it's 99% freedom, as there is still restrictions on what you can do with it. You cannot, for example, package it, call it something else and distribute it without the source. I don't see how that can be called freedom. Either you have the freedom to do whatever you want with the code, or you don't have the freedom. 99% freedom is (for me at least) not good enough.

It's like the license (that I can't remember the name of right now) where you can do whatever you want with the software EXCEPT use it for evil. That's not freedom, freedom is: do whatever you want, literally. At least for me.

<comment><USER17> The GPL is used for a very large amount of free software, so I'm a little confused by your rejection of the very concept.

But the general idea is that the GPL guarantees the same freedoms to _everyone_ (the right to use the software, modify it, and distribute it). But the only way of _guaranteeing_ the same set of freedoms is to restrict people from taking away others' freedoms. Personally, I think that's more than fair, because the net effect is that everyone has software freedom (which is what the whole free software movement is about).

 _> That's not freedom, freedom is: do whatever you want, literally. At least for me._

To give an extreme analogy, the "freedom to murder" or the "freedom to incarcerate other people against their will" is not permitted in free countries. Is this an attack on people's freedoms? No, it's required in order for everyone to be able to exercise their freedom to live and free movement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm not sure why Google is being singled out here. It would be much more unusual for a company even 100x smaller than Google to _not_ have license requirements for projects they use.

<comment><USER19> It's probably just that Google has published their internal document on the topic, which I don't think many other companies have done.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> > notably the Mule ESB and most of the code that backs Reddit, cannot be used > at Google

Interesting that they mention reddit specifically. On the other hand, it's the first time I hear about the CPAL, so maybe reddit is just the most prominent user of this obscure license.

Mule ESB is apparently a Java-based enterprise service bus from MuleSoft (which is in talks with Salesforce about an acquisition).

</comment><comment><USER21> > GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL) cannot be used in google3

What's "google3"?

<comment><USER22> "google3: The internal name for our main _Piper_ source repository, and identifies the third incarnation of the source layout for Google production code."

" _Piper_ : Google's internal source control system: [https://research.google.com/pubs/pub45424.html"](https://research.google.com/pubs/pub45424.html") Which is a pretty interesting read

[https://opensource.google.com/docs/glossary/](https://opensource.google.com/docs/glossary/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> These kinds of lists are fairly common; we have a similar list at Pivotal. There's nothing sinister about it and the lawyers are not ignorant of opensource or how it works. Big companies simply have a very different legal threat profile from individual contributors.

If you want your code to be used by a major company, my impression is that the Apache 2 license is the winner.

<comment><USER24> To my fellow programmers, consider for yourself why should gigantic, massively wealthy corporations get to use our code for free. Use the most restrictive version of the GPL to keep your code free for other individuals like us, and provide a paid license option for gigantocorps.

<comment><USER25> There's a very legitimate answer to your question: some people believe that having your code be actually used, at scale/ in the real world, is a benefit in and unto itself; you get a "portfolio", a "brand" \- things that are intangible but still valuable. If your code makes it into some mission- critical system, you have a fair shot at consulting for that "massively wealthy corporation".

I guess it all boils down to: "do you get more value out of people using your code, or out of keeping the code to a restricted set of people?". Similar to how there are two ways to approach your billion-dollar-startup-idea: either guard it with NDA & limit sharing; or talk to everyone about it. Both are legitimate approaches, but really, in a lot of cases the "billion-dollar-idea" is not really worth that billion dollars. Same with code - in a lot of cases, the code is not as valuable as we'd like to think, until it's actually used (& gets a chance to be refined by many users, and to evolve in the right direction(s)).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> For comparison, Apache's "Category X": [https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved#category-x](https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved#category-x)

<comment><USER27> I really like Apache's explanation linked from that page of the Apache license as a "universal donor" and GPL as a "universal recipient". It's the cleanest analogy about open-source licenses I've seen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Question: suppose Google had code running on their servers that was licensed under AGPL. AFAIK that means they have to release the code running on their server(s) , but because Google's code is proprietary and closed what would happen? A whistle blower notices and exposes them?

Seems that unless someone is dumb enough to use AGPL, commercialize it _and_ open source their code they would never be caught. Same with most licenses, really.

<comment><USER29> > _Question: suppose Google had code running on their servers that was > licensed under AGPL. AFAIK that means they have to release the code, but > because Google 's code is proprietary and closed what would happen? A > whistle blower notices and exposes them?_

I don't think they have to do anything, even if they did had AGPL.

The license is only relevant if they distribute the source (or a product written in it), not as to what they privately do with it on their servers.

Now, if they had used that code on, say, Android, that's a different thing.

<comment><USER30> The lines between " _distribute the source (or a product written in it)_ " and " _what you privately do on your servers_ " is (I think) hard to discern for a lot of Google's code.

If I have open source code that estimates your shoes size based on your IP address, and I make a website that will output your result... which category of code is this? What if I use this code to customize the UI for a shoe store?

Honest question, is there an established way of deciding whether something counts as "distributed"? Is it simply a question of what machine it runs on?

<comment><USER31> AGPL literally exists for that distinction.

AGPL roughly says that a website a user interacts with counts as distribution (in addition to what GPL would count as distribution)

<comment><USER30> So in plain GPL, it isn't or it's ambiguous?

<comment><USER18> Hasn't been tested in court to my knowledge, but my understanding is that leading IP lawyers who otherwise disagree on a bunch of things about the GPL (Eben Moglen, Lawrence Rosen) agree that e.g a modified GPLd publicly accessible web server doesn't count as distribution.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Surprising that they do not address the issue of derivative works for instance in relation to the EPL. The documentation correctly states that modifications to EPLed code must be made available. But it is also the case that any work that in itself is a derivative work of EPLed code must also be licensed under the EPL.

</comment><comment><USER33> Nice to know about the EUPL. I will be using it in my next projects :D

</comment><comment><USER34> Why is WTFPL a problem when WTFPL allows Google or anyone to take WTFPL-ed software and relicense it under MIT or another acceptable license?

<comment><USER35> I also find that supremely ironic. Google's reasoning is probably sound from a legal perspective, because 'do what you want' with it can be argued that the responsibility of the original code lies with the original author, and it's not clear. But yeah, it's humorous that a license deliberately designed for this reason isn't accepted.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> The restrictive licenses bring nothing to the table. It is an outdated dogma. We ought to choose licences that actually enable software to be written, without needless hurdles.

Apple, MS and Google understood this, and they release swathes of stuff under _useful_ licences. If you make something open-source, you probably want it to be legally usable.

<comment><USER16> Personal opinion - If I'm writing software and releasing it as open source, and you want to use it to lessen your own workload, then I expect you to do something in return - make your changes to it available to others.

You're getting the results of my labor, and my "payment" for that labor is "paying it forward" as it were. Old fashioned values perhaps, but paying it forward not a huge ask in my book.

<comment><USER36> You'll mechanically get rewards in terms of bugs reported, paid bug fixes, paid enhancements etc. Useful software brings value to it by the virtue of being useful.

There is also a mechanical incentive to contribute back, which is "not having to maintain a fork".

<comment><USER16> Nothing prevents the bug reports, fixes, or enhancements in a GPL/AGPL world.

> Useful software brings value to it by the virtue of being useful.

To be blunt, tell that to OpenSSL and ntpd. Both are broadly used and freely licensed, yet they're chronically short contributers, bug fixes, funding, etc.

Being useful to others is somewhat psychologically rewarding, as are the occasional patches and bug reports. But it's not why I (and many others) open source their software.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I've chosen a license (MIT) accepted by Google (and many others) specifically because it enables abuse and exploitation, as a sort of defensive tactic. It's a kind of game theory approach, though it doesn't speak well for the future of open source…

I'm from the music and the music-instrument industries, so it's natural for me to recognize consolidated power when I see it. From where I stand, the only people who've ever achieved a platform from which they could express anything (up to and including the Eagles) got there through a stage where they could be ruthlessly exploited and sucked dry of all they had, with no recompense.

Open source can be like that, which is why the GPL exists: it's a counterbalance. That alone is extremely valuable. In my music example the GPL can be the Irving Azoff, going to war against software unfreeness and making its clients wealthy and successful and granting power in a practical sense.

However, in my opinion you can't get there from zero: trying to wield that power from a starting-up position will only get you shunned, and so we see here in the Google banned license list. The only licenses allowed are those where the original creator can be completely exploited.

You have to both be good, and prepared to be horribly exploited, to get access to power and attention on a viral scale. If you try to strike a fair deal from the start, it's a recipe for being shunned or blackballed.

By definition the power differential between a lone creator and idea-haver, and a vast company, is huge. No license phraseology can take that away.

So, since I do things with software that I want to proliferate and become popular, I have to select a license that allows for companies and individuals to abuse me. In so doing, their self-interest is evident. In return, the license asks for 'exposure' on my behalf: credit, and even that's not a given.

So my tactic in handling this stuff is to try and set up a scenario where I'm also praising to the skies anyone who uses my source, in hopes that they in turn see PR benefit in praising me. It's power again: from my position of minimal power and ownership of useful code, I have to signal to the more powerful entity that I'll let them completely take advantage of me if only they throw me some crumbs.

Then, if one day I do end up powerful, I hopefully come up with something really indispensable, and THEN I GPL it and chuckle merrily when they come to me for alternate terms.

Until then, open source licensing has absolutely no power to better my situation, and its ability to aid the freedom of the code under its umbrella applies only to that code and not to any of the people responsible for thinking up the code. They've got to be either completely self-sacrificing, or making a machiavellian calculation about relative power much as I am.

Sharing can only be done from a position of power and abundance. Once that's granted, you learn how badly the sharer needs to maintain their position of power…

<comment><USER24> Though you've taken a different path with licensing than I have (I release under GPLv3, even though I don't actually consider myself a Free Software fundamentalist), I very much respect your decision and your post here. You're probably the only person I've seen advocate for MIT et. al. who acknowledges the major power disparity between individual maintainers and gigantocorps. It's given me something to think about with regards to my own projects. I still may not release under MIT, but it may lead me to working in very different ways.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Is Nodejs allowed at Google?

</comment><comment><USER39> I guess that means I'll switch to the EUPL now...

</comment><comment><USER40> so Beerware is okay then? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beerware](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beerware)

<comment><USER41> >The Beerware license has similar issues.

Under WTFPL section which says it's a no-no. Technically it doesn't say Beerware can't be used but I'd take it to mean it can't.</comment></comment>


Is an Open Marriage a Happier Marriage? - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/magazine/is-an-open-marriage-a-happier-marriage.html <comment><USER2> No. It's hardly a marriage at all at that point.

<comment><USER3> I hold no position on this subject, but.... The benefits of a two-parent home life for growing children are well understood. If two people with children are no longer in love -- which is probably the rule instead of the exception -- does that mean the two parents must be and remain miserable solely for the sake of their children, if being in an open relationship changes the nature of their relationship and the level of happiness of their lives, and allows them some reprieve from the misery? Why or why not?

<comment><USER2> I am more conservative than most, especially in the tech community, but I do keep an open mind and try to respect others opinions...hope you could do the same.

I first believe you shouldn't vow your life to someone if you have no intention on doing so. Sickness and in health...being depressed or miserable could be seen as a sickness. Relationships are hard, really hard. It's human nature to fall into habits and get bored. Relationships, and marriage, are work and should always be seen as such. It would be nice if we could always have the first month high, but it fades, and after a time becomes work. But marriage is after this typically, and should be seen as a commitment to keep each other happy and keep trying. You, at some point at least, cared so much for this person you pledged your life to them. Stop being complacent and rekindle that.

I also understand people change. Whether it's age, wisdom, hormones, etc, it happens. And in some cases more people may develop disorders that lead to an abusive relationship, sadly. While I think people should always try their hardest, divorce is always an option. It's sad, but it is what it is.

Too many people I think just internalize their feelings which causes resentment. I'm guilty of that, and make a conscious effort not to be anymore. In a relationship you need to be effectively...a whiny baby. If something bothers you, cry about it... figuratively. Solve it. But this is our nature and it leads to strangers in our homes that we knew 10 years prior.

Open marriage is having a roommate and a f* buddy. It's not a marriage. Sorry for the long rant, but I find open marriages distasteful and disrespectful to both the members and the institution of marriage. I'll step off my soap box now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I am currently dating someone who is in an open marriage. To be honest I don't know much about their home life, but they don't have kids and are still kind of settling down, finding their way.

She is happy in general, and has exposed to me no complaints about her situation in life, aside from money.

The pursuit of such an arrangement in her case is about really involving oneself in the life of another person, much like typical relationships you see today. She's a self-described humanist. Others may use it purely as a sexual outlet, but from the polyamorous/nonmonogomous people I've spoken to, this is rarely the case.

I wonder occasionally if our situation is a way to hedge against those moments in marriage where things become a little more difficult. She obviously has more than enough love to give for both of us (and whomever else she may be seeing) but of course sometimes even those who give most can become strained. Likewise if things get "boring" or "monotonous", she can simply seek a new partner that stimulates her. Being cute and petite means she has the luxury of having a choice with relatively little effort. Tinder in a big city means she has a large pool to choose from.

As a form of having new and invigorating experiences with interesting human beings, open relationships seem to provide everything you need with few restrictions. At the same time, in such a commitment as marriage, one has to wonder if it can turn into a form of escapism if left unchecked.

I am curious if this trend has the potential to dissolve the current marriage trope as we know it into something more fluid. Nation-states still incentivize it with tax breaks because close-knit families have more kids, but there are likewise factors (like financial instability) that influence marriage rates in the other direction.[1]

[1] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/soloish/wp/2016/06/06/wh...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/soloish/wp/2016/06/06/why- are-millennials-putting-off-marriage-let-me-count-the-ways/)

</comment><comment><USER5> I hope one day that my problems are so trivial that an open marriage is something I could even consider.

</comment><comment><USER6> I honestly don't think this article should have been flagged. First, say what you want, but it is an out-of-the-box way to look at the daily, decades-long drag - "hacking" it in a sense. Second, if you disagree and are, say, of the opinion that these people just fuck around due to boredom and lack of productive things to do (I don't think so, but it's possible), even then the topic is interesting to explore. Especially to tech-bent people like myself who rarely venture outside of day-to-day topics.

</comment><comment><USER7> Open Marriage? Comes across as "Elizabeth" is cheating, and using her partners' previous dissatisfaction to justify her own behavior. I'm all for whatever works for peoples' relationships, but the particular example in the article about specifically these two people leaves me with the distinct feeling Elizabeth is a raging hypocrite.

<comment><USER8> That's a big problem I have with the article - there was way too much attention paid to a shaky example of an open marriage. "Elizabeth" seemed to be emotionally cheating on her husband and then "opened" the marriage to rationalize it. "Daniel" says their marriage is better for it, but I have my doubts about whether he's happy about it or is just trying to cling to it. And they've only been "open" since 2016.. not nearly long enough IMO to garner too much meaning from their arrangement, let alone have most of an article devoted to it. The couple with children and open since 2011 was far more compelling.

I do appreciate the author's honesty about their feelings toward the subject though. I think the subject is interesting and challenging (in a good way) to fundamental assumptions about marriage. But I do wish more attention was paid to other, longer-lasting examples.</comment></comment>


Why Innovation Can't Fix America's Classrooms - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/why-innovation-cant-fix-americas-classrooms/249524/

<comment><USER4> Opinion: The thing that has saved the American school system is that everyone around the world has fully copied the deeply flawed Prussian schooling model, and in many cases has doubled down on the flaws. Higher performing schools are often "teaching to the test" _even worse_ than we are, which is how they get measured as "higher performing" in the first place.

If the Prussian model is soooo spectacularly wonderful, then you have nothing to fear from it being exposed to a competitive environment. It'll win. No worries.

On the other hand, if the Prussian model is, shall we say, _less than optimal_ for the 21st century, the fastest way to find out is free market experimentation, and rather than giving ourselves the same cultural shackles that everybody else has, the American exceptionalism that will justify our salaries will be our willingness to experiment, learn, and refine from there where everybody else insists on the Prussian model. Unless, of course, a 19th century schooling model is just _so damned perfect_ that it will admit of no significant improvement. In which case we'll still find that out pretty quickly. The maximum downside is sharply bounded and the upside of cracking open the monopoly on education is hard to bound. (I can't call it "unbounded" with a straight face, that's hard to justify, but it really is hard to know how much better truly 21st schooling could be.) Failing to at least _try_ some innovation isn't even remotely justified with a cost/benefit risk profile like that.

Had some other country beat us to the punch and exposed their schooling system to free market competition before us, we really _would_ be up the creek without a paddle.

<comment><USER5> >the fastest way to find out is free market experimentation

>exposed their schooling system to free market competition

not all things can be effectively put under free market framework. Bottom line optimization and profit maximization, natural main objectives of the known free market implementations, don't work well for nuclear weapons maintenance, law enforcement ... healthcare and education for that exact reason that the main objectives in all these areas aren't the bottom line and profit maximization. For example, private prisons and healthcare in the US is highly profitable enterprises, while they serve their main objectives worse then their non-free-market counterparts in comparably developed countries.

<comment><USER6> It is a bit disingenuous to compare private goods (healthcare, education) with public goods (law enforcement, defense). In the case of public goods, the mechanism of freeloading prevents an optimal level of provisioning of them from a free market.

What mechanism prevents competition and free markets from providing good performance in health care or education?

<comment><USER7> The goal of a healthcare system ought to maximizing the health of the people. The goal of an educational system ought to be maximizing learning.

Perhaps a free market system (used very loosely) with the goal of pursuing profits would, as a byproduct, maximize the health of the people or of learning. I see no evidence that this is the case or that it should be the case. Indeed, in the case of healthcare I have very strong evidence that profit seeking isn't a great motivator.

The U.S. spends by far the most on healthcare as a percent of GDP. It spends far more for certain drugs than socialized systems, has worse health outcomes, and far greater health access inequality.

There is also a moral aspect. It is morally wrong for someone to profit from denying someone else healthcare. Unless a free market system can be devised in such a way that maximizing profit = maximizing healthcare then such a system is immoral. Cartels and cartel pricing come to mind as something that would prevent such a system from ever being successfully implemented.

<comment><USER6> _It is morally wrong for someone to profit from denying someone else healthcare._

In that case, you are an evil person, since you have profited by engaging in activities that don't deliver healthcare to others.

A person with even a basic understanding of economics would attempt to assign utility to human health and then measure whether or not a system is utility maximizing.

Personally I attempt to do this via revealed preferences - use people's choices to infer their values. And many people reveal that they don't care a great deal about health. For example, an obese person feels their health is less valuable than the enjoyment they receive from a cake or pie. Why should I assign a higher value to that person's health than they themselves do?

<comment><USER7> There's a big gap between someone who does something morally wrong and being an evil person. My income is not increased because I made a decision to deny someone health care. I am not profiting from making decisions to deny coverage to someone. Insurance companies do though. At least, for profit ones do.

My statement wasn't that it is wrong to profit from doing something other than provide health care. My statement is the it is wrong to profit from denying someone care. I have not denied anyone care and I have not increased my income as a result of such denial.

You appear not to understand what profit is and your statement regarding a basic understanding of economics is ironic given this. Your response would have been better without resorting to such a tactic.

Your last paragraph is disconcerting to me. There is much wrong with your position. People do things that are against their long term interests. People sometimes do things they don't want to do. People can be manipulated into doing things they regret. Humans, are by and large, not rational. Part of the purpose of a society is having share responsibilities. To share our burdens. It is sometimes advisable for society as a whole to look out for our long term interests and this is a good thing.

<comment><USER6> I was defining profit = earnings - expenses, but there is no point in getting into a semantic argument about the definition of profit. (Note that there actually is no standard definition of profit for an individual.)

Lets treat profit as income. Your income is not increased, but your potential consumption is increased every time you decide not to buy health care for someone who might benefit from it. Is this immoral? I'm guessing not.

If an insurance company denies someone care (increasing revenue) and spends the money on perks for the CEO (increasing expenses commensurately, for a net profit of $0), would that be moral?

 _People do things that are against their long term interests._

So your belief is that you know what is best for everyone else, and their choices should be subsumed to your opinions? Um, ok.

<comment><USER7> You previously equated doing an immoral thing with being evil. Now you equate my statement:

"It is sometimes advisable for society as a whole to look out for our long term interests and this is a good thing."

with knowing what is best for everyone else. You logic is faulty. I used the word 'sometimes' and this is an important word in the sentence I wrote. I also never used the phrasing that I know what is best. I said society. Your conclusions are not logically supported from what I've written or stated.

You make too many leaps and appear to go from one extreme to the other. There is a huge gap between "let everyone do as they please" to "I know what is best for everyone".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I feel like there's an elephant in the room all debates on US education dance around. My experience with school from K-postgrad was that my education was 90% dependent on what I put into it as a student (homework, studying, etc) and everything else (teacher quality, curriculum, etc) was only marginally significant to how much I learned. In other words, I believe there's a much more insidious and intractable problem causing US children to under-perform. The worst part is that I don't believe we even know exactly what it is. But my guess is that it's a combination of issues firmly entrenched in our melting pot of culture.

edit: correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the US is one of the few countries on earth that has had a consistently high standard of living since WWII, right? My guess is that a few generations of unparalleled abundance has helped atrophy a once voracious society.

<comment><USER9> parents teaching victimhood and no work ethic?

<comment><USER10> rich parents? is that who you're talking about?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> One reason why it might not be such a good idea to copy other nations - <USER2> tend to have fairly large achievement gaps between natives and immigrants.

The US has an achievement gap of about 20 pts on PISA, compared to roughly 40 for Norway and even higher in Finland and Sweden.

[http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2010/12/amazing-truth- abou...](http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2010/12/amazing-truth-about-pisa- scores-usa.html)

This isn't a big deal for nations with few immigrants, but it is a problem for the US.

(Of course, for the sake of making a snarky argument, I'm making the same fallacy as the author: if we copy other nations education systems blindly, we'll get the same result.)

</comment><comment><USER11> Reading biographies on Benjamin Franklin[1], amongst others, makes me seriously doubt the importance of formal schooling on the amount of success a person has in life.

I think other factors like innate curiosity and developed capacity for work are more important.

[1] Franklin's entire formal schooling consists of 2 years at the Boston Latin School, from which he did not graduate. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin#Early_life>

<comment><USER12> I think it's hard to extrapolate over an entire diverse population based on one or even a few examples.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> From the submitted article: "The top-performing nations boost the quality of their teaching forces by greatly raising entry standards for teacher education programs. They insist that all teachers have in-depth knowledge of the subjects they will teach, apprenticing new teachers to master teachers and raising teacher pay to that of other high-status professions." This is a basically correct description about teacher selection and teacher professional development in several countries with schools that outperform schools in the United States. One way that teachers have the time to meet with more experienced teachers during the school day for mentoring and discussion of lesson plans is by setting higher class sizes. If the staffing ratio of a school (total teachers hired per enrolled pupils) is roughly the same in two countries, but in one country class sizes are larger, the teacher will have time during the school day to do lesson preparation in collaboration with other teachers. That better lesson preparation can result in more engaging lessons that deliver better education to the larger classes.

I've read a longer article by the same author (Marc Tucker) called "Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: An American Agenda for Education Reform."

[http://www.ncee.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Standing- on-t...](http://www.ncee.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Standing-on-the- Shoulders-of-Giants-An-American-Agenda-for-Education-Reform.pdf)

I just tested to see if that had been submitted to HN before, and it had not, so now it is linked to from a new thread.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3321124>

Tucker underestimates, in my opinion, the importance of learner choice, but based on international comparisons he correctly identifies several management practices that would make the school system in the United States better for most learners. I have rather more fondness, based on life experience, for learner choice in schools because I live in a state with statewide public school open enrollment,

[http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/StuSuc/EnrollChoice/index.h...](http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/StuSuc/EnrollChoice/index.html)

[http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/JustParent/SchChoice/index....](http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/JustParent/SchChoice/index.html)

which has encouraged Minnesota school districts to offer innovative programs to draw in students.

</comment><comment><USER12> I'm in a high school classroom two days a week this semester and next semester is my last before becoming a licensed teacher in the US.

A couple of my math professors at the university I attend went to China over the summer to get an idea of what their primary education classrooms are like and compare them to ours. One of the things I've heard regarding the overall demographics is that there they don't have the expectation that all students are going to get educated to the extent that we attempt to here. At a certain point if students don't perform well enough they are transitioned out to a vocational school instead of following an academic track.

This very well could have a profound effect on comparing scores across countries, their top percent of students is being compared to our entire population of students.

If you consider some of the books that are being tossed around in these threads, e.g. Liping Ma's Knowing and Teaching..., one of the small things that sticks out is a language issue that can have an impact on a young child's number development.

Also, according to that book there is an entirely different mindset when it comes to not only teaching as a profession but in their professional development as well. They are afforded more opportunities for planning and collaboration compared to what is often experienced here.

I think we as a society have to consider whether it is feasible to continue down this road where we attempt to educate everyone to the same level.

</comment><comment><USER14> If you ranked individual US states among countries, you'd find that many of them are near the very top. (As a whole, the US can't compete against tiny countries like Luxembourg because of the law of large numbers.) Wouldn't it make a lot more sense for the badly performing states to look at the well performing states rather than foreign countries? There will be fewer confounding variables and cultural hurdles to applying lessons learned.

In any case, as soon as an author writes something like

>To many in the financial community, these market-inspired reform ideas are very appealing.

I know this is smear job rather than an intellectually honest appraisal. I mean, really. We shouldn't try new models of schooling because they are basically like the financial crisis? Are you kidding me?

</comment><comment><USER15> Perhaps he's right depending on your definition of "top performing". He doesn't define it but I'm guessing he means "scores well on standardized tests involving math and verbal skills".

When you optimize for creation of wealth for others (products / services) and for yourself (positive life experiences), you end up with a very different solution: <http://www.sudval.org/>

</comment><comment><USER16> It also is the case that some countries measure a different population of students for 'high school' than the US.

E.g., in Germany at one time, the secondary schools that were measured was the academic track, this was being compared against the US's schools which was the general secondary school population.

I'm not sure if this still holds true but it's something to be aware of - <USER3> measurement bias.

Paying teachers well & requiring them to have in-depth knowledge of the subject is good. No argument there!

<comment><USER17> When I see Shanghai listed at the top of the international chart, I always laugh. About 40% of Shanghai's population are non-registered residents that have no access to the public schools, and are not included in the results. To compare Shanghai to the US, you would have to drop the poorest 40% from the US numbers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> > figure out what the top-performing countries are doing and then, by > capitalizing on our unique strengths, develop a strategy to do it even > better.

The top performing countries' strategy is to have mostly Asian or Northern European students, and very few of third/second world extraction.

<comment><USER13> A Hacker News participant who kindly checked the facts in another recent thread

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3319177>

was able to verify what I had read in other official sources on international testing programs, namely that United States students underperform (because their schools underperform) on an ethnicity-matched basis. One detailed report on the issue that I think you will find to be interesting reading is the Education Next report on mathematics learning opportunities for top mathematics students in the United States,

<http://educationnext.org/teaching-math-to-the-talented/>

which shows that United States students miss opportunities in school to develop their abilities to the fullest. A look at the content of mathematics textbooks in different countries, and specialized studies on differences in teaching practices

[http://www.amazon.com/Knowing-Teaching-Elementary- Mathematic...](http://www.amazon.com/Knowing-Teaching-Elementary-Mathematics- Understanding/dp/0805829091)

[http://www.amazon.com/Teaching-Gap-Improving-Education- Class...](http://www.amazon.com/Teaching-Gap-Improving-Education- Classroom/dp/1439143137/)

in different countries have helped me understand the differences I frequently observe between people of the same ethnicity who received their primary and secondary education in different countries.

<comment><USER6> You overstate your case again. US students of Asian origin slightly underperform Asia in math (but outperform all non-Asian nations). Also, US students of European origin outperform all but 6 countries with similar demographics.

The other participant did not verify that it was caused by school underperformance, merely that I misread the numbers. The correction puts Asian Americans at #5 in the world rather than #4. It does not change the fact that Asian Americans are still 32 points higher than the first non-Asian nation (Hungarians). Nor does it change the fact that European Americans are #1 among European nations + Anglosphere.

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

Incidentally, any claims one makes to the inherent superiority of Asian education systems must be limited to math and science. Asian Americans are #1 in combined literacy (#2 if you consider Shanghai as a separate group), and European Americans are #2 among primarily European-descended nations.

(See tables R1 and R3. <http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011004_1.pdf> )

(As before, I'm only posting this so others are not misled by tokenadult's logical fallacies and intellectual dishonesty.)

<comment><USER19> Have these ethnicity-based differences within the US been constant over time?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Tell HN: Use Google+ to take notes - <AUTHOR>

1) Go to your circles page and create a new circle. Call it "Tasks".
2) Click "Add a new person", enter your own email.
3) Add yourself to your "Tasks" circle.
Now you can send to-dos to yourself by posting to your "Tasks" circle. <comment><USER2> You do not need to add anyone to the circle. Keep the circle empty and it will still work. This is based on a hack published originally on Google+ : [https://plus.google.com/107797841320768724118/posts/ghXafbr4...](https://plus.google.com/107797841320768724118/posts/ghXafbr4iqp)

<comment><AUTHOR> Ha, just as I tough I had finally invented something :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I did it, and posted in that circle, but when am I supposed to get this to-do? Is the idea that I review my own posts to see the to-do list? if so, what happens if I have a bunch of other public circle posts? the tasks-list post will get pushed down....

<comment><USER3> o ,i get it, i can click on the tasks stream and then see that list only...good idea</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Did Comcast just screw me over? - dan-silver I noticed yesterday that Comcast enabled their public wifi hotspot[1] on my home router.  I'm not sure if there are security risks or if it increases my electric bill, but it provides no additional benefit to me so I want it disabled.  Since they removed the easy way of disabling it from their website, I called them and they disabled it.  However, I'm now thinking that they just stopped the ssid broadcast since I can see another network with the same signal strength that the hotspot had, just without any network name.  I'm using an android app[1] to chart the signal strengths of networks.  I clearly stated to them that the network should be completely disabled, so I'm very confused.
 Is there any way for me to know if this other network is still the Comcast Xfinity public hotspot?
[1] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/comcast-sued-by-customers-for-turning-routers-into-public-hotspots/
[2] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.farproc.wifi.analyzer&hl=en <comment><AUTHOR> Power cycle the modem and see if the hotspot disappears and reappears with the modem. That would be fairly conclusive.

</comment><comment><USER2> Just buy your own modem from amazon. You get total control and don't have to pay them to lease your modem/router

<comment><USER3> Absolutely. I saw the announcement that this was going to happen however long ago that was (2 years?) and I just hopped on Amazon and got my own. Then I saw they upped the prices on modem rentals and chuckled to myself on the timing.

<comment><USER4> Can you recommend a modem. I would prefer one without wifi or if with wifi, a way to disable it.

<comment><USER5> I just bought [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00AJHDZSI](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00AJHDZSI) to use with Comcast. I've only had it for a month but haven't had any issues with it so far.

<comment><USER3> That's exactly the one I bought. I've never had a moment's issue with it. No WiFi, no IP phone, just power, a coax connection, and an ethernet jack.

Works great, I got a couple extra MB/s in speed tests and save the $10-$20/mo Comcast is charging to borrow their pieces of crap.

<comment><USER6> You have to hook up a router to it right? It just provides the upstream connection, you could of course hook your computer up to it, but how did you do it?

<comment><USER5> Correct, it's just the modem. I then connected a router for WiFi and hardwired connections.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If there are external antennae on the unit, just unscrew them and that will effectively disable the wifi radio since it can't attenuate.

<comment><USER8> if OP has the same modem as I do they are internal. I use to have this on/off war with comcast as the SSID kept getting turned back on.

I finally just bought my own modem and was done with it.

<comment> dan-silver That's correct. They are internal on this model. Even if they were external, I still want my wifi network, just not the public hotspot so disabling all wifi wouldn't help.</comment></comment></comment>


Microsoft uses Bing to discourage Windows 10 users from using Chrome and Firefox - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2015/09/04/microsoft-is-using-bing-to-discourage-windows-10-users-from-downloading-chrome-and-firefox/ <comment><USER2> I haven't seen that message from Bing. However, when I go to Google in IE, I get the same type of message. It says: "A better way to browse the web" and "Get Google Chrome".

Google has been doing this for years. Of course, that wasn't news.

Note that Google is showing its message -- which is essentially an advertisement -- on a search page that has a monopoly market share. Nobody else can buy advertising there.

<comment><USER3> I've seen that too and it is one of the things that have made me more critical of Google and the way it does things. I still use Google Search but I avoid everything else the company produces.</comment></comment>


URL Shorteners Make the Web Substantially Slower - <AUTHOR> http://blog.watchmouse.com/2010/03/url-shorteners-make-the-web-substantially-slower-facebooks-fb-me-is-slowest/ <comment><USER2> There are few scenarios where url shorteners come in handy... one being Twitter, and the other being times when you get an insanely long and unwieldily querystring moster like earlier when I was sending some directions from Google Maps to a friend. For the former [Twitter], I wrote about what I think could be a simple and effective solution on my blog.

Enjoi - [http://whalesalad.com/blog/how-twitter-can-eliminate-url- sho...](http://whalesalad.com/blog/how-twitter-can-eliminate-url-shorteners/)

TL;DR - Let's use the simple Markdown syntax to let users enter links in their tweets. There are a few downsides (larger columns in the Twitter DB) but Twitter wouldn't need URL shorteners any longer! Plus since they moved to Cassandra... maybe tweet size doesn't really matter anymore :D

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not sure I agree they really make things slow as such.

I'm more interested in the 3rd party monitoring aspect of them, how much of my information do they store on the way though exactly.

I agree, a universal markdown syntax would be good... or perhaps just drop "<http://></comment></comment>


Why Women Still Can't Have It All - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/why-women-still-cant-have-it-all/309020/

<comment><AUTHOR> This is what we should be talking about instead of why there aren't enough women in Tech (there isn't much talk about about why there aren't enough men in sewing). Women can choose to go into tech or not, that's their prerogative. Tech is not the issue, the problem is the demands that society and culture put on women which restricts their growth in any industry, not just tech.</comment>


The Charges Against Liberty Reserve Sound Familiar? Why That Should Worry You - <AUTHOR> http://www.vanityfair.com/online/eichenwald/2013/05/liberty-reserve-charges-familiar <comment><USER2> > there are plenty of people who should know better singing the praises of > online financial currencies and other broad operations that operate outside > the controls and oversight of governments.

"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these [regulators] are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?"

-Frederic Bastiat, 1850

<comment><USER3> Actually, they do, by the virtue of being at that position in the first place. They believe that whatever got them to a position of power (popular vote, birthright, money, even sheer luck) proves in their eyes that they are better than everyone else.</comment></comment>


US jails begin releasing prisoners to stem Covid-19 infections - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-51947802 <comment><USER2> Doesn't it seem wierd that you release people from a good isolation system?

Are the prisoners given enough support to be able to protect themselves when they are released? Surely most won't have the ready resources to self isolate for weeks.

Doesn't this just punt the problem onto the social services that will end up supporting many of the released prisoners, social services that will already be under incredible stress?

Can anyone with local information tell us what support these prisoners are provided?

Edit: Plus, assuming the average prisoner is anti-social, does releasing them risk (a) further stressing police and hospital resources, and (b) running counter to prevention policies that depend on social cooperation?

<comment><USER3> No, it doesn't seem weird. US jails are high density, low sanitation, often lack basic things like soap and running water, and have famously low standards of medical care even outside of pandemics.

It's the worst possible place for anyone to be in a situation like this.

When this hits jails, very nearly everyone in the jails will be exposed, and the death rates are likely to be roughly equivalent to the critical case rates (>15%).

A more cynical person might claim that the people responsible for allocating medical resources and oversight to prisons see this as a generally desirable outcome; the system working as intended. (Jails in the US disproportionately hold nonwhite people.)

<comment><USER4> "have famously low standards of medical care"

I remember on another forum someone that used to post, who claimed to be a former IT worker who decided to go to nursing school, you know, because he wanted to do something "real" and then he graduated and could only get a job working in a prison. Some stuff he described was pretty chilling, even in its understatement.

<comment><USER5> I've done time in state and federal prisons. While I've never been without soap or water or been in an overcrowded facility, the medical care is very bad.

At an older federal prison, we had to check shoes in the morning for brown recluse spiders. One guy got bit on his foot by one of them and it quickly turned black and blue. He went to medical and they diagnosed him as having a fracture, and set a cast on his foot without doing an x-ray (which would have meant a trip out to a hospital).

Several weeks later they had to amputate his leg below the knee.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Sounds to me like they didn't need to be in prison in the first place. Promptly released upon being realized to be a liability rather than an income generating asset.

<comment><USER7> This pandemic shows true nature of so many things.

I especially like how it shown that main purpose of schools is not the education but preventing kids from being a burden for their parents.

<comment><USER8> My experience with High School was that it was a daycare center with a focus on forcing conformity. I learned nearly nothing in the actual school aside from maybe a bit of math I could have picked up through online classes. I think it was mostly a taste of what it would feel like to be in prison.

English was mostly trying to teach the illiterate kids how to read 10 years too late while everyone else tried not to die of boredom. History was about how we won WWII with maybe a little nationalism mixed in. PE was okay. Physics was barely recognizable as such. Math was mostly rote learning. Biology was similar.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> In recent years, Louisiana made efforts to reduce prison population then filled those for-profit spaces with higher paying immigrant detentions. I wonder what plans are for them?</comment>


"Alexander the Grate" on living in the "interstices of the infrastructure" - <AUTHOR> https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/alexander-grate-homelessness-amid-pandemic-180975474/ <comment><USER2> I was homeless for a period of time that extended to my first year at college. Was honestly not a bad life. I learned something fundamental... that one can get used to anything except being cold. I would go to sleep when the parks closed, around 10. Cold would wake me up at around 3 or 4 in the morning, and grab some more sleep around mid day. It's one reason why homeless people have dogs... they serve as hot water bottles.

One thing it left me with is that it changed the way I walk through the city. For most people, streets are places they use to get from one place to another. They do not inhabit them as places in themselves. For me and other homeless, they were our homes. This changes how you walk a street... gives you something approaching a swagger.

<comment><USER3> Your inability to "get used to" cold may reflect a survival technique the body has, to avoid hyothermia. Sleeping cold has very high risks.

Aside from this, I am truly sorry you had to live through this experience, and that others continue to live through this experience. It has been a revalation to me how quickly local authorities here in Australia could house rough sleepers when they had a specific intent (disease prevention) in mind. I always suspected persisting homelessness was both complex (causative reasons) and simple (to fix) but what surprised me was _how_ simple: they just had to decide to do it.

Shame on them, shame on us, for continuing to vote for authorities so apathetic to the problem of homelessness.

<comment><USER4> The same thing happened here in the UK. A relatively tiny amount of money (a million £/month or so) got >95% of rough sleepers off the streets and into secure accomodation where many have taken the opportunity to deal with their addictions, mental health issues, even education and job prospects. Turns out it's way easier to get off drugs/alcohol and sort your life out when you don't have to spend all your time finding the next meal or a safe(-ish) place to sleep.

The problem of rough sleeping can be dealt with using tiny amounts of money (at least in the UK), but unfortunately the wider problems of homelessness, where many are inviisble because they are permenantly couch surfing or stuck in hostels or at chronic risk of losing their homes if they have them are much more complex and difficult to deal with without changes to how housing works here.

<comment><USER5> At least housing probably works better now than it did in 1931?

 _The Spike_ [http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0300011h.html#part1](http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0300011h.html#part1)

Note that Blair/Orwell is spotted immediately as NRS social grade A, which may explain why Winston Smith couldn't make the to-me-reasonable jump to the free proletariat in _1984_ :

> "The terrible Tramp Major met us at the door and herded us into the bathroom > to be stripped and searched. He was a gruff, soldierly man of forty, who > gave the tramps no more ceremony than sheep at the dipping-pond, shoving > them this way and that and shouting oaths in their faces. But when he came > to myself, he looked hard at me, and said:

> 'You are a gentleman?'

> 'I suppose so,' I said.

> He gave me another long look. 'Well, that's bloody bad luck, guv'nor,' he > said, 'that's bloody bad luck, that is.' And thereafter he took it into his > head to treat me with compassion, even with a kind of respect."

<comment><USER4> Yep, although that's not saying much.

The housing market in the UK is pretty screwed at the moment, and has been for a long while.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've been living largely outdoors and currency-free for several years. (I don't like the word homeless for many reasons.)

I've been indoors for a few months (with friends) since Corona started, since there are few places to work on a computer now.

I'm open to questions here, if anyone is interested.

<comment><USER7> Well, my first question is, why? Why do you choose to live that way?

[Edit: Or do you do so not by choice? From your post, I gathered it was by choice, but maybe I shouldn't assume that...]

<comment><USER6> I transitioned to this lifestyle gradually over the course of several years, starting with apartment-job-cat, through couch-surfing and short-term rentals, living out of a van, and then finally total freedom.

I chose to do it because I wanted to have more control over how I spend my time. I realized that I was spending most of my time on someone else's schedule, building someone else's dreams, rather than working on my own.

I also have a very high priority for sleeping. I generally sleep for as long as I want to, which sometimes means several times per day. This does not mesh well with having a job.

<comment><USER8> I know you said it was gradual, but did you have any psychedelics experience or some spiritual experience that facilitated that change?

<comment><USER6> I had some psychedelics experiences before and after, but I was into the idea before that. Even after psychedelics, I still resisted the draw, because I was afraid for my own survival. I felt like the matrix is the _only_ way.

It took some really harsh non-psychedlic but life-changing, harsh experiences I mentioned earlier to finally pull me away from it and realize that I was going down the wrong path for me.

As I mentioned in another comment, these experiences were a family member's illness, a couple of personal physical injuries (related to stress and rushing), and a stressful work environment.

If I had listened to the cues earlier, I could have transitioned before any of that happened, avoided a lot of the pain, and had a much easier time dealing with the unavoidable.

But life is all about lessons...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I pass this guy (as well as the other guy across the street under the VRE bridge) every time I go for a run on the mall. I was very surprised to click this article, and think "wait I know this place". I've always wondered how long they've been there. Alexander seems to get up and move around during the day, but the other guy I've never seen out of his chair. Feel bad for these guys situation, and glad to hear they're keeping on.

This is the spot for anyone curious. Like the article touches on, there is an irony in these guys living on the street half a mile from the United States Capitol building. And the google maps photo has the other guy who stays under the VRE bridge.

[https://www.google.com/maps/place/349-371+7th+St+SW,+Washing...](https://www.google.com/maps/place/349-371+7th+St+SW,+Washington,+email@example.com,-77.0228402,430m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m13!1m7!3m6!1s0x89b7b79d333099a9:0x58eef8bbb4190434!2s349-371+7th+St+SW,+Washington,+DC+20024!3b1!8m2!3d38.885722!4d-77.0219415!3m4!1s0x89b7b79d333099a9:0x58eef8bbb4190434!8m2!3d38.885722!4d-77.0219415)

</comment><comment> awinter-py if I had not been alexander I would have been diogenes</comment>