Why Sweden Has So Few Road Deaths - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/02/economist-explains-16?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/whyswedenhassofewroaddeaths <comment><USER2> I'm acquainted with a civil engineer who worked in the FHWA for several decades.

He spent a big chunk of that time trying to convince government agencies to build roads with pavement that had a better coefficient of friction. See for example

[http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/pavement/pavement_fr...](http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/pavement/pavement_friction/)

He estimated that they could reduce deaths considerably with more appropriate pavement.

In many cases, states refused to even allow pavement friction tests to occur, as they didn't want to be on the hook for paying for improvements if the tests showed poor friction. Also, requiring better friction would disallow certain road materials, which would adversely affect certain very large politically connected contractors.

In Europe, they take this much more seriously. The Germans have started using a concrete pavement that is both better for friction and is quiet.

It's interesting that if a government builds a substandard road that leads to people losing their lives, it doesn't seem to be a big deal, but if a car manufacturer produces a car that leads to a much smaller number of people dying, then it is.

<comment><USER3> In NL we use this: [http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeer_Open_Asfalt](http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeer_Open_Asfalt)

It's super good if you have lots of rain (the rain sinks right away under the road surface) but it is prone to frost damage. Super quiet and great in the rain though, the difference is incredible when you switch from ZOAB to regular asphalt or the other way around.

<comment><USER4> I remember tests of a similar asphalt near me in the NE US. In the spring we had black banks of it all along the road, where it was scraped off by snowplows over the winter. What's left was packed with sand.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> * Sparse, mostly rural population (with an unique culture).

* "2+1" roads, which discourages meaningless overtaking or competing. (But I don't buy it as the single cause).

* Roundabouts instead of crossroads with traffic lights. (My bet this is one of the most important factors).

* Special reserved lane for doing left turns to secondary roads.

* Lots of street lamps (Sweden is famous for illumination and urban development).

* High percentage of expensive, very good quality cars (lots of Volvos) which kept well-maintained.

* 40 km/h speed limit in most small towns.

Together it works. Basically a complex phenomena is a weighted sum of multiple different causes - cultural (tradition), economical, social (current "normals"), technological, etc. with "random variables". Such simple model could explain it to some extent.

I am in Sweden now, and I drive a classic Volvo.

<comment><USER6> Regarding roundabouts I personally find them confusing since they are not common where I live but I wonder if the main benefit of a roundabout it that the curve forces people to slow down instead of gunning through a yellow/red light.

<comment><USER7> Having recently moved to America from Australia (specifically Canberra, which is considered the round-about capital), one of the biggest things I miss is round-abouts. They don't stop the flow of traffic like all way stop signs or traffic lights do.

One of the things I really like here though that I wish Australia would adopt is being able to turn right from (almost) any traffic light while it red.

<comment><USER8> Actually the NT did implement the left on red stuff for a short while. Too many idiots was the final judgement.

Also roundabouts work great for low volume roads but with roads with significant traffic directions basically lock out the ones they pass.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The article ignores the single biggest reason Americans are likelier than Swedes to die on the roads, which is simply that Americans drive more. The death rate is nearly four times higher per capita in the United States, but only twice as high per mile driven [0].

(In fact, in America, the last few decades' worth of safety improvements to cars have been almost entirely offset by an increase in miles driven; despite their much safer cars, Americans are only slightly less likely to die driving today than they were in 1990 [1].)

The bigger mystery is why Americans are now far likelier to die in their cars than Europeans _even after you control for the time they spend in them_. That didn't use to be the case. Until the mid-1990s, Sweden (like almost every other country [2]) had a higher rate of traffic fatalities per mile driven than did the United States. Those rates have declined markedly all around the world, but much less in the United States than elsewhere.

My guess is that the divergence comes down to diverging patterns of living. Over the last few decades, American cities have sprawled all over the landscape, so Americans not only drive more, but their road infrastructure is built to facilitate daily travel at high speeds over long distances. A great many Americans drive 30+ highway miles each day between their suburban homes and city offices, but that sort of commute is rare elsewhere.

0\. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic- re...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic- related_death_rate)

1\. [http://www.planetizen.com/node/68200](http://www.planetizen.com/node/68200)

2\. See, e.g., statistics showing that fatalities per vehicle mile were lower in the United State than in many European countries in 1991, [https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hs93/Sec7.pdf](https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hs93/Sec7.pdf) [PDF; see page 4]

<comment><USER10> Europeans and americans may have diverging patterns of living, but sleeping in suburban areas and working in city centres isn't one of those patterns, as it's becoming the norm everywhere...

<comment><USER11> Few or no European suburbs are as vast as your American suburbs (think Houston, Atlanta or the Bay area). In my home country (Denmark) young families now tend to stay in city centers rather than moving to suburbs so the trend is reverse.

Also, European cities generally have much better public transportation such as really decent busses, trolley busses, light rails, subways, trains, and trams.

Finally, I suspect a mile driven by 30-60 year olds are generally safer than a mile driven by teenagers. Europe has older population and few teenage drivers.

<comment><USER12> There are certainly Europeans that engage in long commutes. In the UK, many people who work in London commute from outside, sometimes multiple hours each way, but you're right, public transport is widely used, those aforementioned London commuters tend to rely on trains. Perhaps London is a special case because it's so expensive to live there, but in general it's easy to get around the country on trains.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> George Orwell:

 _.. Accidents happen because on narrow, inadequate roads, full of blind corners and surrounded by dwelling houses, vehicles and pedestrians are moving in all directions at all speeds from three miles an hour to sixty or seventy. If you really want to keep death off the roads, you would have to replan the whole road system in such a way as to make collisions impossible. Think out what this means (it would involve, for example, pulling down and rebuilding the whole of London), and you can see that it is guite beyond the power of any nation at this moment. Short of that you can only take palliative measures, which ultimately boil down to making people more careful.

But the only palliative measure that would make a real difference is a drastic reduction in speed. Cut down the speed limit to twelve miles an hour in all built-up areas, and you would cut out the vast majority of accidents. But this, everyone will assure you, is 'impossible'. Why is it impossible? Well, it would be unbearably irksome. It would mean that every road journey took twice or three times as long as it takes at present. .._

[http://orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/eaip_0...](http://orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/eaip_04)

<comment><USER14> There have been experiments in the UK where all road markings and signs and lights and pavements have been removed. Vehicles and pedestrians are free to move as they wish. These areas tend to be safer for everyone because the uncertainess forces car drivers to slow down and look out.

An average speed of 12MPH seems high for central London!

> _Transport for London 's latest figures state that for the first quarter of > 2011/2012 the average traffic speed on major London roads for the 12 hours > between 7am to 7pm was 19.33 mph and over the same period was 8.98 mph > across Central London._

[http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/jun/30/uk.transport](http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/jun/30/uk.transport)

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

[http://www.rospa.com/RoadSafety/conferences/congress2006/pro...](http://www.rospa.com/RoadSafety/conferences/congress2006/proceedings/day3/ballie.pdf)

<comment><USER15> This makes me wonder though, do they slow down because the signage that used to be posted has been taken down and they're now unsure of what to do in that area?

Many of the "driving problems" I've seen involve drivers in areas where they feel comfortable. Eg, the last bit before home. Part of me wonders if after a period of time, the same behaviours would resurface as people became acclimatized to the lack of signage.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Even when you look at deaths per billion vehicle-km the US still seems to be quite bad at 7.6, with the UK at 4.3 and Sweden at 3.7:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic- re...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic- related_death_rate)

<comment><USER17> "Safer than Japan" sounds like a good pitch.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> The US saw a huge advertising effort trying to convince people that pedestrian fatalities were not an issue with either cars or drivers. Realistically, while it costs more and be less convenient for drivers a better separation between cars and people is going to save plenty of lives.

However, only 14% of traffic fatalities ~(4,743/year) are pedestrains in the US. ed:(+ 726 bike/year) So there is a limit to how far that can take you. [http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_crash.cfm](http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_crash.cfm)

</comment><comment><USER19> Whenever I see a non-highway fatality here in the US, it falls under a few categories:

* head-on because someone crossed the center line on a 2-way, 40-55mph road, and they are usually going well over the speed limit

* one of the cars was running the light at a 4-way intersection

* someone pulled out into traffic into a 40-55mph road and was hit

<comment><USER20> You haven't included people who aren't in cars being fatalities. For example there have been two deaths of cyclists in the last week here due to hit and run. The cycle lanes where they exist are a joke.

<comment><USER21> Sounds like a city problem.

<comment><USER22> It's a problem in my far-off Chicago suburb, too. Distracted driving is a major problem - I wonder if it's the same in other countries?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Roads like the ones in Sweden will never be common place in the US. We value speed, convenience, and cheap over a "couple" of dead people.

<comment><USER24> To state my European prejudices, you also seem to value being allowed to drive without proper training, and driving around in bulky vehicles that are basically designed to use the _other_ car as their crumple zone. Those two things are possibly related.

<comment><USER25> Well it sounds like they are pretty baseless prejudices. You must pass a skills test, even if not as rigorous as some countries. Additionally, the idea that the other car is the crumple zone was valid maybe 50 years ago. Safety tests are conducted by smashing cars into walls that don't crumple.

Everyone I know who has been in a crash hasn't been due to improper training, it been because of ignoring rules that they knew very well (speeding, texting and driving, etc). I don't know anyone that has crashed because they didn't know how a stop sign worked.

<comment><USER26> > Everyone I know who has been in a crash hasn't been due to improper > training, it been because of ignoring rules that they knew very well > (speeding, texting and driving, etc)

How can anybody not know that texting and driving is a bad idea? That's just stupid.

<comment><USER27> But people do stupid things every day. Smoking is stupid, binge drinking is stupid, not wearing your seat belt is stupid... all have consequences. The point still remains, it is a choice people make to not follow the rules that causes most of the problems. Now, how do we get people to follow the rules better?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> "Building 1,500 kilometres (900 miles) of "2+1" roads—where each lane of traffic takes turns to use a middle lane for overtaking—is reckoned to have saved around 145 lives over the first decade of Vision Zero."

I'm no expert in roads, but can anyone explain how that shared middle lane is not the recipe for disaster?

<comment><USER29> It's not an open shared middle lane. There's a wire fence separating traffic. Here's how it looks: [http://www.motor- life.com/sites/default/files/articles/vagve...](http://www.motor- life.com/sites/default/files/articles/vagverket_region_mitt_a.jpg)

<comment><USER30> Meh, in Australia we have plenty of these 2+1 roads with no fence, just road markers. We don't have an epidemic of head-on collisions. All you need to do is at the end of the '+1' section, have the _outside_ lane merge into to _inside_ lane. There's no 'sudden switchover' where traffic in the middle lane is coming at traffic going the other way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> In addition to the road quality I would say the driver's ed is also a big factor. Getting a license in Sweden is much tougher than most other places, especially the US.

<comment><USER32> I should point out, that EU has standardised driving licence education. So despite Denmark having almost no tunnels (no mountains to speak of), we still have to learn about tunnel driving. And that's good.

These tests also include driving at a facility.

However, the EU requirements are minimum requirements, countries are allowed to make the requirements tougher, such as Finland (which I think requires at least 3 days at a facility).

<comment><USER33> What does _' driving at a facility'_ mean?

<comment><USER32> A driving facility, where you experience driving through water, surfaces with low friction, as well as attempting avoiding obstacles, rescuing skidding (both front and back end) out and so forth.

<comment><USER34> So I suppose in Finland these would be driving on ice x2, and the night driving simulator (at least in my case). Are you sure that tunnels are a part of the standard? I didn't need to do that ~5 years ago.

Is the education split into three seperate parts in all EU countries (first gives a temporary license, and there must be a few months before the others (to get real world driving experience), but all must be done withing 2 years)? When I got my license, the education cost about 2500 euros (I think it's higher now). Is that about the same as elsewhere in the EU?

<comment><USER32> In Denmark you get a full licence the first time you pass. But in practical terms, authorities (and insurance and car rental companies) look 'harsher' on newer drivers. But legally there is no temporary licence (except the licence you get the day you pass, which is just temporary until your actual licence is delivered in the mail).

I know tunnels was required in 2011, but the teacher also seemed to indicate that it was a recent change.

I never used a simulator, night driving meant driving at night. Taking a bus driving licence was mostly the same ordeal, although there is some extra focus in the theory about how a bus works and what requirements it has.

When I took my B-category driving licence, it cost about 6500 DKK (about 880 euros). But that was a big driving school, I also see prices at 8000 DKK (about 1075 euros). Fortunately, my bus driving licence was subsidised (so I only paid 3600 DKK (480 euros)), otherwise it would have cost 31000 DKK (4180 euros).

But I hear Finland is unbelievable expensive.

<comment><USER35> Perhaps "unbelievable" is an exaggeration, but Finland is more expensive. A license to drive a normal car ("B" category license) costs between 1500 and 2000 euros in a driving school (for the initial phase, which gives a temp license valid for 2 years). Then around 400 euros for the second phase which must be done after 6 to 24 months.

But fortunately a family member (or similar) can also teach, with just a few mandatory lessons at "facilities". This way, the cost is around 500 euros (if you don't include the car and fuel costs when driving the mandatory 20 half- hour lessons.)

(License categories are the same in all of EU I think: A is for motorcycles, B a car, C a lorry, D a bus, E a trailer, with sub-divisions like A1 and A2 for different power classes of motorcycles etc; see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver%27s_license#mediaviewer/...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver%27s_license#mediaviewer/File:Fahrerlaubnisklassen.png)).

In Finland, licenses were about to become very expensive last year after a law change that was lobbied by driving schools - that effectively made it impossible to teach your own family members to drive. But after seeing the ripping-off by driving schools, and also after extensive protests by the public, the government (unbelievably) backed down and changed the rules back so that teaching a family member is again feasible. My third kid is soon ready for the driving test...

BTW people say that it's a great test of trust and co-operation between a parent and a teenager to try to teach a young one to drive. For me this has fortunately gone very well.

<comment><USER36> Germany: My wife got her license rather late, recently. The costs were roughly the same (for "B"). You're on a two year 'probation' period. Any offense that would lead to an entry in our "You did something wrong and we're awarding you points for that" database means that you'll lose your license - with a well- defined process to restart / try to recover it. This includes speeding over a certain limit (say, 20km/h over the limit in towns for example) or running a red light, ignoring a stop sign etc.. All of these are - in theory, if you're caught, instant reasons to lose your license.

We don't have costs after the 2 years though, the license just graduates and becomes permanent. Now you'd receive a certain number of points for the offenses listed above and there are limits that might require you to take driving lessons again or - in bad cases - might again lead to the loss of your license.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I found this part particularly interesting, for strange reasons: "now less than 0.25% of drivers tested are over the alcohol limit"

Why are they testing those other 399 people (0.25% = 1 in 400)? Driving while drowsy? drunk driving checkpoints? Someone's a little swervy and gets noticed?

<comment><USER35> In Sweden, like much of Europe, the police can (and routinely does) stop everybody for a breathalyzer test.

I understand that in the US the police can't do that; they need some reason (like swervy driving) to apply a breathalyzer test.

<comment><USER38> random stops or roadblocks?

Canada (BC at least) does roadblocks.

<comment><USER35> The road is not actually physically blocked, but every vehicle that comes on that road is hailed to stop for the test. If someone takes a U-turn to avoid the test, there's typically a motorbike or a patrol car ready to chase.

<comment><USER39> The U.S. does this too. Happens maybe once a month around San Jose, for example. Usually you can avoid it because Google Maps detects the huge back-up and routes you around it :) if you know what to look for (half-mile stretch of red traffic in a place where that's not the norm on a week-end evening), it's generally not hard to spot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> National mentality has to do with it. For instance, you see a night-and-day difference in driver behavior when you cross the border from, say, Switzerland to Italy.

Why poor countries have lots of deadly car accidents probably has something to do with corruption, in part. People won't respect order, such as traffic codes, when their government isn't respectable. If I imagine I'm a citizen of a poor country, why would I stop at a red light if my president gave a contract to some foreign company in exchange for bribes. If he can do as he pleases, so can I.

There is also driver licensing. Here in the provinces of Canada, for instance, if you have a measurable pulse and/or your breath can fog a cold mirror, you can get a driver's license. I can't imagine that the same is true in Sweden.

A learner's permit can be obtained by passing a written test. After that, a very brief and easy road test results in a driver's license. No formal schooling is required; a friend or relative can teach you, for instance.

Furthermore, driver's license renewals do not require any testing. I got my driver's license in 1987. Since, then, I have renewed it every five years simply by paying the fee, signing a paper, and having my picture taken. I've never been required to take any additional training or testing.

Imagine if it was like that for, say, commercial airline pilots.

</comment><comment><USER35> Regarding "Vision Zero": I find it unrealistic, for the simple reason that you can't stop people from dying. I think Sweden must share the same way of counting as my country (Finland) where the traffic death statistics include suicides and "natural" deaths.

We have around 250 road deaths per year in a country of 5 million, and about 50 of these are suicides. This means that practically every week there's someone who kills him/herself by an intentional act in traffic. For instance, a couple of months back a mother killed herself and her three children by driving 100 km/h head-on at a bus where his husband was travelling. This was just an act of defiance, desperation and hate.

When suicides count for about one fifth of traffic deaths, it is not insignificant and leaves the number of traffic deaths well above zero. Also, natural deaths - people dying of a heart attack or a stroke while driving - account for a significant part of the statistics (somewhere around 10-15 %). They're counted as traffic deaths even in cases where no one else is hurt and even the vehicle is unscathed.

<comment><USER41> It's a statement of engineering priorities, not an literal goal.

This is in contrast to the United States, where only very recently has anything other than maximum automotive throughput been prioritized.

<comment><USER22> I wouldn't say that throughput is the priority. The typical speed limits on interstates were optimal for fuel efficiency. Convenience highways are revenue generating through the use of automatic toll collection, but in my experience, only have higher speed limits when they have more limited access (read: fewer exits/on-ramps).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Whenever I'm in Sweden i just drive one road. The E4. I bet the asphalt per capita is probably pretty low compared to any other country. But still the quality of the roads don't compare to Denmark or the Netherlands for example which feel even more thought out and structured.

<comment><USER43> As an aside, the bicycle roads in the Netherlands are extremely well- organized. The U.S. and other countries should borrow this format for inter- and intracity cycling. Most U.S. bicycle paths are like road signs in rural Germany: few and far between or hidden behind an overgrown hedge.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> >Planning has played the biggest part in reducing accidents. Roads in Sweden are built with safety prioritised over speed or convenience. Low urban speed- limits, pedestrian zones and barriers that separate cars from bikes and oncoming traffic have helped.

This is big. Cities in Sweden have the ability to cater much faster to bikers because biking is a much more prevalent way of trasport than in the United States. In fact, that is one of the larger causes for deaths in cities like San Francisco. [1]

[1] [http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Streets-of-S-F-a- road-...](http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Streets-of-S-F-a-road-hazard- as-pedestrian-5205143.php)

</comment><comment><USER45> Don't forget mandatory _practical_ training in driving in wet/icy conditions as well as mandatory winter tires in such conditions. This probably causes some deaths in countries where such conditions occur less frequently. On the other hand, several months of snow/ice is likely adding to Swedens death toll. Training looks like this: [https://youtube.com/watch?v=6AJ1J5wVpMY](https://youtube.com/watch?v=6AJ1J5wVpMY)

</comment><comment><USER46> I've seen 2+1 in Minnesota (cannot remember which road, but it is a highway off I90 and headed to the cities). In SD and ND, I've seen the added lane for slow traffic to move to so the normal traffic can pass. Same effect, but probably an acknowledgement of the number of slow vehicles found on rural highways (e.g. combines, tractors, heavily loaded grain trucks).

</comment><comment><USER47> Can someone with knowledge or experience on the subject explain how the "2+1"[0] road is better than a standard 3-lane highway?

[0] FTA "Building 1,500 kilometres (900 miles) of "2+1" roads—where each lane of traffic takes turns to use a middle lane for overtaking—is reckoned to have saved around 145 lives over the first decade of Vision Zero"

<comment><USER48> I'll try,

imagine a road like this: [http://lh6.ggpht.com/_gt_enTZIj1g/TMq0zFITxUI/AAAAAAAADo8/Rb...](http://lh6.ggpht.com/_gt_enTZIj1g/TMq0zFITxUI/AAAAAAAADo8/Rb7HaW7Yb6Q/s912/IMG_1388.jpg)

(not sweden but Netherlands but it works for the example.)

Overtaking is not allowed (except for farm traffic), in a 2+1 situation there would be three lanes all the time, alternating between directions. This means that there will always be a legal spot to overtake within a few minutes. (usually the climbing direction would be two lanes so you can overtake slow trucks e.d.) Therefore you don't have to overtake a slow driver by using the oncoming lane.

By a 'standard 3-lane highway', I assume you mean three lanes each way, these roads have nowhere near enough traffic on them to explain all that extra tarmac.

<comment><USER47> Yes that is what I meant, the main highway I drive to work on is 3 lanes each direction. Bumper to bumper < 40 MPH (65 KPH) in rush hour, sporadic traffic going 75-85+ MPH (135+ KPH) at other times.

We have a few of these roads in my area but not very many, and you can easily go many many miles on a road similar to the one in your picture with no passing lane.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I certainly know why Dominican Republic has such high death rates on the road. The people that drive there are freakin' insane. They have no regard for road rules, traffic signs, pedestrians... Driving in Santo Domingo is like driving in the demolition derby. It was absolutely terrifying.

</comment><comment><USER50> In which city in the US of A do you see bike lanes like that in the article?

In my neck of the woods, riding a bike is a disaster waiting to happen.

<comment><USER51> They're not exactly common in the Boston area, but they're here, and new ones are getting added (mainly in Cambridge, as far as I can tell). At least one even has separate traffic lights that turn green for bikes a few seconds early.

FWIW I tend to stick to the roads anyway, though, because the segregated bike lanes often have pedestrians and runners in them regardless, and the paths often get cracked from tree roots and whatnot. Most drivers don't seem to care if I'm not on the dedicated path, so long as I'm hauling and not riding crazy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> I'm not convinced the added safety is worth it.

If you had the choice between getting to your destination in 20 minutes, with a 11.4 in 100,000 chance of dying, or arriving in 25 minutes with a 3 in 100,000 chance, which would you choose?

<comment><USER53> Would you say that again while considering your spouse is a travelling salesman? It's not about one-time trips, it's about the aggregated death toll over years or decades.

<comment><USER52> Yes, absolutely.

My comment was actually incorrect, since it's 11.4 in 100,000 per year. I think I'd want my spouse to spend 1/5th less time driving for the increase in risk.

<comment><USER54> 5 minutes is that valuable to you?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Hah few you say, what about Cliff Burton!

</comment><comment><USER56> From the comments:

"Sweden has 264 road deaths for 9.5 million people. Britain has 1730 for 62 million people. The deaths rates, at 28 per million people, are virtually identical in both countries and way below every other European country.

Britain though, has impossibly crowded narrow roads laid down hundreds of years ago, full of bends and hazards large urban conurbations with lots of people, including pedestrians, using the roads at the same time, and almost no new roads designed for safety or anything else.

Yet Britain has no more per capita road deaths than Sweden. Perhaps the Swedes have technical solutions in road planning, design and all sorts of legal restrictions on drivers to aid road safety. Perhaps the British are just more considerate and more aware, that, as their roads are much more hazardous, they have to take a lot more care when driving."

Very surprising that Britain has done that well.

<comment><USER33> I would guess, narrow roads in medieval towns would lead to slow driving speeds, and with slow speeds accidents are less fatal. Perhaps you can still kill a pedestrian when driving at 30 km/h, but a collision with another car at such speed is probably not fatal.

<comment><USER16> I suspect you are overestimating the extend of "medieval towns". Even places, like here in Edinburgh, that do have a core of medieval buildings have surrounding areas built in later centuries that generally have much wider streets out to the suburbs that were probably mostly built in the last century and have "modern" roads.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> >Building 1,500 kilometres (900 miles) of "2+1" roads—where each lane of traffic takes turns to use a middle lane for overtaking—is reckoned to have saved around 145 lives over the first decade of Vision Zero.

Basically translates to: "this substantial increase on costs (3 lanes instead of 2, +50%) is going to save the lives of 15 people per year". It is really praiseworthy for a country to just go for it and put people first. A human life is truly invaluable but very few countries actually account for them as such; on most other countries "15 dead" would simply just not be worth the investment.

<comment><USER45> Conversion to 2+1 isn't very expensive as the starting point is a 1.5+1.5 road without dividing fences, where overtaking takes place at least partly in the incoming lane. There is normally no need to widen the road to convert to 2+1. The lanes in the 2+1 is just narrower and it has less shoulder.</comment></comment>


Google's Calico Moves into Reality - <AUTHOR> http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2014/09/09/googles_calico_moves_into_reality.php

<comment><AUTHOR> In the event that the permalink page isn't loading properly (his blog has been having problems lately), it looks like you can click to the main blog page and read it: [http://pipeline.corante.com/](http://pipeline.corante.com/)</comment>


HP cuts 16,000 jobs, up to 5 percent of its workforce - <AUTHOR> http://www.engadget.com/2014/05/22/hp-cuts-16000-more-jobs/

<comment><USER2> HP still has 320K employees? Amazing</comment>


Show HN: SongQuotes.Pro – A website with no cookies, analytics or frameworks - <AUTHOR> https://songquotes.pro/ <comment><AUTHOR> This is a homegrown solution for me to save my favorite quotes from songs and share them with other music lovers. I have grown rather tired of accepting cookies thanks to GDPR and went with no cookies, no analytics, and did not use any JS frameworks. Those things are fine, but I wanted an easy visit.

I do use amazon for the images and there is monetization behind the purchase of music. I hope you enjoy it.</comment>


Android Is Doing To Smart Phones What Apple Did To PCs - <AUTHOR> http://gadgetizor.com/apple-ios-android-reach/7452/

<comment><USER2> Title should read "Android is Doing to Smart Phones What Microsoft Did to PCs".

Not news.</comment>


Tekpub Has Been Acquired - <AUTHOR> http://wekeroad.com/2013/10/30/tekpub/expanding

<comment><USER2> Definitely congratulations to Rob!

I have been a TekPub annual subscriber since 2010 and its definitely been the case that its quality over quantity.

PluralSight is also good depending on the author.

It's obvious that some of the authors are solely doing it for the money and these tend to have the lower production values.

Regardless, for what you are paying with PluralSight, there is enough quality content that something will be worthwhile.

<comment><USER3> Yes this. With Pluralsight you just tend to follow certain authors. Tekpub was never hit and miss - majority of content was of really high quality.

<comment><USER4> which authors would you recommend? I've only seen Scott Allen's asp.net mvc4 - his explanations are very clear and easy to follow but he's def not a passionate speaker.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> First, congrats Rob on the exit.

That being said, I may just have to get into the screen casting business since pluralsight's quality is terrible. They have no sense of editing or production values, and refuse to let you download the screencasts that you are paying for. Destroy all software and railscasts are on hiatus, and with peepcode acquired (by pluralsight), is there anyone left who is producing high quality content?

<comment><USER6> rubytapas ([http://www.rubytapas.com/](http://www.rubytapas.com/)) seems good

<comment><USER7> It's outstanding - wish I had Avdi's pipes!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I do hope this will raise the quality of Pluralsight content production -- Rob has, for me anyway, really set the bar for how content should be presented.

</comment><comment><USER9> Congrats to Rob. Tekpub started out skewed toward .NET related technologies but gradually went more in the open source direction, his original Node series really helped me get going with the technology and embracing Javascript more.

</comment><comment><USER10> Congrats to Rob! I'm the founder of PeepCode (also acquired by Pluralsight a few months ago). I feel like I've been traded up to an all-star team who is about to win the Super Bowl. Pluralsight is a great company and there's lots of great stuff about to be launched over the next few months.

<comment><USER7> Thanks Geoffrey! I'm hoping we can do something together soon - it's been a long time in coming :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Am I missing something?

Clearly I am - these online courses are hugely popular, it blows me away seeing how many people have paid for certain courses on Udemy. I've tried running through a few courses on Coursera and whilst they are interesting they are incredibly slow. I end up running out of patience and just searching the net and reading up on the topics in about 10% of the time.

I just can't see how watching these videos provide any more value than working though a good book that can be had for less than half the price.

Are these paid for courses significantly better than the free MOOC courses? If so, how?

<comment><USER12> I remember Rob making a comment that .Net is his most popular topic.

From a dotnet point of view, it is much easier for many programmers to watch videos instead of reading a book. For one, language is not as big a barrier because you have a visual example to go along with his narrative.

The biggest problem I personally have with dotnet is the necessity to know all the nuances of whichever stack you are developing on.

In learning MVC, Rob goes over every single issue a programmer may have in creating a web site, circumventing those moments where you get stuck trying to find out how to change how routing works. He also goes over a token based login that completely throws out the default dotnet implementation.

In addition, he goes over creating a support site, dependency injection, and lots of other things that you would have to be an active member of the MVC community to even know it existed.

He even posts his code to github. Basically, Rob acts as a mediator between the dotnet world and the open source linuxy way of doing things. Many of his comparisons are with Ruby on Rails. When I talk with people I know who code in C#, they hardly spend time reading about new trends in HTML and javascript and prefer to get the easy way by learning the dotnet way of doing things.

As a dotnet developer, you (and me too) put yourself into a position of ignorance. Then you wait for someone more senior to come out with a simple method that you could use for rapid prototyping. You rely on that senior person not because you can't code but because you really don't know the nuances of the framework you are leaning on. This refusal to learn the bare bones of HTML and adopt some micro framework creates the phenomenon where you are kind of hosed into grabbing the quickest path to productivity.

Edit: I edited quite a few things for clarity. Probably shouldn't submit so fast.

<comment><USER13> > As a dotnet developer, you (and me too) put yourself into a position of > ignorance. Then you wait for someone more senior to come out with a simple > method that you could use

> for rapid prototyping. You rely on that senior person not because you can't > code but because you really don't know the nuances of the framework you are > leaning on. This

> refusal to learn the bare bones of HTML and adopt some micro framework > creates the phenomenon where you are kind of hosed into grabbing the > quickest path to productivity.

I couldn't disagree more and I would really like it if people would stop spreading this kind of nonsense. Being a .Net developer does not make you ignorant, some people choose to be ignorant that has nothing to do with the technology stack they're using. I am a .Net deveoper and I absolutely do not put myself in a position of ignorance, I actively work to reduce my ignorance on a daily basis and so do all the other good, .Net or not, developers I know.

<comment><USER12> I'm making my statement based on my experiences in C# and web. I fight daily battles with people about this. The fear of Javascript is rampant. It doesn't matter if you can save a programmer's time and protect him from having to lay out grids from <insert 3rd party grid manufacturer>. They can't leave their Microsoft shell.

If you take MVC out of the box, add in Entity Framework, and try to create a web site, you'll run into a few issues. Entity Framework is god awfully slow and takes waaay too much to get up and running. Dapper on the other hand took 30 minutes and is blazingly fast in comparison. It took me a while to make that sale to my coworkers. I keep hearing the argument that Microsoft is hardened and that Enterprise has some kind of magic support. Some of my coworkers are quite clever and quite familiar with any given Microsoft stack. Maybe you're the kind of guy who, like me, thinks about the best (and easiest) solution for the problem and spends time learning the underlying technology. The problem I am stating is not that all Microsoft programmers are ignorant. The problem I am stating is that the Microsoft technology stack actively tries to get you to use their highly generalized objects instead of just solving the problem on your own. They want you to lock yourself into their system so you stay put. It's like a software roach motel. If you just used simple Javascript, your server stack could be fairly interchangeable, but when you go the Microsoft way, you're going to spend so much time learning their approach, you may not have the drive to liberate yourself from your shackles.

I think the best way to sum up the problems I had with MVC in a single example is the HTML helpers. Instead of using simple Jquery or javascript to talk to the server, you start with @HTML.Form and try to make all these nonsensical options do what you want it to do. If you take a basic javascript course on codeschool.com, you'll be able to write that yourself in a day. Why not just use the HTML helpers? You'll find that as your app becomes more complicated, they limit you from achieving your goal.

I just spent a good part of today fixing our internal Halloween costume contest voting website. The programmer who started it was fresh out of college so I hardly blame him. The task was assigned to someone else and he kind of froze up on me. I created some jquery ajax requests and updated some UI elements with Javascript. I used some CSS and vuala, I had the web app working displaying all contest pics. I would consider what I had to do the most very basic kind of programming. Why couldn't my developer handle it? He was trying to use MVC form helpers. Now he's walking next to me complaining that he doesn't know web well enough. It would have taken him literally one day to learn how to write $.ajax({ url: 'Home/Vote', success: function(r){ ...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Wow, did not see this one coming. Congrats to Rob.

I have mixed feelings about it though, I can see that it's a good move for Rob - he really has a knack for production and if he gets to do more of that, it's better for the subscribers, but at the same time, I kind of liked the way tekpub was essentially a one man show.

<comment><USER15> Also liked how you could get the individual classes on an ala carte basis. Unfortunately that will go away with Pluralsight.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Congrats Rob! I've had both tekpub and Pluralsight subscriptions over the years and was getting ready to sign up for one again. This makes the decision much easier. I always loved Tekpub's real-world style of teaching. Robs work over the years has really helped me grow as a developer. Joining forces will really help the development community as a whole. Great move Rob and Aaron!!

</comment><comment><USER17> What about Pluralsight subscribers? Do they get access to Tekpub?

I think Peepcode got acquired by Pluralsight and I don't think Pluralsight subscribers got access to Peepcode content.

<comment><USER9> I see all (I think) the Peepcode screencasts in Pluralsight, just search for author Geoffrey Grosenbach.

<comment><USER17> Oh, I thought they were going to keep the sites separate.

Presumably this list[0] contains all of Peepcode's content on Pluralsight?

[0] [http://pluralsight.com/training/Authors/Details/geoffrey- gro...](http://pluralsight.com/training/Authors/Details/geoffrey-grosenbach)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Congratulations to Rob! Tekpub is the reason I could learn ASP.Net MVC and is ultimately the main catalyst for my current job marketability. I wish him the very best!</comment>


Unknown band's album illegally downloaded 100,000 times. Or is it? - <AUTHOR> http://www.torrentfreak.com/cria-watches-massive-music-piracy-crisis-devastate-unknown-band-110404/

<comment><USER2> Here is a blog post from the band manager yesterday. [http://www.camerontilburypublicity.com/post/2011/04/03/Illeg...](http://www.camerontilburypublicity.com/post/2011/04/03/Illegal- Downloading-follow-up.aspx)

I think the band should be very frustrated. Their manager made a invalid claim without real evidence then decided to take swift and public action. Unfortunately, the manager does not understand the situation and refuses to talk to anyone who may understand it.

What could the band have done here? Was the lack of sales that much more important than the bands popularity?

</comment><comment><USER3> I imagine this must be quite sad for the band. If they're creating music for any other reason that just pure moneterily reasons, it must be quite weird to first believe that you have tens of thousands of fans listening to your music (albeit not paying for it) only to realize that almost nobody at all have even heard of your band.

<comment><USER4> In any case, what matters most for a band is how many attend their public performances. Both for the reasons of revenue (bands usually get reasonable cut of concerts revenue) and for the reasons of publicity.

And self-esteem ;-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The "manager" of the band is stuck in the old media model of the music industry. I would be delighted if my album was downloaded 100K times- I'm sure I would see corresponding increase in Twitter and Facebook followers, YouTube subscribers and live show attendance, merchandise sales, etc. When are the music industry people going to get that? I would think that this would be common sense?!

<comment><USER6> When you get down to it, common sense ... isn't. And because of this amazing lack of common sense, this band, or at least the name, is pretty much screwed, good music or not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This article talks about "sampling" music. Grooveshark and last.fm are for sampling, downloading is for getting everything..IE: not sampling.

I've heard the argument that most bands don't make money on the albums, only the merchandise and concerts. What's interesting is that piracy has made it this way. When piracy wasn't as mainstream, the bands did make money on albums.

Why can't people admit that they are too cheap to spend money on something they know they can get for free with little effort and little consequences? These arguments have been going on since the mid-to-late 90s and every few years, when the record companies listen to the public and comply with the pirates' demands, the excuses change (which is why you should never negotiate with criminals).

First it was because you couldn't sample music and it was too expensive. The industry listened and songs are now 99 cents (you aren't forced to buy an album) and you can also preview songs (for free) on a multitude of services.

Then it was because artists were getting screwed by record contracts. Now, any artist can sell his music online, without a contract. But the funny part about that is that piracy has destroyed the market for them. Because piracy is rampant, the value of music online has gone down considerably and people aren't as willing to pay for music.

This is the real problem with piracy. It's not about stealing that one song, it's about destroying an entire industry of digital products. The value is only what people are willing to pay and as more and more people know they can get something for free, the closer it is to $0.

But, it's the age of entitlement...

<comment><USER4> _> But the funny part about that is that piracy has destroyed the market for them (...) and people aren't as willing to pay for music. _

That line of reasoning flies in the face of facts. You assert, ``one can't compete with free'', but every day shows that's _not_ the case.

While the data itself is free, or very cheap indeed, the services (here: public performances, endorsement of commercial products etc.) are paid for. The brief period (less than a dozen decades) when the vinyl/tape/CD was the only way are over. No longer media and distribution costs dwarf the music costs.

Look at IT for a moment. For nearly every commercial IT product out there, you see free alternatives. Yet the commercial stuff turns decent profit. Some companies sell services for the free product and make a decent buck. And, perhaps surprisingly, developers of free software also manage to get jobs and gigs. Both ecosystems thrive. Musicians can -- and sometimes actually do -- follow that way too.

\--

As for the ``First it was because you couldn't sample music'' -- look, capitalism 101. Distribution and demand only set the price at the value point if there is information parity between the seller and buyer. Should there be any information disparity, the price will diverge from the value. And given the huge amount of advertising popular artists receive, there sure is a lot of information disparity.

Now you were telling us the album prices weren't inflated? And don't even get me started on product bundling -- where you'd have to buy an album with a dozen songs to get one or two decent.

<comment><USER7> "While the data itself is free, or very cheap indeed"

The data isn't what you are paying for. You are paying for the years of experience and creativity involved with creating the album. Also, this isn't really for you to decide. The market decides this. It's been forced upon the artists and the record labels by people illegally downloading and copying music, but this isn't the market.

"Look at IT for a moment. For nearly every commercial IT product out there, you see free alternatives."

We aren't talking about a band like Metallica coming out and competing with Metallica with free music. We are talking about making copies of Metallica and competing with the music that actually costs money.

"Yet the commercial stuff turns decent profit. Some companies sell services for the free product and make a decent buck."

This is one of the only ways to make money with free software, aside from donations and advertising. Good, free software has only been around for 10 years. Eventually, it will drive the cost of commercial software down to nothing. This is why I stopped selling applications and moved everything to services.

"And, perhaps surprisingly, developers of free software also manage to get jobs and gigs. Both ecosystems thrive. Musicians can -- and sometimes actually do -- follow that way too."

I'm glad you mentioned developers, because there is another consequence of having so much free software. Because there is so much free software out there, most businesses don't really need engineers anymore. The difficult parts of the software are already out there, for free. They just need to hire someone to make custom changes to it, which can usually be done with a much less-experienced developer at a much cheaper rate.

Most business owners aren't tech-savvy enough to realize this right now, but as the younger generation starts to own more businesses, it's only going to get worse for developers. I've already started seeing this.

The hypocritical part about all of this is that if mass amounts of companies started ignoring the GNU license and putting code in their proprietary apps, many of the same pro-piracy people would be talking about "theft" and "stealing code". I've seen this with pretty much every discussion about a company violating the GNU on HN.

"Now you were telling us the album prices weren't inflated? And don't even get me started on product bundling -- where you'd have to buy an album with a dozen songs to get one or two decent."

No, I'm saying people used that as a reason why they were pirating and now that you can get albums at a very cheap price, piracy hasn't stopped or slowed, it's only gotten worse.

"where you'd have to buy an album with a dozen songs to get one or two decent."

Somehow instead of not buying albums, people continued to buy them at this price..as if it was a matter of life and death.</comment></comment></comment>


Grade Inflation at American Colleges and Universities - <AUTHOR> http://www.gradeinflation.com

<comment><USER2> I went to Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire. It's a liberal arts college with about 2,000 students. They explain to all the incoming freshmen (and their parents!) that they don't do grade inflation. An average student is a "C" student. The bookstore sells t-shirts with "C+ Better than Average!"

<comment><USER3> This is the way it should be everywhere. Grade inflation is nothing more than a way to beef up a resume. GPA is a number like a credit score which I feel has quite a bit of bias behind it and does not tell one much about a person's character or student abilities.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I believe the cause of this may be the use of student evaluations. Students don't like hard professors, and give them bad evaluations. To some extent, professor's continued employment is dependent on having good evaluations. Hence, grade inflation.

In my personal experience, you can lose 20-30% of your evaluation based on hard grading. My reason for believing this? When I was a TA (i.e., "I don't write the tests, but I'll help you pass them"), I got typical evals of about 4.5. When I became a postdoc and started writing my own tests, my evals dropped to about 3. I don't think I became a worse teacher over the course of a single year, so I'm guessing my low evals resulted from not giving out easy tests.

(Not to mention several comments on the evals claimed that tests were too hard. I.e., "bad professor, highest grade on midterm was 75 out of 110!")

This is an agency problem which is fairly easy to solve: standardize exams and evaluate professor quality based on VAM instead of student opinion.

<comment><USER5> _I believe the cause of this may be the use of student evaluations_

I would posit that evaluations aren't the problem, per se. The real problem is one of incentives: professors are hired and fired (otherwise called "denied tenure") based almost entirely on publication at most big public universities. Teaching plays a nominal role in hiring and promotion decisions. This gives professors an enormous incentive to optimize what they're going to be judged on -- research.

Evals are a problem because they only look at what students think of the prof. A more useful measure than just what students think would be a graph of what students think versus the class's average/median grade, plotted against others teaching similar courses. Then you could correct for "easy graders" and "hard graders."

 _standardize exams and evaluate professor quality based on VAM instead of student opinion._

A lot of disciplines don't have standardized content, especially in the humanities and social sciences. A lot of profs emphasize different topics and ways of doing things, even in science and math. This might create problems worse than the problem it's trying to solve without solving the incentive issue.

Those of you waiting for a proposed solution from me are going to be disappointed: the only solution I can see is "incorporate teaching into hiring and tenure decisions," but I don't see a way to get universities to do that.

The New York Times Magazine wrote a very good article about prof evals: [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/magazine/21wwln- evaluation...](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/magazine/21wwln- evaluations-t.html) .

I'm a grad student, and I'd like to say that I grade as fairly as I would if I didn't know that evals correlate to grades. But...

<comment><USER4> I agree with you that teaching matters little at Research I universities, at least for full profs. It does, however, matter to the army of adjuncts working there, as well as to profs anyplace besides Research I schools.

At Research I schools, the incentives for inflation are mainly about avoiding non-research work. An actual conversation I was involved in:

Student: "But how can you fail me? I'm graduating, and I won't get my _math minor_!"

Me: "A math minor is a signal to future employers that you can multiply two matrices by hand when asked, and perhaps even write a proof. You haven't demonstrated any ability to do those things."

Student's father: "How can you fail my daughter? She worked so hard for this!"

The dean's office: "Some student's father is complaining about you! Give her a retest!"

Student's father, about a month after she failed the retest: "When are you going to give my daughter a retest and a passing grade?"

<comment><USER6> Not all Research I universities: at MIT, a _lot_ of full professors take teaching very seriously (in my admittedly limited experience, the ones not interested in undergraduates were the exception rather than the rule, although of course not all were able to turn that into _great_ teaching). And there are no adjuncts to speak of, all are tenure track or tenured and all classes are taught by them (I know of one grad student exception in the '80s who proved the rule).

However your point about research is spot on WRT the incentives: at MIT the undergraduates are potentially in the graduate student ecological niche and there's a formal Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program (UROP) that allows professors to hire them for credit or a "UROP Minimum Wage" ... that doesn't have overhead levied upon it (that's used mostly for January and summer).

Also, a professor who's truly bad or impossible at teaching will not get tenure. And I've watched or rather overhead (sort of an open office setup) a department head force a tenured professor you've probably heard of read every evaluation form submitted for a particular required foundational class, all but one of which (which was a special case) were highly negative, and then tell the professor he'd never be allowed to teach that particular course again.

As for the general topic, MIT's big grade inflation period seems to track pretty well with the Vietnam War and the draft: <http://www.gradeinflation.com/MIT.html>.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Although there is clearly a grade inflation, the correlation between student selectivity and average GPA should also be noted:

"As a rough rule of thumb, the average GPA of a school today can be estimated by the rejection percentage of its applicant pool:

GPA = 2.8 + Rejection Percentage /200 + (if the school is private add 0.2)

Non-selective public schools (typically with 15 percent rejection rates or less) with GPAs in the 2.8 range or less tend to have only modest grade inflation. Some have none."

</comment><comment><USER7> Grade inflation is problematic, but is GPA of any use outside of academia (except for entry-level jobs perhaps)?

Perhaps the inflation is a sign that the currency is worthless.

</comment><comment><USER8> I guess, the main issue is that if half the colleges increase grades, the other half looks bad. Maybe a new measure should exist, like your GPA relative to the school average.

<comment><USER9> For some schools, average GPA can vary widely with major as well.

<comment><USER8> Yep, maybe it should just be within your major, last 5 years or something similar.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I went to one of the public schools where this data was gathered from. My experience with grade inflation is that it's mostly about money. If a class is deemed hard, students don't want to take it. If students don't take the class, the department can't make any money, and therefore can't pay the bills.

That, and a lot of professors just don't care anymore. They don't want to be bothered with teaching, so they just pass everyone without a second thought.

</comment><comment><USER11> The gap between grade inflation at colleges and universities could represent a gap in the energy, motivation and determination of students to complain about their grades.

There's asymmetry between the (nearly limitless) time and energy students have for complaining about their grades versus the (extremely scarce) amount of time professors have for addressing it. This is anecdotal, but I should note that the trendline is inversely proportional to the demands on professors' time over the past few decades.

In the MIT chem department one professor's tactic was to have the student evaluations right before dropping the hammer with a tough final exam.

</comment><comment><USER12> Carnegie Mellon's Average GPA is still a 2.8. Hasn't changed in a long time.

One thing I have noticed and could be interesting though - is it possible that students are getting better at the material over time?

I'm a TA so I have access to exams from past years. It is most definitely the case the exams just keep getting harder. Exams from 5 years ago are complete jokes in comparison to exams these days, but students seem to be keeping up. It may be that they are just exposed to the material before college now. Any comments?

</comment><comment><USER13> I also notice that masters and phds were much harder to find when I graduated from college, about 20 years ago.

I wonder if those became easier to earn or if this is the result of a graduation arms race.

<comment><USER14> In the UK we are getting more PhD candidates than there were 10-20 years ago because the stipend that a student is paid is actually a living wage. It used to be that the PhD stipend covered the university fee only, and that to continue as a PhD student you needed some other income.

It's now seen as a reasonable career move - boost your skills, do something interesting, travel the world and get paid at a rate that most undergraduate students consider luxurious.

<comment><USER13> Makes sense. 10 years ago I hired a PhD. I was ashamed to make the offer because of the limitations of my budget at the time. Yet, it was still three times more than she was able to get in academia.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> There is an interesting chapter in _Excellence Without a Soul_ by Harry Lewis, suggesting that garde inflation is less a problem that widely believed. You could look it up.

</comment><comment><USER16> Anybody know of any studies correlating GPA with job performance or whatever GPA is supposed to be useful for?

<comment><USER17> [http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/13412205.h...](http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/13412205.html)

"On the other hand, Dye and Reck's meta-analysis (1988) revealed that limited variations of undergraduate GPA (e.g., GPA for the last two years, or for courses in the major field) can be more valid predictors of performance than overall GPA. In addition, Colarelli, Dean, and Konstans (1987); Wise (1975); Harrell and Harrell (1974); and Weisbrod and Karpoff (1968) all found positive relationships between grades and performance. "

<comment><USER16> Eh, do quote fairly though:

"Although GPA has been widely analyzed, the research has produced inconsistent results. Some meta-analyses suggest that grades have relatively low validity as a predictor of job success (Bretz, 1989; Hunter and Hunter, 1984). Individual studies by Ferris (1982) and Schick and Kunnecke (1982) support the meta-analysis findings; these studies found no relationship between grades and performance evaluations."

In other words the state of research on this question, back in the early 90s when this article was written, was "inconsistent".

<comment><USER17> I considered included that paragraph but decided against it since your question was simply "Anybody know of any studies correlating GPA with job performance." This article quotes five studies that show a positive relationship.

My point wasn't so much that the article supports the relationship, just that there are studies that do. Maybe I should have linked to the studies instead.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I wonder how much these changes correlate to funding.

</comment><comment><USER19> ok i'll bite ... the y axis starts at 2.6, not 0, which visually exaggerates the differences. regardless of the merits of this analysis, this graph is disingenuous

<comment><USER8> not all graph should start at 0. In this case that might be a good idea but if your data is all above 5000 and moves a couple points, you probably don't want to show 0 because it will be hard to see what is happening. A one point change might be very significant.</comment></comment>


Monitoring the progress of fermentation of beer in a simple fashion - <AUTHOR> https://www.anfractuosity.com/projects/zymeter-simple/

<comment><USER2> I wish there were a good solution to monitoring the gravity. But the more I've thought about it, I've put off trying for a solution. Most of my beer is done in 2 weeks, and I often age it for longer. It's not the kind of thing were real time information (about gravity) is super useful (IMO), because after a certain amount of time the fermentation stops anyway. I'd love it for data purposes though. I track temperature during fermentation, that's important to me.

</comment><comment><USER3> That's pretty cool, although part of me is horrified at the thought of something else that touches the beer that I am probably not going to sanitize properly one day.</comment>


Everytime Employee 2 walks by a cubicle, one of the screens blacks out - <AUTHOR> https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/aiqzhr/user_submits_what_i_thought_was_the_dumbest/ <comment><USER2> I am prone to static shocks and one day I discovered I could temporarily bypass the card key lock at our office by shocking the handle. No one believed me until one day we gathered everyone at the office around and I did it while being filmed. Our head of security was furious, everyone else thought it was hilarious.

<comment><USER3> Static shocks can do damage.

Some weeks ago I was sitting at an office where everything was static (I think they did not ground the power outlets in the desks properly).

Every time I sat down I got a big hit. But one time my laptop crashed and shut down.

So back to the story: it might as well has to do with the shoes employee 2 is wearing and the way he/she walks.

Edit: from the poster on Reddit: "She wears a wool cover to stay warm."

<comment><USER4> I have a power cord that has everything but the ground wire cut and the single ground part of the plug plugged into the wall. Near my keyboard, I have the other end of the ground wire exposed. Before I touch my keyboard, I touch it. In the winter, 9/10 times I discharge a little shock. I've ruined keyboards and computers with my shocks, and since I installed this setup, zero problems.

I set up a coworker with this, after he killed his laptop by shocking it.

<comment><USER5> In my old office, one of the girls got a humidifier to combat the dry air during wintertime. It also seemed to help with the amount of static buildup maybe by making it easier to dissipate. Not a fix by any measure, but it did seem to help a bit. Anyone else tried this?

<comment><USER6> Yes, a cold water with vibration humidifier. Everything is now covered by a thin layer of white dust from the water. We have medium soft water. A little less chocks I guess but we can't have this white dust everywhere so can't say for sure.

<comment><USER7> Like an oil diffuser? I think I've read to use distilled water to avoid that problem

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I expected to read a solution, not just the symptoms- but other than the theory that the monitor is connected to a power cable that runs under the floor, and the employee who triggers the screen to shut off is heavier than the others and stepping on the cable, there isn't anything relevant posted there. I'm currently searching for a solution to a clients' random monitor shutoff issue so I was hoping for some insight!

It did, however, give me a greater appreciation for the quality of comments on HN compared to Reddit.

<comment><USER9> There are a ton of people suggesting it's related to ESD (electrostatic discharge), which is IMO the most likely culprit. The effects of ESD are pretty wild and generally invisible to the naked eye. We have yearly ESD safety meetings at my job and are required to wear ESD-safe shoes/jackets and use anti-static wrist straps when working with any hardware (which I rarely do, but I still love the "perk" of getting free ESD Birkenstocks every couple years).

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> My theory: Employee wears a large wool cover and sits on a synthetic materiel office chair(PVC?). As employee stands up, they pick up a fairly heavy static charge. As employee walks by, the motion of the static charge creates a moving magnetic field which then induces an electric charge in the monitor's electronics, causing the blackout.

Possible solution: replace wool wrap on employee 2 with aluminum foil.

Source on possible material combinations: [https://www.school-for- champions.com/science/static_material...](https://www.school-for- champions.com/science/static_materials.htm#.XEh0_lxKiCg)

</comment><comment><USER11> The writer mentions that it occasionally happens to other employees as well and that it happens not every time but "more than 50% of the time" for employee 2. This makes me suspect that it could just be variance that makes it seem as if the phenomenon happens "everytime" for employee 2.

It takes quite a lot of trials to reach 2 SD significance, you'd have to let employee 2 walk past the cubicle at least a hundred times to be sure that there is really anything going on.

<comment><USER12> Perhaps static. Employee 2 maybe has clothes which cause more static than for other employees. In the Reddit thread a "wool cover" has been mentioned.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> It could coincide with one of Employee 2's habits or routines before they leave their desk. For example, I used to have a cheap fan on my desk and whenever I changed the speed or turned it off, it caused all of the Dell monitors nearby to go blank for a few seconds before turning back on and readjusting to the resolution of my laptop. I usually turned my fan off whenever I expected to be away from my desk for more than a few minutes.

<comment><USER14> It could be software too: Employee 2 launches a build before going on a break, or a GPU-intensive screensaver that starts up. That would explain the ~50% occurrence.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I posted this to reddit but I'm more likely to get a reasonable discussion on here.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-V_Z3bD_PA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-V_Z3bD_PA)

Dave covers "static" turning off a monitor in this video. Could it be this?

<comment><USER16> yep, and it all goes back to this [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUG_sjS67K4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUG_sjS67K4)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Street Light Interference (SLIders) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_light_interference_phen...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_light_interference_phenomenon)

</comment><comment><USER18> We had a chair that would crash the system - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87jnCABBaeY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87jnCABBaeY)

</comment><comment><USER19> One interesting bit is that it could be linked to a medical condition of Employee 2 (peacemaker for instance). And an employer can't ask about an employee medical records.

</comment><comment><USER20> replace the defective employee

</comment><comment><USER21> Floating floors and Employee 2 is heavier than others. Cord is pinching under a panel and unplugging/resetting itself.

That's my guess anyway.

</comment><comment><USER22> I think it's just a prank and the employer 2 had bugged the victim's system somehow and triggers it remotely</comment>


India looking for retraction Harvard professor calling coconut oil 'pure poison' - <AUTHOR> http://thestar.com/news/world/2018/09/05/india-looking-for-statement-retraction-after-harvard-professor-calls-coconut-oil-pure-poison.html <comment><USER2> I use coconut oil supplements as one of several components to neutralize H. Pylori bacteria in my gut, as it contains monolaurin. The saturated fat isn't a concern for me, as it is about the only fat I get. I also use mastic gum, ulcetrol, zinc, aged garlic extract and green leafy vegetables.</comment>


Where do Startups start up? - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2014/12/05/zillabyte-startup-fundings/

<comment><USER2> Have you thought of doing a map of the whole nation and seeing what other cities are showing tech growth? Might see some interesting cities pop up that way.</comment>


The Danger of Cosmic Genius - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/12/the-danger-of-cosmic-genius/8306/

<comment><USER3> If he's so wrong and 'dumb' why not commit the article to just refuting him as opposed to analyzing why he's so 'dumb'.

<comment><USER4> Even for a journalist, Brower is incredibly ignorant. I read his book, _The Starship and the Canoe_ back when it came out, when I was in my 20s - <USER2> learned absolutely nothing about Freeman Dyson's work that I didn't already know from other casual reading. Though it did have some interesting, if really shallow, information on George Dyson's treehouse and canoes.

If you want to learn what Freeman Dyson thinks, I suggest reading what he has written. Among other things, he is a better writer than Brower, too.

<http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html></comment></comment>


Why I dropped eBooks - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/p/463a3b650e19

<comment><USER2> Conversely: with an ebook reader, you can bring your entire collection with you wherever you go, and you can add to it from the device without having to wait 2 days, pay shipping, figure out where you're going to put the book, settle on an organization system so you don't lose it...

There are some good points here, such as the fact that in most (all?) major ebook ecosystems the distributor can take away your ability to read a book, but some of his points (like "Attention Profit vs. Attention Deficit") are because he was reading from iBooks on an iPad.

<comment><USER3> "ome of his points (like "Attention Profit vs. Attention Deficit") are because he was reading from iBooks on an iPad."

Agreed. I almost never read ebooks on my iPad or even my Kindle Fire. Occasionally I'll use those to read a book that has color imagery, but never for novels. The eInk Kindle is lighter (besides the obvious advantage in terms of portability, the iPad _hurts_ when you go to sleep while reading and it hits you in the face) and has longer battery life, too.

It's simply not true that paper books are "bug-free". The cheap-jack binding used on most paper books nowadays is good for maybe two or readings, if that.

I don't read for a "tactile experience". I want the delivery device to disappear completely if possible so I can concentrate on the content. The eInk Kindle is also superior there. It's lighter than just about any paper book.</comment></comment>


CapsLockScript: like JavaScript, just louder - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/rvagg/CAPSLOCKSCRIPT

<comment><USER2> Why was the title changed to say "CapsLockScript"? I can't see it ever referred to as that in the actual documentation.

<comment><AUTHOR> MODERATOR CASISM, IT _WAS_ CAPSLOCKSCRIPT

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> now someone just needs to make wussscript, for us less brave and bold individuals.</comment>


The Long tail and Mobile Web 2.0 applications - <AUTHOR> http://opengardensblog.futuretext.com/archives/2007/02/the_long_tail_a.html <comment><AUTHOR> I should add that this post is a bit hard to follow, but I think it makes some excellent points. Ajit's earlier post on Mobile AJAX adds some context: http://opengardensblog.futuretext.com/archives/2006/03/mobile_web_20_a_2.html</comment>


Comma.ai OpenPilot 0.5 Hands-On - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-52xEXhjXmY <comment><USER2> Lol, anyone buying and doing this is literally beta testing the driving software for this company.</comment>


Demystifying Regular Expressions with JavaScript - <AUTHOR> https://livecodestream.dev/post/2020-07-02-demystifying-regular-expressions-with-javascript/ <comment><USER2> pretty good article, I've to finish reading later though</comment>


Viacom quits Time-Warner's iPad app - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-31/time-warner-cable-drops-networks-including-fox-from-ipad-app-amid-dispute.html

<comment><USER2> By the way I've been using this app and it's amazing — although ironically the channel that I wish it had is Bloomberg TV...</comment>


Ash HN: How can engineers brand themselves without creating content? - <AUTHOR> Writing is very useful but I find myself hating the writing process. Are there any alternatives? <comment><USER2> Two other approaches come to mind:

\- Give interesting talks (e.g. James Mickens, Paul Irish, Bryan Cantrill)

\- Create interesting projects (e.g. Linus Torvalds, Guido van Rossum, Monty Widenius)

I'm not sure that any of the people in my examples sought out to brand themselves though.</comment>


Verizon Finalizes $4.8B Yahoo Deal - <AUTHOR> http://www.wsj.com/articles/verizon-finalizes-4-8-billion-yahoo-deal-1469380974 <comment><USER2> This isn't the same article as the Bloomberg.</comment>


Printable batteries - <AUTHOR> http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/07/02/printable.batteries <comment><USER2> Seems like a nice development. I'm a bit confused by the specific example they give, in the sense that there are better ways to handle that particular problem.

</comment><comment><USER3> Interesting, but I shudder at the thought of yet _more_ designed-to-be- disposable stuff...

I am still waiting for body-generated electricity a la Neal Stephenson (I think - Diamond Age) - Tiny wires getting electricity from the human body via skin penetration to a human electrical source. Just stop before we get to The Matrix. :)

</comment><comment><USER4> There are already companies that do something like this eg. <http://www.enfucell.com/></comment>


Kuala Lumpur Mandates WiFi for All Restaurants - <AUTHOR> http://www.voanews.com/english/news/asia/Kuala-Lumpur-Mandates-WiFi-for-All-Restaurants-137450088.html

<comment><USER2> Any guesses that the city officials who passed this have an ownership stake in (or kickbacks from) the few area telecom operators who can provide internet service?

</comment><comment><USER3> I see they're upping the ante in the War Against the Poor [1].

By ensuring that all restaurants have higher operating expenses, they can see to it that prices stay high. And if _every_ restaurant has to do it, then there's nowhere left for a poor person who doesn't even own a wifi device to go.

Bravo! Now we just need to wait until the poor starve.

</sarcasm>

OK, I'm being hyperbolic, but the point remains that they're ensuring that prices will be higher than they otherwise would, and are taking away the consumer's ability to choose what attributes they want to pay money for.

[1] as opposed to the War on Poverty

<comment><USER4> Maybe this will allow people to pay for a coffee and access the internet everyday which they could not otherwise afford and translate into grassroots innovation?

<comment><USER3> _this will allow_

But people are already allowed to do so: there already exist Starbucks and other restaurants that offer the service. What is changing is that people will be _forbidden_ from choosing a restaurant that doesn't provide the free service.

 _they could not otherwise afford_

TANSTAAFL - This regulation doesn't mean it's _free_ \- you can be assured that customers will be paying for it. All it means is that the cost will be amortized across the prices of the restaurant's food. The result is that a person who doesn't want wifi still has to pay for it. And thus, at the margin, someone who could barely afford a meal will not be able to afford [meal+wifi].

<comment><USER5> Is it really the case that the poor are eating out at restaurants and will "starve" if restaurant prices increase? I do not think it is. In fact, I might suggest that this measure would save money for the poor: if restaurant prices rise, perhaps they'll take the hint that cooking at home is cheaper and then save more money? I'm aware my scenario is purely conjecture, but I think yours is equally fake. There's no way that _restaurant_ prices will reduce the poor's ability to eat food.

<comment><USER3> Yes, as I acknowledged in my first post, I'm being hyperbolic. But it's absolutely true that the regulation will force potential diners to spend money whether they want to or not.

Thus, to your point, it's likely that the total amount of restaurant dining in Kuala Lumpur will decrease. Some people will choose not to pay the higher price, and stay home.

<comment><USER6> If you're playing armchair economist you can do better. First, you need to account for the relative price elasticities of supply and demand to determine who the burden will fall upon. Presumably some business-owners will also see their costs rise. There may also be additional regulatory compliance costs in excess of the cost of the wifi connection cost itself. It also may mean that would-be restaurant owners cannot run services anywhere that it's impractical to run wifi. All this may discourage new business. And maybe it's not a big deal for this one regulation, but how many other similar small regulations will a business face when it's starting up? Dozens? Hundreds?

<comment><USER3> _If you're playing armchair economist you can do better. First, you need to account for the relative price elasticities of supply and demand to determine who the burden will fall upon._

As the saying goes, being a good economist entails understanding what is not seen. I think you hit a bunch of those in this post, and I think you're correct across the board.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Well this is interesting but unfortunately i see the information gap broadening here. In my country (India) most of the restaurant owners don't even know what WiFi or smartphone is let alone maintaining their online presence.</comment>


ASK Hn: Funding a "small" startup in London - <AUTHOR>

Hi everyone<p>I have just arrived in London and have created a web startup - I have a couple of products that I think can generate income, but am focusing on the strongest one first ... I am looking for funding to quit the 9-5 job and concentrate on the main product.
The funding I am looking for is about 20,000 pounds ... can anyone point me in the right direction? I am unsure if I should look for an investor to gain contacts etc, or if I should approach the banks for a loan? Any comments and advice appreciated! <comment><USER3> Firstly, this is not financial advice, I'm not a vc (I am a business coach, fwiw) etc. See these as generalisations, not guaranteed cases for any individual situation (such as your startup).

As a general guide, Banks won't lend money against a start-up business. The business is not a secured asset at this point. For £20K, you may be able to get a loan against other assets you have (such as a house, though if you've just arrived you probably forgot to pack one of those) or even an unsecured personal loan (more difficult, particularly up to £20K, and I've just experienced my own no-credit-history fun having moved to London so I know there aren't many organisations or banks with lazy cash to splash around).

Start-up seed funding is often called the 'Friends, Family, and Fools' round. Since £20K is a small amount (compared, of course, to bigger amounts), it may be possible to borrow it from friends and family who know and trust you, or 'fools' who don't know you but decide to trust you anyway. This is, generally, your best bet for amounts of this size. You mention looking to gain contacts - is it possible to leverage the contacts you already have?

Finally, in regards to taking investment from someone who is an investor. They will probably want to see a business plan - more specifically, what are you going to do with £20K? I'd say your lifestyle will be different to mine (I have, for instance, an international mortgage and a beautiful wife to part- fund) - it costs us just under £5K/month to live reasonably well in London, and a single in a shared flat could probably get by for £2K - do you want £20K so you can live for ten months, or is some of that specifically earmarked for marketing, training, software programmes etc? It may be easier to find an investor for slightly more money, if you have some specific investments planned, than for a smaller amount designed solely to rescue you from 9-5.

Once again, these are all generalisations. You already have the web startup created and a couple of products - that may be all you need, with the right introduction, to progress. Oh - I'm always happy to make time for coffee to discuss - see my profile for contact details.

<comment><USER4> Just to note, I live in central London (as in Zone 1), on around £1500 a month quite comfortably. £2k a month is excessive

<comment><USER5> That's cause your in zone 1 as you've said. You don't have to pay for an expensive travelcard :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Do you _really_ need to live in London? If we're talking the classic example here of ramen profitability, you can do that for about half as much cash by moving out along the train lines and commuting in when you need to. I'm about an hour from the city by a relatively reliable rail service, and weekly season tickets really aren't that expensive.

</comment><comment><USER7> Any reason not to keep going as you are? Or, perhaps you could request to reduce your work time to 50%? This can be tough to do, but many places would rather negotiate than see you just walk out.

Funding yourself (with job, contracts, etc.) is rarely discussed here, but it's a much more reliable way to get money than seeking investment. It's tough to find the time balance, but there's something to be said for having a basically endless runway.

<comment><USER8> >but there's something to be said for having a basically endless runway.

That you never have any motivation to take off?

<comment><USER7> Sure, feel free to jump ship and go for it. Just make sure you've got more than 3 months saved up. Real businesses take time to build.

<comment><USER8> >Real businesses take time to build.

Word. But, time/money constraints can be a great motivator.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Your best bet might be to apply to seed accelerators for that amount of money. £20,000 seems an odd amount of money to want to raise, accountancy and legal fees will probably eat up a decent chunk of that, if you're going after angels it might be easier to raise a large amount. What's your plan for spending that money?

How far developed are you products and what markets are you working in? - <USER2> you're in the b2b space another option might be to approach potential customers and see if they're willing to finance you (or even if they can provide an letter of intent saying they intend to buy your product; you may be able to use that to get a bank loan).

Another option could be to become a contractor for a while, 20k isn't a huge amount of money, you could easily earn that much money in 3-6 months (if you take payment through your company and re-invest it in your startup products it also means you won't have to pay any tax on it).

</comment><comment><USER10> You could probably try getting started by reaching out to some EU-focused angel investors - there's quite a few in london.

I keep a list on Twitter with a few who are active: <http://twitter.com/#!/list/f/eu-angels> There's also AngelList for Europe here: <http://angel.co/europe>

There are also other options. Since you're aiming for 20k, which is not a high amount, you may want to try the 3 f's first - Friends, Family, Fools. A personal loan might work too. It boils down to how much risk you're willing to take. (I'd go with angels first, because investing is what _they do_ and they can help you more than just providing you with cash.)

<comment><USER11> And definitely apply to Seedcamp, €50k funding is available, and it's by all accounts an excellent programme.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> why not get a 3-6 month contract, live normally, then use the surplus as runway funding? contracting rates in london are normally pretty good.

that way, you don't risk financial ruin, and you can bootstrap yourself.

(i did this succesfully over a period of 2-3 years, while not London I am UK. pm me if you like!)

<comment><USER13> HN doesn't have private message functionality and you don't seem to have any contact details in your profile.

Is there any other way of contacting you? =)

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi all

I use this address for gtalk IM only (don't mail it) .. so I dont mind if I get spam from sharing it here! Feel free to add me anybody, but remember I work a 9-5 and cant chat heaps during the day

email@example.com

Cheers Alain

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> You could apply to <http://springboard.com/>. It's a startup accelerator in Cambridge, which is a little cheaper than London and only an hour away by train if you ever do need to be there. Application deadline is _this_ Sunday I believe, so ideal timing ;-)

</comment><comment><USER15> I'd love to chat. I may not be your 'fool' (see other comments) but I may know some. I'm based in central London. I have some contacts.

One day I'd like to be making investments like this (he says, not really knowing what you're planning to do).

Can you share more info privately?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes absolutely, I'm just at work at the moment, but will send you my contact details (email + instant messenger etc) tonight, cheers :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Why don't you make some thing you can make money from, then invest your own money in the start up idea?

Either that or do I did and keep a full time job and work evenings and weekends until your startup matches your salary.

</comment><comment><USER17> I am a potential fool but would like to find out (a lot) more. I work centrally and live slightly north. Drop me a message and we'll chat.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi there

Cool let's chat :) email me on firstname.lastname@example.com and I'll send you much more info

Alain</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What is the best way to monetize animated video series? - <AUTHOR> Hi! I am working on animated video series - weekly short (2-5 min) videos. I will read and animate the short stories I'm writing.
I am not going to use ads on my videos - just ideologically I think ads are dumb and horrible way to monetize content, that is why I'm looking for alternatives.
So I'm wondering - what is the best, most intelligent way to monetize such content?
Can you share some ideas? <comment><USER2> Put a collection of all your work (and maybe other stuff too) into a gift basket. Send the baskets to Amazon and set up a seller account with them. They'll fulfill the orders. On your video page, advertise your Amazon product page with a referral link. In addition to profits from sales of your own product, you'll earn commission if people buy anything else during that session.

<comment><AUTHOR> Merch and physical products do make sense, but I'm going to focus on creating and distributing info products via the internet.

Thanks for the idea though, it's a great suggestion!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I have no ideas about monetization. I'd be interested in seeing the finished content. I know a five year old child and I'm always looking for better quality stuff. I'd be happy to pay for it.

Thank you for being cautious with ads. It's infuriating when Youtube places alcohol ads in front of content aimed at children. (Ads for alcohol and gambling are in general infuriating, and I'm mostly ad tolerant),

Do you have a sign up list yet? (Please do feel free to email me. My email address is in my profile.)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for expressing interest in my videos! Unfortunately, my stuff will not going to be suitable for little kids.

My videos are aimed at adults/teenagers. I'm trying to create scifi comedy similar to Rick and Morty. Nothing inappropriate, but not for children.

<comment><USER3> Ah, cool.

Good luck!</comment></comment></comment>


Your idea sucks - <AUTHOR> http://charlesleifer.com/blog/your-idea-sucks/ <comment><USER2> This is all eerily familiar. I never experienced a conflict like that, but i have experienced the pressure of other people's wants on what was own project made for my own fun.

> This experience also highlights that ownership can be problematic in open- > source. When a project is open-sourced, can it no longer be said that it > still belongs to its creator?

Once it's open, it's no longer yours. If you want to keep it your own, never open it.

Opening projects you care about only leads to pain and suffering for you.</comment>