Google says its sex misconduct policy change doesn't apply to claims in progress - <AUTHOR> https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/daveyalba/google-lawyer-says-sexual-misconduct-policy-change-does-not <comment><USER2> If Google is somehow reluctant to allow current claims to relitigate their claims, does that mean that their plan going forward is to somehow restrict the top of the funnel for claims, so that the ones that do get litigated aren't as explosive or damaging as the current claims in progress?

It seems weird to me that they wouldn't retroactively apply the policy unless there's something to hide within whatever currently claims they have. You would think that the exposure would be similar, unless they strategically plan on doing something different with the future claims, like either restricting or dealing with them much faster so that they don't reach this stage, etc.

<comment><USER3> It's very rare for new rules to apply retroactively — why is this surprising?

Google isn't a legislator but its policies do affect many people. For example, in the context of laws, see: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law)

"In the United States, Congress is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution. The states are prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 1 of Article I, Section 10. [...] Thomas Jefferson described them as "equally unjust in civil as in criminal cases"."

(To be fair, the article cites exceptions)

<comment><USER4> >It's very rare for new rules to apply retroactively — why is this surprising?

Surely you would only be applying rules retroactively if you were engaged in reopening finished arbitration?

Cancelling a current process that is still in open session, on the basis that you have already publicly agreed that employees being forced into that process is unfair, is not being retrospective.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I suspect it boils down to one of the following?

1) Lawyers advised them to do this, and they did (Very likely)

2) Lawyers advised them otherwise, but they did this instead (Unlikely)

3) Lawyers not involved in this decision at all (Highly unlikely)

So essentially, Google follows the advice of their lawyers?

<comment><USER6> Doesn't matter, listening to their lawyers doesn't make it right. Lawyers exist to protect their clients from legal exposure, not to provide a moral compass.

If Google's goal is truly to create a safer work environment for everyone, then this is a no-brainer. They had zero problems giving a known-harasser millions to walk away quietly but now they're fighting to avoid responsibility for cases already in the system. Reeks of hypocrisy.

<comment><USER5> My assumption was that lawyers would have factored in the public relations aspect of the decision too, and are confident they can win both in the proceedings as well as in the court of public opinion.

<comment><USER7> That doesnt match the training, approach, nor skillset of the lawyers I know. They advise on legal matters, the client decides based on the sum total. Lawyers would explicitly avoid confusing legal opinions and business ones.

Then again, my lawyer friends aren't google lawyers.

<comment><USER8> The only actual business decisions I've seen corporate lawyers make are "no, that project is too legally risky to do". And even then the decision technically belongs to someone else, it's just that no one involved was both willing and able to contradict them. Anything beyond that pretty much reduces to "here are the legal options available, and their likely legal consequences."

Which is how things should stand - obviously morally, but even from a "ruthlessly maximize shareholder value" perspective. It's at least possible that reputational damage cashes out as a bigger financial risk (e.g. via lost staff, failed recruitment, or new regulations) than increased damages from lawsuits. Corporate counsel is almost certainly not the most qualified to calculate the size and likelihood of those risks. (And morally, of course, it would amount to Pichai et al abdicating responsibility for Google's decisions.)

I suspect counsel does have an outsize effect on these decisions, but not because they have final authority. Rather, the risks they present are generally large, immediate, and quantifiable. People tend to prioritize even unlikely risks of that sort against the slow, ambiguous decay of destroying a reputation or failing to follow a changing industry.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> We continue to allow corporations to become governments in and of themselves, and to take actions that protect themselves, or push a set of goals that are synonymous with the CEOs intentions, at the cost of individual liberties. They've stretched this so that things that are clearly legal outside of work hours, and in the privacy of ones own home is cause for termination, while things that are clearly illegal in any context cannot be remedied under due process.

Western civilization literally fought wars to get a set of balances in place around free speech, religion, anti-discrimination, and freedom to pursue "happiness".

We should be very very cautious about letting companies this amount of power, especially Google and Facebook, which have shown no issues terminating people's employment, and taking corporate actions that threaten democracy for their leaderships person benefits.

</comment><comment><USER10> Former lawyer here. My understanding is that the new rules do away with mandatory confidentiality agreements.

So it's possible that Google made statements in pending cases that they would not have made had they known that it could become public.

As a result, they wouldn't want to grandfather in these cases, and reasonably so (IMO).

</comment><comment><USER11> So... are people more angry at hearing this than if Google had never announced an end to forced arbitration in the first place?

<comment><USER12> There is a difference between the two.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Well, of course. It's only fair. You can't change a rule then go back and hold prior behaviors accountable according to the new rule. It's just common decency.

<comment><USER14> I suspect your view on this matter will be ill taken.

But beyond that. It probably is not legally possible.

<comment><USER15> _It probably is not legally possible._

I wonder what legal standing a private company's "policy" has. Is it written into a contract of some sort, "if you are accused of sexual misconduct, we will follow policy _X_ "? Are all those contracts now being updated?

Realistically, Google can handle this how they want, so I don't see why they can't change how they handle current claims (within reason, of course, I'm sure if your arbitration date is tomorrow, maybe it's bad to change that so suddenly). Of course, Google is going to want to minimize the public knowing about any of these claims, so they'll do what they can to keep it quiet.

I get the feeling that these policies have more value to marketing dept. than the legal dept. After all, there many things that constitute "sexual misconduct" that aren't illegal.

<comment><USER14> At my company I sign documents. That are tied to money. If the terms were to change -- it would be s problem.

Just because it is called a policy does not mean it can be changed without notice and back dated.

How would you feel if your insurance company retroactively changed their policies on how active auto claims were handed ? Good thing it's not legal for them to do that.

In any case. Google can't always do what the want. The have to follow laws too.

You might be able to void a policy if both the plaintiff and defendant agreed.

I agree. That this is now just a dog and pony show.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> >"Google announced a prospective policy change that applies going forward to individual sex harassment and sex assault claims. This policy change does not apply retroactively to claims already compelled to arbitration."

Given the context, the phrase "already compelled to arbitration" sounds pretty fucking disgusting. It gave me nausea just reading it.

Perhaps Google's lawyers should take slightly more care over these legal missives and maybe wonder, given the wider situation, if it makes them or their employers look like complete and utter scumbags before hitting send.

<comment><USER16> Forced arbitration should simply be illegal. As long as it's legal, you can't expect individual companies to not make use of it, that would be a competitive disadvantage.

<comment><USER17> I agree that forced arbitration should be illegal. But just because something is legal doesn't mean we can't criticize a company for doing it!

<comment><USER16> I didn't say you can't criticize it. I said you can't expect anything else. Are you going to go down the list of companies from A to Z criticizing everyone of them? Is that going to fix the problem?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Are you still going to use SoftLayer after the acquisition? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> If you're just renting dedicated server - nothing is going to change for you.

If you're big enterprise-grade customer hosting private cloud with softlayer - you already know the answer :)</comment>


Google Sign-In Is Down? - <AUTHOR> Anyone else seeing 500 errors in your apps that use google sign in? <comment><USER2> [https://status.cloud.google.com/incident/developers- console/...](https://status.cloud.google.com/incident/developers- console/19008)

<comment><USER3> Things outside GCP e.g. G Suite integrations are also impacted. This is just the first status page to be updated.

EDIT: It's now posted to [https://www.google.com/appsstatus](https://www.google.com/appsstatus)

</comment></comment><comment> _-_T_-_ Google Cloud Console Incident #19008 We are currently experiencing an issue with authentication to Google App Engine sites, the Google Cloud Console, Identity Aware Proxy, and Google OAuth 2.0 endpoints.

Incident began at 2019-08-19 11:30 and ended at 2019-08-19 13:27 (all times are US/Pacific).

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm getting "Sorry, something went wrong there. Try again".

</comment><comment><USER5> +1, our customers can't log in via Google sign-in, I can't log in on any of my personal or work accounts

</comment><comment> m-p-3 Apparently it's mostly acting up in Google Chrome, but not in other browsers for us.

</comment><comment><USER6> Seeing this in NYC

</comment><comment><USER7> Can you login now?</comment>


The surprising truth about what motivates us [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc <comment><AUTHOR> I came across this after reading an ESPN article about NFL bonuses: ( [http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/262951/nfl- play...](http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/262951/nfl-player- bonuses-gronk-others-chasing-millions-of-dollars) ), and thinking "Why can't engineers get paid like this?" ( e.g., why don't I get a $100k bonus for delivering 500 pivotal points? ). That question lead to googling for "Software engineer bonuses" and that lead to [https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/5743...](https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/57435/how- to-structure-bonuses-for-software-developers), which lead me to this video. Discuss.</comment>


Most liked neighborhoods in San Francisco?  - <AUTHOR> http://10hoods.com

<comment><USER2> The Facebook integration is pretty unnecessary, and the entire site is totally unactionable. I see no data here, and I can't actually accomplish anything directly through the application. What is this supposed to do again?

<comment><USER3> Exploit the competitive nature of San Francisco residents to collect a huge slab of facebook user details which can then be targeted for direct marketing? Just, y'know, at a guess...

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Cool idea, but I would appreciate notification that it posts to my facebook wall.

</comment><comment><USER3> Does this accomplish anything other than filling up my facebook feed with pointless "Like"s?</comment>


LinkedIn can now use you name and picture in any of their advertisements - <AUTHOR> https://plus.google.com/103833340718811445818/posts/jNna2Zabifx

<comment><USER2> Mine was on by default, I had to opt out. But I also used it as an opportunity to cancel my LinkedIn account.

I'm upset that they don't allow you to turn off all emails, only some of them. I get spammed daily by them with no way to stop it.

LinkedIn is built off of spam from your friends and LinkedIn itself.

No more for me.

</comment><comment><USER3> I really like LinkedIn, I've used on both sides of the hiring table, and from a social aspect it's stuff I'm interested in about my social connections.

Consequently, while this move concerns me (and I've opted myself out and removed a lot of other "default" settings and "apps") I still find LinkedIn useful enough to keep my account around.

</comment><comment><USER4> For me this is off by default and I have to opt-in.

<comment><USER5> It is less bad because it is opt out (and the submission says 'can use', not 'will'); I won't say it's best. From the summary of the changes:

Section 2.K. Advertising and Endorsements on LinkedIn: We added this section to explain that LinkedIn may use you profile picture and name in social advertising shown to your network on LinkedIn. We also explain that social advertising will contain information from you and your connections' interaction with the LinkedIn site (such as when you recommend a product or service on a company page, follow a company, etc.). We also point you to the Setting where you can control the use of your profile information in LinkedIn's social advertising.

[http://www.linkedin.com/static?key=pop%2Fpop_privacy_policy_...](http://www.linkedin.com/static?key=pop%2Fpop_privacy_policy_summary)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Coincidentally, I deleted my LinkedIn account yesterday. Why do I need yet another social network?</comment>


Ask HN: C++ as productive as Lisp (from Norvig interview) ? - <AUTHOR>

Regarding Norvig interview for reddit...
Do you agree with the answer to #2? He goes on to say that some former JPL employee named Ron attributed his high productivity to Lisp, but when he joined Google he found out C++ programmers there that were more productive than him in Lisp. Then he realized it was the programmers that mattered, not the programming language.
Now, isn't this a bit stretched? I'd believe if it was Python against Lisp, of course... <comment><USER2> You can't talk about productivity if you don't define what the goals are. One can be more productive with even HTML than with C++ if the goal is to produce a simple website.</comment>


Why Excel beats iCal for to-dos on the Mac - <AUTHOR> http://www.itworld.com/personal-tech/75944/why-excel-beats-ical-dos-mac <comment><USER2> Because Apple has provided the To-Do functionality in Mail.app, which makes adding a to-do item literally a single click.</comment>


Another Megadrought this year? - <AUTHOR> https://weatheraction.wordpress.com/2014/07/07/extreme-weather-megadrought-of-1540-much-worse-than-2003/ <comment><AUTHOR> [http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wissen/erde-klima/die-angst- vor-d...](http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wissen/erde-klima/die-angst-vor-dem- jahrtausendsommer-15712886.html)

They write that the Westwinddrift is fallen apart, and it seams like it is an unstable system. Same as 1540?</comment>


Twitter confirms major cash boost - <AUTHOR> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8275792.stm

<comment><USER2> > Industry watchers have pointed out that the firm still has no way of making > money.

is not currently making money != no way of making money

<comment><USER3> So with a 1B valuation from this round - [http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/09/16/twitter-closing-new- ven...](http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/09/16/twitter-closing-new-venture- round-with-1-billion-valuation/) we are looking at a $22+ price tag per user. This may be on the low end however as with 45 million users it is assuming that all accounts are active. I don't think that the media love affair with the company is driving all of this. If say half of the accounts are active (daily) and 10% of those are using search (weekly) then they have enough to throw an ad layer and cpa may do o.k. as part of this. If the large part of this activity is taking place via third-party then the ad layer has to be exposed in the API. Anyhow if 1.17B search queries take place annually (maybe this is low end if you include partners) and you have 5% paid click-through on that (assuming all queries trigger the ad layer) you are looking at 58.5M paid actions annually.</comment></comment>


Web Developer Workspace Full CSS - <AUTHOR> http://cssdeck.com/labs/full/cjkwaswn?utm_content=buffer6119d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer <comment><USER2> How is it full CSS if there's JavaScript to animate the clock?</comment>


Trump Halts U.S. Funding of World Health Organization - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/us/coronavirus-updates.html <comment><USER2> The WHO is a joke.

What they did these last months should be the last nail in the coffin.

More like a health organization they act like a political one taking sides with China and ignoring/censoring Taiwan even if they managed to control de spread of the virus.[1][2]

And if that wasn't enough, they actively insisted that all the measures we're taking now were pointless.

Why would anyone want a health organization that only cares about politics?

[1] [https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/02/28/taiwan-who- coronavirus-...](https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/02/28/taiwan-who-coronavirus- china-international-organizations/) [2] [https://www.thenation.com/article/world/taiwan-who- coronavir...](https://www.thenation.com/article/world/taiwan-who-coronavirus- china/)

<comment><USER3> Given the weight of US in UNO, why would they want to stop their funding, instead of pushing for a reform of WHO?

Of course everybody benefits from the existence of an organ like WHO, the only problems would be the number and quality of its experts network and labs. And to reform that, that's in the opposite direction of stopping funds...

<comment><USER4> At that level, you can most effectively get reform by cutting off funding.

Give it a week. Two at the most. You'll see changes at the headline level.

<comment><USER3> I doubt it, because the attack lacks seriousness when it's led by Trump.

It is right that WHO should have waited more verification of scientific data before publishing easily misinterpreted too-short statements, on Twitter or elsewhere. But look who is denouncing that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Interesting that the comments here aren't more critical of the decision.

Does the idea of improving the WHO by withholding money come from some kind of shared "starving the beast" logic or is it just a revenge kind of reflex that doesn't even have any positive expected outcome?

Eg the travel restrictions position[1], taken as an example in the article, appears to have been be defensible and a mainstream position in the field. It may turn out to be wrong or not in hindsight, like many things in this pandemic, but it's no reason to try to harm the organisation.

[1] "Evidence shows that restricting the movement of people and goods during public health emergencies is ineffective in most situations" in February, [https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/updated-who- re...](https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/updated-who- recommendations-for-international-traffic-in-relation-to-covid-19-outbreak)

<comment><USER3> Especially that the WHO is just a sum of its participating countries, so removing its big US part will just make it weaker and that's it, nothing more.

Also, it they think the WHO was not good, the US should, as a huge contributor (which means bringing a lot of US experts and administrators to the organ), point to solutions to improve it. Deciding to cut the funds is completely illogical.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Could this not have waited a few months? In the middle of an pandemic, to cut off funding to the only organization that is coordinating the global response is just crazy. The pettiness of this administration seems to know no bounds. Even if we accept that WHO screwed up in their early response and yeah they could be critical of China, cutting funding is wildly disproportionate reaction.

China will offcourse make up the difference, and appropriately gain more influence. As it rightly should.

<comment><USER7> The WHO arguably made the pandemic worse by discouraging the use of masks, propagating information that turned out to be false and dangerous saying there was no human-to-human interaction and generally sided with china in the informational flow.

Easier to ignore the WHO if you don't give them any money.

<comment><USER8> Not as dangerous as calling it a democratic hoax or that it'll go down to zero or like a miracle, it'll go away one day.

<comment><USER9> I don't think any people died from those things.

<comment><USER10> The body count from those statements will probably be in the mid-100k or so. By instantly trying to politicise any criticism of his many failures Trump incited his moron followers to ignore the situation in the critical early weeks. States resisted shutdowns to score points with their cheetoh-fuhrer and that will end up killing thousands.

<comment><USER9> Show me a death certificate with the cause of death saying "Trump failure".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This was long overdue.

> It is an open secret among international diplomats and public health experts > that WHO is "not fit for mission" (as one of them put it to me), riddled > with politics and bureaucracy. Given its previous failures and the warning > that was Sars, its leadership has no excuse for reacting so oddly, and so > tardily, to the current crisis.

[http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/who-must- answer/](http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/who-must-answer/)

<comment><USER12> > This was long overdue.

Perhaps. However, Trump's using the WHO as scapegoat for his grievous mishandling of the situation - starting in 2018 - is beyond unscrupulous.

<comment><USER13> What are you talking about? The US is at the top of the handling of the crisis. You could definitely critique Trump and the fact he can't keep from saying some of the most ridiculous and petty things, but even Gavin Newsom has complimented the way this has been handled. If you only ever look at top headlines, you'll believe the world is about to end and Trump is responsible.

Also, how is Trump responsible for Italy and Spain? Or are you so xenophobic that you believe that only the US could possibly have handled this for them? Italy and Spain listened to the WHO and they suffered and continue to suffer because of it. Trump didn't completely listen to the WHO and saved lives. Now, maybe he should have closed things down earlier and followed the Taiwan and South Korea models, but those countries did well because they didn't listen to the WHO and knew China was lying because of the last flu outbreak.

Do I think Trump is doing A+ work, no, but I can see that the US is doing much better than many other countries. And when you say that Trump is doing a bad job, you do realize that there are teams of people working on this. So you are saying that everyone who's working on this crisis is mishandling everything? If it's only Trump, what do you think he did wrong? You might say he downplayed the pandemic, but everyone did. And if you think that, what should he have said? It's easy to use hindsight and say people did these things wrong. I think everyone is doing the best they can.

I'm really tired of seeing this criticism with no evidence and with other countries that clearly did a worse job. I don't think it's fair to blame the leaders of those other countries either, when it's pretty clear that China and the WHO deserve a lot of the blame.

The WHO is not a scapegoat, they are directly responsible for thousands of deaths, and untold suffering. They may have done it because of their close ties to China, and they may have believed what they were saying, but at this point would you trust anything they say?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Quite surprised to see how many comments here agree with the decision.

It is quite clear that the WHO have to placate the CCP in order to avoid China withdrawing it's cooperation in its entirety. Yes, China has not been fully transparent, but it has been a significant improvement from SARS in 2003.

It seems many people here have bought into the reactionary blame game and failed to consider the diplomacy requirements of a group who need to cooperate with as many countries as possible to be effective.

<comment><USER15> Also, this move is 100% Trump deflecting attention from the narrative of his own mis-management. He doesn't care about WHO, he probably didn't even know it existed until a few weeks ago.

<comment><USER16>
      Also, this move is 100% Trump deflecting attention from the narrative of his own mis-management. He doesn't care about WHO, he probably didn't even know it existed until a few weeks ago.

Trump is an imbecile, and at best a useful idiot for Big Business, but that doesn't take away that the WHO has lost all credibility given how they have conducted themselves thus far. So, if nothing else I'm willing to say that he has done well by de-funding the US' portion of the WHO. What its replaced with is what the focus should really be, not Trump.

But, I'd go so far as to say that I hope this reduces the rest of the World's reliance on China once and for all as we have seen the perils it has caused, which incidentally has also been a narrative of his. Although that really hasn't come to fruition despite all the trade war rhetoric, so I'd say he has failed and not gone far enough.

<comment><USER17> It doesn't seem like the best time to try to totally dismantle it.

<comment><USER16> Why not, we risk going back to the centralized pitfall once again if we don't right now; it won't be easy, but its very clear that the entire World is/will be falling into a deep recession, if not depression. I'd say if local manufacturing was ramped up then at least you could spur on local employment numbers.

Retraining people in this time is perhaps the most opportune as well as as they're confined at Home.

Also, I don't know how close you've been following the manufacturing of respirators or medical PPE in the US, but its like people finally realized 3d printers can be used for more than pointless affections and have been repurposed to be used for medical supplies equipment and tools and have brought out the best in what the 'maker space' could be under the guidance of actual Medical professionals.

There are guys on imgur who are reaching out to front liners to provide them with the equipment they can't get elsewhere at no cost.

Its a do or die situation for those so heavily reliant on them for medical supplies, quite literately, as untold deaths will go unaccounted for because China sent low quality or totally faulty equipment if it was even available to begin with. It will be brushed under the unavoidable cost of a pandemic--that has been made worse because the CCP censored, and disappeared anyone who sought to speak out on the severity of COVID19.

Which should have grave consequences internationally.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Weren't the only working tests originally from WHO? If the US had used them, wouldn't we have had functional testing much sooner?

<comment><USER3> From Wikipedia ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_testing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_testing)):

"The World Health Organization adopted the German recipe for manufacturing kits sent to low-income countries without the resources to develop their own. The German recipe was published on 17 January 2020; the protocol developed by the United States Centers for Disease Control (CDC) was not available until 28 January, delaying available tests in the U.S."

So, a German lab found the test, and WHO helped manufacturing it in low-income countries.

But, as I said in another comment (only to be downvoted), the WHO is a sum of its participating countries. So everything the WHO finds is actually from some country's lab. That's just how WHO is made.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I wish this kind of hard bargaining is postponed till the present crisis is over. A lot of poor people in the world are eager to get back to their normal lives and livelihoods. WHO has been proactive, even though late, in co- ordinating with governments to get serious with their actions.

<comment><USER20> _> WHO has been proactive, even though late,_

According to Merriam-Webster[1]:

 _«proactive» · acting in anticipation of future problems, needs, or changes_

[1]: [https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/proactive](https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/proactive)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Lots of commenters have pointed out a pattern of increasing failures and shortcoming by the WHO, which I wasn't aware of, but I still have to think: don't we need a centralized touchstone for these kinds of crises? Even if the WHO needs to be dismantled and rebuilt, isn't a dysfunctional one better than nothing at all?

<comment><USER22> It's only "better than nothing at all" if you assume that any action it could take is better than doing nothing. That doesn't seem to have been true recently to me. Was [https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152?s=19](https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152?s=19) better than nothing?

<comment><USER3> WHO advised the world to perform as many tests as possible. And that was an excellent advice, only it was ignored and not taken seriously. That's an example where the WHO is not the problem but its enforcement capability (just the same problem with UN decisions on war zones, which can never be enforced).

To solve that, a reform is needed. But absolutely not by cutting its funds, which is silly.

<comment><USER22> Thanks, I hadn't known about that. It looks like this advice about tests was given on March 16? My city had already shut down by then due to outbreak.

<comment><USER3> Yes, unfortunately, as all UN parts, the WHO is a consensus organ, at the barycenter of individual countries' participating scientists... meanwhile, in countries or cities better connected with their experts, or just with better experts, the reaction is better and faster.

The exact quote was: "We have a simple message for all countries: test, test, test."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> It was clear from the actions of the Chinese govt the seriousness of the situation regardless of what they said.

Mass quarantines for millions in a few cities and rapid shipment of medical equipment, personnel and the building of treatment facilities for the province.

You need to be a pretty piss poor govt to only base your preperations on WHO press releases or worse yet Chinese media reports.

Trump is just looking for a scapegoat as usual.

</comment><comment><USER24> A lot of criticism here about the WHO. But what is the legal obligation of the United States to listen to anything the WHO says?

So what?

The virus is called COVID-19 for a reason. The virus was discovered in 2019. Each country can do their own thing.

Trump shut down international travel from China. He should have shut down travel from everywhere.

Once that virus was out of the bag, then it became impossible to stop. How do you stop something at the beginning, that you don't even know exists? You can only try to slow it down. To isolate the infected. And to contain it.

But once an infected person leaves the border, then the virus will replicate in the next country. You only need one person to reach exponential growth.

The WHO even stated that they think the virus was building steam in all countries all over the world, and they were correct.

Here, it seems the politicians don't understand biological science, and they don't listen to their experts, and that they don't understand what exponential growth is.

Further, the CDC refused to advise Americans to wear a mask, even a cloth mask to help reduce the transmission velocity of droplets. This was a bone-headed decision, that was entirely in the realms of control of the United States.

And then, the media keeps bringing up how China silenced an eye doctor, but what would this have done? Stop the virus? Doubtful, it was already building up steam in China. Make people more cautious, and wear a mask? Maybe, but local Chinese news TV were already advising that people be careful and vigilant, and wear a mask when outside. But not everyone was following that advice.

In contrast, what happened in New York, when rumors got out that the governor was shutting down the state? The result was that people fled to distant states! Some went to Rhode Island, and others went to Florida. Remember, all you need is one infected person to mess it up for everyone.

But really, I think what impacted the United States the most, was when Trump announced the travel ban from Europe. Everyone flocked home, and there were no health checks. The virus was already building up slowly, but this was the catalyst that accelerated it.

</comment><comment><USER3> It would be nice to have an AMA with a WHO personality. I don't know if any of them is reading HN.

</comment><comment><USER25> non paywalled link:

[http://archive.is/mhfp8](http://archive.is/mhfp8)</comment>


Phil Schiller again breaks down why new MacBook Pro is limited to 16GB RAM - <AUTHOR> https://9to5mac.com/2016/11/21/phil-schiller-again-breaks-down-why-new-macbook-pro-is-limited-to-16gb-ram-citing-battery-logic-board-design/ <comment><AUTHOR> > To support 32GB of memory would require using DDR memory that is not low > power and also require a different design of the logic board which might > reduce space for batteries.

Another design over usability nonsense from Apple.</comment>


Why Your Cell Phone Is More Private in Ohio than in California - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.forbes.com/kashmirhill/2011/01/04/why-your-cell-phone-is-more-private-in-ohio-than-in-california/

<comment><USER2> At the end of the article, the authors recommend that California phone users ought to put a password on their phones.

My question: Would this really slow the police down?</comment>


When Art is versioned  - <AUTHOR> http://raphaelbastide.com/branch/

<comment><AUTHOR> Source code of the physical space on the photos: [https://github.com/raphaelbastide/1962/blob/brussels-2013/PI...](https://github.com/raphaelbastide/1962/blob/brussels-2013/PIECE)</comment>


Appeals Court Reinstates $675,000 File Sharing Verdict - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/09/file-sharing-verdict-reinstated/

<comment><AUTHOR> This seems very excessive. It works out at $22, 500 per song. How do they justify such extreme amounts?</comment>


2017 saw highest rate of death due to alcohol, drugs, suicide in US history [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.paininthenation.org/assets/pdfs/TFAH-2017-PainNationRpt.pdf <comment><USER2> For me, the most useful page of the linked PDF is page 22, the tables of 1999-2015 stats, without any projections. I see numbers from the CDC for general population like:

        Alcohol deaths per 100,000
        1999  2015  Pct Increase
        7.0   10.3  47%

        Drug deaths per 100,000
        1999  2015  Pct Increase
        6.9   16.3  136%

        Suicide deaths per 100,000
        1999  2015  Pct Increase
        10.5  13.8  31%

So, devil's avocado -- anecdotes aside, is this all just due to the opioid epidemic?

Ie, the US is in the middle of a widespread opioid problem right now, and suicide and alcohol use may correlate.

I would love to see some tables that compare this specific data across multiple countries over the same time frame, as that could help tease apart how much of this is really fallout from one single problem in the US, the opioid crisis -- and, if not, what factors might be involved ('are there other countries on a similar track? What do they have in common with the US?').

I wonder if OurWorldInData might be interested ...

Edit: others have posted the link below, with what might be 1 of the 6 sources of data that would be helpful for this comparison: recent global suicide stats by country. (Ideally we'd have this for all 3 causes, and then also for 1999).

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_r...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate)

<comment><USER3> Relevant question: If someone dies and they have both alcohol and an opioid in their bloodstream, do they count against alcohol, opioid, both, or do they try to work out which one killed them?

<comment><USER4> Funnily enough, I happened to be on the page that answers this.

Page 160: "Alcohol-induced deaths and drug-induced deaths are mutually- exclusive. However, these deaths may also be considered suicide deaths."

Also, I can't find any more info on what is included here. They just say it doesn't use ICD-10 codes:

>"NCHS has defined selected causes of death groups for analysis of all ages mortality data: Drug-Induced causes, Alcohol-Induced Causes, All Other Causes. The group code values are not actual ICD codes published in the International Classification of Diseases, but are "recodes" defined to support analysis by the Selected Causes of Death groups." [https://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/help/mcd.html#Drug/Alcohol%20I...](https://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/help/mcd.html#Drug/Alcohol%20Induced%20Causes)

EDIT:

If I go to CDC WONDER ([https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/datarequest/D76](https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/datarequest/D76)) and click "Drug/alcohol induced causes" a box populates showing (presumably) ICD-10 codes: X40-44, X60-64, X85, Y10-Y14

That includes stuff you wouldn't expect:

X44:

      agents primarily acting on smooth and skeletal muscles and the respiratory system
      anaesthetics (general)(local)
      drugs affecting the:
      · cardiovascular system
      · gastrointestinal system
      hormones and synthetic substitutes
      systemic and haematological agents
      systemic antibiotics and other anti-infectives
      therapeutic gases
      topical preparations
      vaccines
      water-balance agents and drugs affecting mineral and uric acid metabolism

[http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online2004...](http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online2004/fr- icd.htm?gx40.htm+)

So this could be partially due to "better access to healthcare". More people are being put on blood pressure, etc medications and are dying from over/under-dosing on them. I don't see any reason for them to include X44 in the current study besides trying to mess with the numbers...

EDIT 2:

Indeed, when I selected only x44 on CDC WONDER, here are the results:

      Year Deaths per 100k Pop
      1999  1.5
      2000  1.7
      2001  1.9
      2002  2.4
      2003  2.6
      2004  2.9
      2005  3.3
      2006  3.8
      2007  4.2
      2008  4.5
      2009  4.7
      2010  5.0
      2011  5.6
      2012  5.3
      2013  5.5
      2014  5.8
      2015  6.3
      2016  7.4
      2017  8.1

So the death rate from normal (not addictive or recreational) medications is 5.4x higher in 2017 than in 1999.

<comment><USER5> Muscle relaxers, certain types of steroids, GHB, NO2, and even cocaine are all technically part of that list.

Your not wrong, but it's not that super clear cut either.

<comment><USER4> Yes, they are grouping together the (lets call them) "DARE drugs" with "medical drugs".

Presumably this is strategic to hide whatever issue is going on with the "medical drugs" and inflate the apparent problem with "DARE drugs".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> People feeling left aside by society always find a way out, it's more of a systemic issue than an alcohol or drug one.

I guess having a for profit health industry trying to prescribe as much opioid as possible doesn't help.

As long as we keep putting the blame on individuals* and not on the system they live in we're doomed to fail. Putting tax on alcohol, war on drugs and banning beer sales on Sunday aren't going to fix any of the underlying problems.

* which is very easy and relieving, after all I don't have to do anything if that's just how people are.

<comment><USER7> Perhaps. It's not a simple issue though. Thoroughly affluent kids get hooked. Affluent parents get hooked. Runaways get hooked, homeless get hooked. Working poor get hooked.

It's more than "society sucks." If it really sucked people would be escaping our borders going to Mexico and Canada in droves but it's the opposite.

If a Mexican citizen is worse off on average than an American, why are Mexicans never the less less impacted by this kind of epidemic?

What do people in depressed areas of Japan do, do they fall for this, why or why not?

<comment><USER8> * It's not a simple issue though. Thoroughly affluent kids get hooked. Affluent parents get hooked.*

Didn't some affluent, highly educated guys go to Syria to join terrorists? Anyone can feel left out, ignored - even the wealthy and educated people. Maybe the breakdown of family structures, not having good friendships/relationships, loneliness contribute to these problems? People long to be a part of something- when that doesn't happen, they numb themselves with drugs, join criminal gangs etc.

This is not something that can be fixed by passing some laws or demonizing the affected people, it requires a more empathetic approach than use of force or law.

<comment><USER7> I think it's something very much societal. In Japan or China, Vietnam, etc., drug use is almost always seen in a negative light. It's not about sowing wild oats, having forbidden fun, an outlet for hardship, etc. They're always denigrated in all media, in society, in school, in music, films, at work, etc. It's never any kind of cool in any way. It's shunned ostracized outlawed and unaccepted. Does that map well to our society? I'm afraid not much. We'll have to find another way out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Once again, alcohol listed separately from "drugs", and it's the most harmful drug of the lot.

Can we even be surprised that alcoholism is such a problem when we cannot even recognise as a society that it's actually a drug?

<comment><USER10> Alcohol's dangers get whitewashed frequently, but they don't hold a candle to the likes ketamine, crack cocaine, and methamphetamine.

<comment><USER11> What's wrong with Ketamine? It's not particularly addictive, and it's worst side effect is kidney damage (which can be quite severe). Are you sure you don't mean Heroin or Fentanyl? Those are the worst of the bunch.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It was touch and go there for a while, but I'm happy to have avoided contributing to those statistics.

Every day is a gift, folks.

<comment><USER13> Glad you're still with us! Surround yourself with people you can talk to.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Despair is the absence of hope. People have been given an unrealistic view of what life should be and when it is so much worse than their expectations they fall into despair.

The media hurts because we are exposed to the "lifestyles of the rich and famous". Im gen X which seems to have the suicide problem. Gen X was raised with "greed is good" and glamorized miami vice. That is a hollow empty promise even when fulfilled.

I think another of the key problems is a lack of life philosophy (spirituality?) where people can find meaning in their lives outside of material goods. This is partially due to the death of religion. There also is a lack of understanding that life is fundamentally unfair and there somehow is the expectation that it should be fair. Without religion people are missing a clear moral compass that guides their life to find meaning. There needs to be a new modern philosophy that has moral underpinnings, but incorporates science, without necessarily having a deity.

Finally, children (including my generation) have been sheltered from lifes daily challenges by being given too much. I suspect when they become adults they simply can't handle what their lives actually are.

I think the current generation of kids are being raised to try to change the world and to seek meaning in helping other people. However they are also being raised to think that life should be fair and they are going to be bitterly disappointed.

<comment><USER15> The material conditions of life have been _annihilated_ in the areas that have been ravaged by the opioid epidemic. My brother died of a drug overdose on one of them, and it wasn't because of a lack of moral underpinning. It was because almost nobody who is born and grows up in one will ever have a chance of a stable life. No steady access to income, healthcare or a chance of escaping the working class. Hoping for the chance to lead a stable middle class life isn't a _moral failing_.

<comment><USER14> Im sorry about your brother.

I never said it was a moral failing. What I did say is that people lack a values system to find meaning in their life. Even if you are poor, you can find meaning in your life, yet our society is completely geared around material goods= meaning. Religion used to fill that role.

That hole is often times filled with meaningless partying that can include experimentation with drugs. Of course many people get addicted via actual prescriptions. I havent done much research, but the article below suggests that few people are getting addicted via prescriptions.

why do people start using opioids in the first place?

[https://tonic.vice.com/en_us/article/a3z98b/big-pharma- didnt...](https://tonic.vice.com/en_us/article/a3z98b/big-pharma-didnt-cause- the-opioid-crisis-most-pain-patients-dont-get-addicted)

<<The research actually shows that people who developed new addictions in recent years were overwhelmingly not pain patients. Instead, they were mainly friends, relatives, and others to whom those pills were diverted—typically young people. Among the older patients, many who appeared to be newly addicted had actually relapsed or never recovered from prior addictions: some faked pain to get pills from well-meaning doctors; others got them from pill mills where shady physicians wrote prescriptions for cash.>>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I have always wondered, what is our life expectancy if we removed all deaths of despair from the statistics? This is a little different than the delta from the change in the deaths of despair (e.g., the report does say that our life expectancy is decreasing because of the deaths, but I didn't see the total impact of all of them on the stat). If I know I'm not going to die because of a death of despair, how long should I expect to live?

<comment><USER17> How can you know that? Serious question.

<comment><USER16> How can I know I won't commit suicide, die via an overdose, or another kind of death of despair? As far as I'm aware, these are still choices for most of us. So if I choose to not die a death of despair, what would my life expectancy be?

<comment><USER10> For starters, why is your assumption that every overdose death is a "death of despair"? Are you assuming that only people in despair use recreational drugs? Neither of those sounds reasonable to me.

<comment><USER16> I'm using the terminology from the report.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> You can actually acutely treat opioid overdose (with antagonists) and so presumably the actual issue here is people use drugs alone in locations where nobody is going to check on them for something like an hour. There may be an education campaign there so that people prescribed painkillers know to never use them alone.

Also, we probably need to invest in lifestyle education for preventing depression like we do for preventing obesity. Have campaigns asking people if they've had one pleasant conversation today. Force workplaces to give people a midday break where they are allowed to leave the facility in winter. Sensitize parents to symptoms of their child developing persistent anxiety or sadness like they are to the height/weight curves. (Also, develop ways of treating mild depression that aren't SSRIs -- light therapy, animals, caffeine, sleep deprivation, whatever, but a ton of people are refusing to seek help because they don't want meds that they see as having too many problematic side effects.)

</comment><comment><USER19> Maybe I'm missing something, but your source seems to only have data for 99-2015, and references a projection study done by the Berkeley Research Group.

</comment><comment><USER20> The most interesting part of this report is the huge difference between the numbers for men and women.

Are there any programs in the US helping solve this enormous divide?

</comment><comment><USER21> This is the hundredth nub of a massive problem of the regression and deterioration of society in the usa. Yes, opiates. Yes, for profit health care. But even those things in isolation are only part of the problem.

</comment><comment><USER22> Keep going after fentanyl. It's poisoning us.

<comment><USER23> Fentanyl is dangerous, sure, but until we address the root issues that cause people to take up opiods in the first place (over-prescription, sometimes, but certainly also hopelessness and mental health issues), it'll be an endless game of whack-a-mole.

I think the most cost-effective thing we could do right now to reduce fentanyl deaths is offer test kits free in pharmacies across the country. Anecdotally, the majority of fentanyl deaths I hear of are from people who think they're shooting heroin and don't realize their dope is laced with fentanyl.

<comment><USER24> No offense, but do you honestly believe most heroin users are going to buy a test kit to test their drugs and then if it tests positive not use them? The practical value of those test kits seems low to me, as I don't believe they would be heavily used and I don't believe that many herion users wouldn't continue in the fact of a positive test.

<comment><USER23> No, I really don't- that's why I think it's important that it'd be free. Not every heroin user is under a bridge shooting up with dirty needles; they actually go and buy/exchange clean needles believe it or not. I don't think it's a big jump from there to testing your junk so you can keep your addiction on the down-low rather than having a family member find you blue one evening.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> If you isolate everyone the way the modern world does this shouldn't be surprising.

</comment><comment><USER26> I have an outstanding hypothesis that suggests that even if the opoid epidemic went totally away tomorrow, this is not the steepest increase, and the increase will continue for the next 20 years.

The suicide rate should bump itself up substantially above 50 per 100k, especially for younger demographics. It should then plateau for the foreseeable future.

I really really really really hope that I am wrong. We have folks with no vision in charge, and they drove a big ship into the rocks: my hypothesis is that this is onset/ramp-up of body count.

</comment><comment><USER27> I wonder what is the impact of social media in this rate increase. People are getting more and more addicted to it, thus making people more depressed about their lives which in turn find their relief in drugs and alcohol. I am not saying that social media is to blame for everything but as a former heavy user of Snapchat and Instagram, it must be up there as one of the main causes. The sad and hopeless part is that its all by design...

<comment><USER28> Social media is also an important way to connect for people who are socially isolated, so we should avoid demonising it.

We need to worry about promotion of self harm and suicide being distributed on social media, but most companies are taking action on the worst content.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Let me guess, isolation - both social and physical, brought about by cell phones and social media cancer is making people lonely and depressed. They turn to alcohol but that doesn't quite do it so they turn to opioids and then decide to take their life. Perhaps I'm just pulling on unrelated strings to make a rope, or perhaps there is some truth to it?

<comment><USER30> Social media and cell phones are the partial solution to the isolation brought about by the way we design our communities - sprawl, no town centers, etc. Also, drunk driving becoming more penalized (rightly so) so less gathering in bars, people becoming less religious. Isolation is the cause of the rise of social media, not the opposite, in my opinion.

<comment><USER29> It's peobably both, cause and effect. I agree with everything else you said. It's just hard not to be depressed when I see everyone staring at their phone. I imagine back in the day people would strike up conversations and make random friends. Can anyone who was an adult pre-phones confirm this? There is no reason to make conversations with strangers anymore as anything you read online is likely more interesting and you can "pause" any time. I am guilty myself, and have to remind myself constantly that there is more to being in public than hiding behind a screen. Maybe I'm the weirdo who occasionally makes too much eye contact.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I wanted to see what ICD-10 codes they used for "drugs" since I have seen similar claims before that grouped in "drug" over/under-doses in a general sense. Ie, it included stuff like deaths from blood pressure medications.

I was disappointed to find that the "source" was apparently a (no longer found) Washington Post article:

> _" The United States is facing a new set of epidemics — more than 1 million > Americans have died in the past decade from drug overdoses, alcohol and > suicides (2006 to 2015).1"_

1 Hohmann J. "The Daily 202: Trump over performed the most in counties with the highest drug, alcohol and suicide mortality rates." Washington Post December 9, 2016. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/) powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/12/09/ daily-202-trump-over-performed-the- most- in-counties-with-the-highest-drug-alcohol- and-suicide-mortality- rates/584a2a59e9b- 69b7e58e45f2e/?utm_term=.d3109d2f4877 (accessed September 2017).

I have trouble taking this document seriously after that.

<comment><USER2> Per Appendix B, the source of the data is the CDC's Wonder "multiple cause of death" data, which does include the codes you mention:

[https://wonder.cdc.gov/mcd-icd10.html](https://wonder.cdc.gov/mcd-icd10.html)

"... The Multiple Cause of Death database contains mortality and population counts for all U.S. counties. Data are based on death certificates for U.S. residents. Each death certificate contains a single underlying cause of death, up to twenty additional multiple causes, and demographic data. The number of deaths, crude death rates, age-adjusted death rates and 95% confidence intervals for death rates can be obtained by cause of death (4 digit ICD-10 codes, 113 selected causes of death, 130 selected causes of infant death, drug and alcohol related causes of death, injury intent and injury mechanism categories) ..."

The fact that a study-cum-policy-paper happens to also cite reporting on the problem is par for the course.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Why is the title title phrased as if 2017 was special, when most of the previous years also seen highest death rates from those causes? A lot of charts in the paper end at 2015.

</comment><comment><USER32> This is a real National Emergency.

</comment><comment><USER33> Maybe its just technology.

[https://www.statista.com/statistics/971676/online-alcohol- sa...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/971676/online-alcohol-sales-growth- us/)

</comment><comment><USER34> I hate to say this, but we brought this on ourselves. It's just one aspect of the decline of America.

At one time, we could identify with, "Land of the free, home of the brave." I remember my Grandpa, saying that to me, and then telling me, "So kid, stay free, and be brave about it. I did my best, and when you grow up, do yours, right? You're an American." Of course, I'm like 10 and know nothing of the world, but I honest felt like I was part of a greater thing, that I was now going to be following in the footsteps of Grandpa.

Then I grow up, and America slowly gives away her freedoms. Not just personal freedom, but the freedom to excel. The middle class slowly fades, education becomes prohibitively expensive. Upward mobility wanes.

Then 911 happens and America loses it's shit. We're shown to just be a bunch of pansies. We react by becoming a (worse) global bully, frightened and trying to control the uncontrollable. And we trade freedom for perceived safety. Ever think the Patriot Act will be allowed to expire?

Then of course we get the perfect to represent the coward bully that is now all of us.

And oh boy do we like our guns and drugs. Now that's the new America. That's our refuge. More guns, and more drugs. We suck down so many drugs that the rest of the world works really hard to keep us supplied. We work hard to keep us supplied (Afghanistan).

And then lastly, we isolate ourselves, unable to make friends, interacting over the internet instead of in person. We shape our world and ideas with constant confirmation bias. We work hard to reinforce our prejudices. Nation of tribal haters. The charade of Democrat and Republican and Ford vs. Chevy and Cowboys vs Patriots. Choose a side, get angry, espouse.

So what's left in an America like that for a man? Sure, it affects women to, much the same, but as a man I particularly feel it. This ain't my America, the one I read about from our past. It's seriously depressing.

This might seem like pining for the old days. "Things are better than ever now!" you say. So, really? Why are people opting out in record numbers then?

<comment><USER14> None of those things should have any impact on your daily life. If you didnt plug into the internet (your choice) you wouldnt know about any of those things and they simply wouldnt matter.

I live in the same country and I have a great life based on the actual people around me, not based on news media that pulls the worst things from around the country to try to generate more clicks.

<comment><USER35> You think it's possible to unplug from the internet? All you have to do is to talk to one living person in America to feel the cultural impact of social media and the internet. There is no unplugging. Unless you go start a commune in the middle of no where. You can't just turn this off, it's in every aspect of our society. I agree putting yourself on a media diet is a good thing, but my diet isn't going to get my friends in shape.

<comment><USER36> Sure, it's possible and plenty of people do turn it off or minimize use. Internet use is voluntary, and one can choose their level of use/interaction with it. Try it for a week! Unplug and just live your life.

I've always thought one of the few real extraordinary strengths of the USA culturally is the extent to which "going off grid" is acceptable. If you want to, you can live a fine life without social media, Netflix, and cable TV. If you want, you can move to the middle of nowhere, dig a well and put up solar panels. You can homeschool your kids. You can hunt your own food. Not all of these things require lots of money. Compared to many places in the developed world, by and large you have an extraordinary ability to choose your own level of societal interdependence.

<comment><USER35> Yea I agree. You can definitely disconnect completely from society. I've been off social media for a while and don't really follow much outrage media. But you can't tell your friends and family what to do. They can still have an unhealthy fixation on the latest media/culture war and unless you disconnect from those people it will become a part of your life. Technically you can always be a hermit. I just don't find that a very appealing choice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> About 1.9 million deaths in the US. About 45K or 2% of those are suicides.

[https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm)

And people here are saying that is the national emergency?

The US is nowhere near the top in terms of suicide rates in the world.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_r...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate)

If we really wanted to help people, we'd focus more on heart disease, diabetes, etc. But I guess we don't want to tackle the food industry, soda industry, process food industry, etc.

I don't who is behind all the "alcohol, drugs, suicide" scaremongering. But I have a sneaking suspicion that the "solution" will be pump people with more pharmaceuticals.

I'm not saying suicide is not a terrible thing, but it certainly isn't a "national emergency" compared to heart disease, strokes, cancer or diabetes.

<comment><USER38> It's about what's trending. Recent stats on US life expectancy showed an overall drop. Heart disease and (I think) cancer trended down (as it has for years), but that was more than offset by the up trend in suicide and overdoses. I'm not sure what the definition of "emergency" is, but I'd say the data shows suicide and OD are the top concerns at the moment.

<comment><USER37> The data clearly doesn't not say what you claim. As for trending? I wouldn't call anything going from 1.9% of deaths to 2% of deaths as trending. Focusing on the 2% rather than the 98% seems also doesn't seem to be sensible.

<comment><USER39> OP is saying the rate of change is cause for alarm, not the overall distribution.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> And in other news, "2017 saw largest total population in US history".

How about "2017 saw highest increase in death due to alcohol, drugs and suicide in US history"?

<comment><USER41> I'm not sure what population has to do with it. The headline and the PDF itself talk about the _rate_ of death — the text refers to deaths per 100,000 throughout.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> I suspect it might rise more. With a culture that predominantly revolves around party/fun culture where you drink alcohol and consume drugs, when youth of other cultures are busy planning their life and studies & career, where youth in U.S. is more inclined towards partying and porn and care free lifestyle; No wonder the numbers might rise.

<comment><USER16> Pardon? The highest increases in suicide and overdoses is in the 45-54 year old demographic (see page 23).</comment></comment>


Show HN: gunDB project website redesign - <AUTHOR> https://gun.eco/ <comment><USER2> The solid red hurts your eyes a bit on the desktop. I would advise against that harsh colour as it's a bit of a turn off for visitors of your site.

GunDb looks like an excellent project though!

<comment><AUTHOR> hey, thanks for the feedback! Yeah I guess the red is quite something... the vivid colors are memorable though, don't you think? ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I was just starting to fall in love with gunDB a few months ago and that is a nice new page.

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks so much for checking it out :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Very nice, clean and sleek

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks for the kudos!</comment></comment>


"Heroes of CRISPR" Disputed - <AUTHOR> http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/45119/title/-Heroes-of-CRISPR--Disputed/ <comment><USER2> I worked at the Broad in a past life. I find it shocking that Cell let Lander publish his article without a conflict of interest statement, considering a) a key patent just went into interference proceedings and b) most people assume a Nobel will be issued in the not-too-distant future and the Broad would benefit greatly from having sponsored Nobel-winning science.

Take, for example, Church's newly released comment that he was NOT "aware of Zhang's efforts" like Lander claims he was in the article when his lab tried to move CRISPR into a mammalian system. Zhang et al. are trying to paint the move to a mammalian system as a key moment of invention, making it patent- worthy. If another scientist's first instinct is to do the exact same thing, it suggests that such a move is "obvious to a person skilled in the art" and casts doubt on the novelty of Zhang's work.

<comment><USER3> Working in the Church lab (although not on CRISPR) at the time both papers came out, I recall everyone being surprised at Zhang's efforts even at the time of publication!

<comment><USER4> I sat next to you and I wasn't surprised.

<comment><USER3> Maybe I just didn't pick up on the buzz. (Just so people have context its a large lab divided between several physical rooms across two buildings. I was a relatively new grad student at the time.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The most remarkable feature of this discord is that the media discussion started based on a comment on PubMed by Dr. Doudna [1]. Just 5 minutes ago as of the time of this comment, another key player (Dr. Charpentier) has written a follow-up comment on PubMed [2].

This is the type of realtime feedback that would not have happened in a public forum just a few years ago.

(Disclosure: I have worked at the Broad and likely will again in the future.)

1 = [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26771483/#cm26771483_1...](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26771483/#cm26771483_13783)

2 = [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26771483/#cm26771483_1...](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26771483/#cm26771483_13792)

<comment><USER6> Both your URLs go to the same page (was going to say they were the same URL, but they're not). Maybe [1] was supposed to be the below?

[1] [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25430774](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25430774)

<comment><USER5> You are correct; they both go to the same page. One is a direct link to Doudna's comment, the other to Charpentier's comment on the same page... but since the page is so short, there is nothing to scroll to, so they look like they are the same link.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> From a slightly different angle, Lior Pachter focuses on how science is often a pyramid scheme of sorts:

[https://liorpachter.wordpress.com/2016/01/18/the-heroes- of-c...](https://liorpachter.wordpress.com/2016/01/18/the-heroes-of-crispr/)

>There is a more cynical view of the PI model, namely that by running large labs PIs are able to benefit from a scientific roulette of their own making. PIs can claim credit for successes while blaming underlings for failures. Even one success can fund numerous failures, and so the wheel spins faster and faster…the PI always wins.

>Lander concludes his perspective by writing that "the [CRISPR] narrative…is a wonderful lesson for a young person contemplating a life in science". That may be true of the CRISPR narrative, but the lesson of his narrative is that young persons should not count on leaders in their field to recognize their work.

<comment><USER8> I was about to say the same thing, but Lior's writeup is much more straightforward.

I started doing research in formal methods but later moved to computational biology. Half a decade later I'm still surprised by the concepts of PI, last author and lack of blind reviews.

How can anyone that does not even understand the main ideas in my works sign it as a major author?

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I wonder if the patent war over CRISPR will ever be relevant, given the discovery of Cpf1 and other Cas9-like molecules [http://www.cell.com/abstract/S0092-8674(15)01200-3](http://www.cell.com/abstract/S0092-8674\(15\)01200-3)

Does anyone know if the existing CRISPR patents are specific to Cas9 or do they cover any RNA-guided endonucleases?

<comment><USER10> See: [http://www.ipscell.com/2016/01/patent-expert-weighs-in-on- cr...](http://www.ipscell.com/2016/01/patent-expert-weighs-in-on-crispr- dispute-between-uc-broad/) and [https://law.stanford.edu/2015/12/29/the- crispr-patent-interf...](https://law.stanford.edu/2015/12/29/the-crispr- patent-interference-showdown-is-on-how-did-we-get-here-and-what-comes-next/) They're mostly specific to Cas9.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Part of the problem here is the legal environment created by Bayh–Dole, Stanford v. Roche, and their fallout. These universities do not play a substantive role in the development of these technologies, but they get the IP because researcher are obliged to sign away their rights in order to get federal funds. Inventions are the natural property of their inventors, and we should make it harder to compel them to preemptively sigh away those rights.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh%E2%80%93Dole_Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh%E2%80%93Dole_Act)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_University_v._Roche_M...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_University_v._Roche_Molecular_Systems,_Inc).

<comment><USER12> Stanford v. Roche seems to say that Bayh-Dole does NOT allow inventors to sign away their rights to the University or the Government.

<comment><USER11> As I understand it, Stanford v Roche only said that the assignments that they made the researchers sign were not sufficiently stringent. And not universities just compel researchers to sigh a more explicit and complete assignment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It's disheartening that Cell would even publish a non-scientific opintionated fluff article about "Heroes" under the same banner as its peer-reviewed research articles.

Such an article is fine for a magazine, or an adjunct comment, but not a scientific journal.

<comment><USER13> It's a common format for a flagship wide-area journal (like _Cell_ or _Science_ ) to have editorial content at the front of the journal and the more hard-core research papers at the back. The editorial content can be breaking news, political/social context (e.g., Federal budgets, legislation), review articles, summaries and context for the technical articles at the back, and position papers seeking community comment.

Getting a paper in the front pages of the journal is a matter of invitation, and getting one in the back is considered ... how to say it ... the righteous way?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Summed up nicely by Alexis Verger on Twitter: "#CRISPRFacts: CRISPR is so powerful it can edit its own history."

</comment><comment><USER15> People will forget about the attribution disputes in 100 years but from my reading, it looks like CRISPR may become the greatest achievement in biology since the theory of evolution by natural selection.

<comment><USER16> I don't really see that. It's mainly a more convenient method for genetic alteration. We previously had tools that did this, it was just harder. And bacteria did all the really hard work.

<comment><USER15> But the iteration speed that this enables is like going from punch cards to continuous deployment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Carmack on patents: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=451283](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=451283)

<comment><USER18> We detached this comment from [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10934783](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10934783) and marked it off-topic.

<comment><USER17> I thought that his being frustrated with the fact that independent research and development could independently come up with the same idea as someone else was very related to the topic? :(

<comment><USER18> Only generically; generic tangents aren't great for ontopicness. But the real problem is that it wasn't a reply to the very specific and informed comment we detached it from.

<comment><USER17> OK, I understand that. Well then, keep up the good work. HN remains in good health and hands.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Only three can get the Nobel Prize. Let the wars begin!</comment>


Redis weekly update #2 - Real world hashes, refactoring, and fixes - <AUTHOR> http://antirez.com/post/redis-weekly-update-2.html

<comment><USER2> It isn't mentioned here, but hashes are a big win in terms of memory savings. The hash representation for small hashes is very efficient compared to keeping top level keys. You can get savings of around 25% by moving data into hashes with five fields, instead of having 5*n keys. It's made me drastically reconsider how I've been using Ohm, because now I want to encode my models into hashes.

<comment><USER3> I assume you've read it already, but for anyone looking for further reading on Redis' hashes, see last week's update:

<http://antirez.com/post/redis-weekly-update-1.html></comment></comment>


Introducing Campfire for iPhone - <AUTHOR> http://productblog.37signals.com/products/2010/07/introducing-campfire-for-iphone.html

<comment><AUTHOR> The blog post is a little vague - did they purchase just the Ember application (as opposed to the company)?

<comment><USER2> We just bought the app.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks Jason! That's what I was assuming.

Is this the first time you guys have bought an app from another company like this?

<comment><USER2> Yes. We hired Overcommitted to write our Highrise for iPhone app and Draft for iPad, but we've never purchased an app or product outright like this before.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> looks like there is <http://github.com/klondike/campyre> for android but it doesn't look very active.</comment>


Free, open source alternatives to Slack for team chat - <AUTHOR> https://opensource.com/alternatives/slack <comment><USER2> We've been hosting a Riot/Matrix instance, and the experience has been great. I like their team's unique approach to transparency. One neat example of this is that they provide streams of their weekly standups to their Patreon supporters.

</comment><comment><USER3> If someone is interested in paying for someone to manage Mattermost for them, Relay Chat[0] is $1/user/month and free for non-commercial entities.

[0]: [https://relay-chat.com/](https://relay-chat.com/)

</comment><comment><USER4> With Slack deciding to close its open gateways, this seems extremely important. Thank you.</comment>


Python 3.8.0a1 is now available for testing - <AUTHOR> https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2019-February/156201.html <comment><USER2> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19077235](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19077235)</comment>


Ask HN: What state [or region] is hiring the most of us? - <AUTHOR>

I'm sorry for sounding so general and naive, but if you were sitting on $60K and you were unsatisfied with your local job prospects and  culture, where would you move?<p>Even if you answer is as general as east or west, I'm more or less, just looking for some positive insights that reflect the character of place you lived in or are living in now and how the current job-market is fairing there for hackers. <comment><USER2> In Canada, Vancouver is a fair place to move for tech jobs. Your best bet though is east, in Waterloo or Toronto. Heading further east, there are good number of software companies (including game shops) in Montreal.

Calgary is always an option, depending on the oil sector.

</comment><comment><USER3> west. more specifically, SV, seattle or portland. they all have good tech industries as well as awesome local culture.

but those are my choices, ymmv.

</comment><comment><USER4> I really wish to move to the Silicon Valley... it's my biggest dream in my life. Starting my startup at the heart of the Silicon Valley - Palo Alto, or maybe at Mountain view... ouch, this dream is always in my head!

It's not about money or any thing... it's just emotional. It's enough to tell you that the Silicon Valley is in my heart, and that I visit Google maps every day to take a look at the area with the street view feature.

<comment><USER2> What is stopping you?

<comment><USER4> The borders. :) The visas laws... if you are an American, then almost you don't know about it, but Arabs are restricted from entering America... only fraction of Arabian visa applicants are granted the visa.

Anyway, I hope that maybe after 30 yrs from now, the globalization will be more practiced, and the borders will be removed.... so I would be able to acheive my dream.

<comment><USER5> Move to Dubai? I'm a Canadian living in Toronto and I know headhunters who are trying to find people HERE to relocate there. Salary seems very competitive also.

<comment><USER2> Isn't Dubai experiencing a mass exodous due to the global financial crisis?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


AI-generated music: can AI make music that's worth listening to? - <AUTHOR> https://johnkoetsier.com/ai-generated-music-can-ai-make-music-thats-worth-listening-to/ <comment><USER2> What I believe you will see (and are seeing) is composition assistants. i.e: generate possible melodies, chords & preselected sounds that will 'likely' sound good together. As long as AI is based on historical datasets it will inherently be behind the every evolving subjective human 'taste'.</comment>


ClojureQL - SQL DSL for Clojure - <AUTHOR> http://www.bestinclass.dk/index.php/2009/12/clojureql-where-are-we-going/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+bestinclass-the-blog+%28Best+in+Class+-+The+Blog%29 <comment><USER2> I am a bit disappointed by this abstraction, especially given what power Clojure gives for creating DSLs. This "SQL DSL" seems to resemble a lot on how database handling works in Java.

The people behind ClojureQL should take a look at Python's SQLAlchemy or Ruby's Sequel for inspiration on how to create kick ass SQL abstractions.

<comment><USER3> They should look at Linq.

<comment><USER4> LINQ is nice and if it helps db4o which is GPL has Java and .NET languages support.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Generally the comments in this post (currently 5) all demonstrate a misunderstanding of the core principles.

ClojureQL provides DB Agnosticism and language-level statement construction. On top of ClojureQL you could build any number of high-level abstractions, but ClojureQL is not an attempt at doing that.</comment>


GMAIL: Increase in legitimate emails ending up in SPAM - <AUTHOR>

Is anyone seeing an increase in the amount of legitimate email ending up in the SPAM folder? I forward email from my startup to my personal account and have noticed that replies to original emails are ending up in the SPAM folder. This is alarming and I'm looking for a cause. Reminded of this essay by PG http://paulgraham.com/ambitious.html <comment><USER2> Yes, I've noticed that as well. I've also noticed the opposite - more spam getting in to the inbox. It seems maybe they are tweaking the algo a bit.</comment>


Fancy Clojure REPL - <AUTHOR> https://asciinema.org/a/296507 <comment><USER2> This REPL like Nodejs REPL are great efforts, if limited to a teletypewriter emulator.

They're pretty terrible compared to what was available in Lisp machines and Smalltalk (for example) from decades ago and what now live on in McCLIM's Lisp Listener [https://common-lisp.net/project/mcclim/excite.html](https://common- lisp.net/project/mcclim/excite.html) and Pharo Smalltalk Playgrounds.

The main problem is the Print part results in "dead text". For example, you can't re-select it (other than using history shortcuts), you can't interact with it (it's dead, afterall) and there was only one representation of it (some kind of "to-string" for it). You can't even inspect it.

Beyond that, you're stuck with the teletypewriter environment. You can't display an image, or sound wave, statistical model graphically etc, let along interact with them.

<comment><USER3> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c52QhiXsmyI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c52QhiXsmyI)

[http://rebl.cognitect.com/download.html](http://rebl.cognitect.com/download.html)

<comment><USER2> That is just a painfully awkward inspector. I don't know why Halloway isn't aware of the prior art. I thought he had some experience with Common Lisp...

<comment><USER4> What's painfully awkward about it? Can you list some specifics?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This looks great, I'm looking forward to giving it a go! Since I've found myself using VSCode pretty much full time now, my current workflow is to use the Calva plug-in [0] which provides a nice REPL amongst many other awesome features.

[0]: [https://github.com/BetterThanTomorrow/calva](https://github.com/BetterThanTomorrow/calva)

<comment><USER6> Do you know if it's anywhere near competitive with CIDER?

<comment><USER7> TL;DR: absolutely yes it's competitive with CIDER; there may be experiments in the CIDER ecosystem that you won't get with Calva but 99% of the stuff you will actually use works totally fine in Calva and if you like VS Code you should definitely not think twice about it :)

Caveat: I don't use Calva myself, but I'm the president of the Clojurists Together Foundation. We just funded Calva's development and of course did some due diligence in the process. It's definitely got a ton of features, it's stable, but it's maybe slightly less feature-complete than the CIDER ecosystem right now. Hopefully funding helps change that, I'm a happy Emacs + CIDER user but rising tides lift all boats :-) One thing I love about Calva is that there's less fiddling. You just turn it on and you get 99% of the actual functionality of a top-end Emacs setup, except you didn't spend hours getting it to actually work. (Spacemacs makes this a lot better, but not everyone uses Spacemacs.)

While Calva isn't CIDER, it does build on stuff that is either directly from CIDER or de facto from CIDER (e.g. nrepl), so fortunately there's a lot of development effort that directly or indirectly helps both projects.

Finally, the shameless plug: if developing the Clojure ecosystem is important to you you should consider giving us (Clojurists Together Foundation) money -- we've funded critical infrastructure like CIDER, fireplace, Ring, Reagent, shadow-cljs... Oh, and we keep a little thing called Clojars afloat :-)

<comment><USER3> This seems unfair towards CIDER. Cider has excellent debugging, stacktrace navigation, integration with other tooling and more... that isn't available in Calva.

I would never say that you can't use Calva to get work done, but CIDER has a good deal more than what Calva offers currently.

I could accept that maybe "99% of users don't need what CIDER offers", but saying that Calva is 99% of what CIDER offers is just completely incorrect.

<comment><USER7> ... Good thing that I said "but 99% of the stuff you will actually use works totally fine in Calva" which is a lot closer to your first example than the second? Given that I explicitly acknowledge the feature gap?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'll give this a try. I'm currently using VSCode & Calva. It's been a bless! I create an uberjar with Clojure's nrepl server and start that server with my java project's dependent jars. At the end, I am able to "jack-in" the embedded repl server running with in a production-like environment. Needless to say, when I demoed this stuff, many engineers were excited to learn more about Clojure. They saw I inspected, ran and modified behavior of existing code all in the REPL without even redeploy/restart anything.

I have to say that there are 3 things that I am very grateful for acquiring in 2019: got into Bach's music, learn to play the piano and finally "got" LISP via Clojure.

<comment><USER9> It would be lovely with a video demo of this!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This looks super cool! I'd love a pitch for when you use a terminal clj repl versus your development environment. For years using Python I was constantly experimenting in a terminal REPL, but now with CIDER (or other IDEs--I just happen to use CIDER) it feels like the integration is so good I just do all my REPL work as a side effect of using an editor.

For a long time I ran venantius/ultra but too many of the dependencies ended up randomly breaking stuff. These deps look a little less likely to do that so I'll give it a shot :)

</comment><comment><USER10> My default Clojure REPL in IdeaJ with Cursive has colour coding, hints from the docs etc. If I type

         (set/union a b)

it will auto add the set namespac, it has history etc. Supports paredit.

It will also do some autocomplete, although this seems flakey.

<comment><USER11> Yeah, it is the only one that somehow approaches the experience from commercial Common Lisp environments.

<comment><USER7> Not trying to convince anyone, but if someone is already using Clojure with Emacs (which the annual survey seems to suggest is the most common case): those are all features you get with CIDER + clj-refactor as well. If you use spacemacs, I think they mostly just work out of the box if you turn on the Clojure layer (and maybe turn on clj-refactor -- I forget if that's an option or a default now).

<comment><USER11> Can it also display graphical representations of data structures, notebook style like Lisp Machines and commercial Common Lisps?

<comment><USER7> That's not one of the features GP enumerated, but, yes, there are lots of flavors of accomplishing that while using CIDER.

The two most common ways I've seen people accomplish something like that is probably Clojure's builtin inspector functionality and CIDER's general ability to display any kind of image (which conveniently lets it do stuff like plotting as well). If your focus is on the permanence and documentation aspect of the notebook experience, you're probably going to be happier with ob- clojure or Gorilla REPL. If your focus is on the exploratory part, you're probably going to be happier with REBL, or if you really want everything inside an emacs buffer you might do that with walmartlabs' datascope. I do everything with cider-inspect because I don't find the graphical visualization that valuable -- most of my data structures are too large so I ~always end up writing a specter query ~immediately.

All of this is for Clojure specifically. If you're writing in-browser apps you'll probably like frisk (through re-frisk or data-frisk), where you can do this stuff right in your browser next to the app:

[http://odinodin.no/x/datafrisk/](http://odinodin.no/x/datafrisk/)

[https://github.com/flexsurfer/re-frisk](https://github.com/flexsurfer/re- frisk)

\-- but that's not technically in CIDER, though you can certainly use it from CIDER.

<comment><USER11> Thanks for the overview.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It looks cool, but I never understand "obsession" with having nice [Lisp] REPL in the terminal. I almost never type directly in the REPL, even when I have it in my IDE. One of the selling points of Lisp that you can eval any expression from your editor, isn't that right?

<comment><USER13> What languages do you usually use? REPLs for languages like python and nodejs are never as integrated and well working as REPLs for lisp languages like Clojure. Probably the structure of the code that lisp almost forces you to have, makes the REPL experience much easier. Especially in Clojure where most functions are side-effect free which means you can run them out-of-context, as long as you've defined the vars it's using since before.

<comment><USER12> Because non-homoiconic languages don't have "true" REPLs. At best they have "interactive environments". What's great about Lisp, and the point people complaining about parentheses miss, is that you can eval any [sub]expression without any preceding ceremony. That is not possible in almost any other language (maybe with exception of Smalltalk), simply due to the nature of the language syntax.

In Clojure, if you have something like:

(foo [a b] ((c a) b))

you can evaluate every single part of it, you'd get immediate feedback, what is `a`, what is `b` and `c`, the result of `(c a)`, the result of the entire thing, etc. Similar thing in JS would be something like:

let foo = (a, b) => { return c(a)(b); }

It's already more difficult to edit, there's no "structure", it's not easy to evaluate arbitrary pieces without "dancing around", introducing temp variables. Given Clojure code snippet is also data, it can be send over the wire, send directly to the connected REPL instance, etc.

That's what gives Lisp developers a substantial speed of development. When people talk about "what's good about Clojure", they usually say: immutable data-structures, stability, hosted nature - can target JVM, JS, BEAM and CLR, can even have interop with Python and R. But the coolest thing about Clojure and Lisps in general - they provide "true" REPLs.

<comment><USER14> Smalltalk isn't homoiconic?

You can certainly eval parts of a python or ruby program (although indentation-as-block needs some care in python).

In lisp you also need a useful scope (eg: if foo isn't bound "(foo 1 2)" won't be very useful).

<comment><USER12> No, Smalltalk is not fully homoiconic, it has some nice "reflective" abilities, i.e. it's possible to view "code as data" that allows good REPL experience. But it's not a homoiconic language.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I love seeing what people are doing in the space of REPL interactivity. I've been working on a similar project, but for Node.js[1]. One of the things I've found the most helpful so far is color highlighting the _input_ , in addition to the output.

[1]: [https://github.com/nodejs/repl](https://github.com/nodejs/repl)

</comment><comment><USER16> Looks like rebel-readline [https://github.com/bhauman/rebel- readline](https://github.com/bhauman/rebel-readline)

</comment><comment><USER17> I recommend also having a look at OCaml's utop, it's also a very advanced REPL with at least some similar features, and taking advantage of OCaml's static typing.

</comment><comment><USER18> does anyone actually use the REPL CLI, and not a client?

<comment><USER12> Useful for newbies and for small experiments. Once you learn how to evaluate s-expressions directly from an IDE connected to a REPL instance - you probably would never directly type in the REPL again.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I thought the name of the REPL was Asciinema.

<comment><USER20> Yeah, that's a bit unclear, though I think the intention is to preface the format for those familiar with Asciinema (similar to "Video - " or "Slide Deck - ")</comment></comment>


Wisconsin's Disastrous $4.5B Deal with Foxconn - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-02-06/inside-wisconsin-s-disastrous-4-5-billion-deal-with-foxconn <comment><USER2> Previously on HackerNews: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19037625](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19037625)

Have any deals like this ever delivered on the actual jobs promised? Seems like every marquee deal that comes out like this inevitably slowly decreasing the actual investment and number of jobs until it's tiny and then the plant/company closes just before their tax breaks run out.

</comment><comment><USER3> The true disaster here is Wisconsin's derelict education system which lead to the election of a city council incompetent at basic math and inebriated by the siren word "jobs".

</comment><comment><USER4> Previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19037625](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19037625).</comment>


Robot with Bimetal Feet Can Walk on a Heat Source Forever - <AUTHOR> http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/robotics-hardware/robot-with-bimetal-feet-can-walk-in-a-frying-pan-forever <comment><USER2> It reminds me of these two other heat-powered mechanisms, one entertaining and one useful:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_bird](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_bird)

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTQEJAvabX0](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTQEJAvabX0)

<comment><USER3> Reminds me of the kinesin protein [http://www.somegif.com/gifs/13649141741817812127.GIF](http://www.somegif.com/gifs/13649141741817812127.GIF)</comment></comment>