Nearly Half of Game Developers Want to Unionize - <AUTHOR> https://www.engadget.com/2019/01/24/nearly-half-of-game-developers-want-to-unionize/ <comment><USER3> As someone who's been in the game industry a while, I can see where this is coming from. This is not about software devs, it's a special challenge specific to game devs where the lower pay and higher overtime expectations really affect people's lives. This is then made worse as studios keep closing down, because people will put up with more bs than usual for job stability.

No idea if unions are the solution, but this is definitely an issue specific to the game industry right now.

<comment><USER4> The biggest reason why gamedev jobs tend to have lower pay and more overtime compared to many other swdev jobs is really simple: there are lots of sw devs who are willing to put up with those conditions because they want to work on games.

Also, it's easy to claim that one "wants" to unionize on a survey. But that's quite a bit different from actually doing it. So I would take this survey with a large grain of salt. It's not like most game developers couldn't get other sw dev jobs if they wanted to, after all.

If you want to know what people really value, ignore what they say and focus on what they actually do.

Disclaimer: have worked for game companies before

<comment><USER5> While this is true its not the biggest reason. The game dev cycle is just different than the tech cycle and it opens a window to exploitation.

Games releases are seasonal so a common practice is to hire for an xmas release and gut the teams after that.

Shady bonus practices are common. You often have very little recourse into how yearly profit is calculated and paid out.

The separation of studio managing employees and publishers holding on to IP means that studios can close up shop without the rights holders being liable for any back pay or bonus.

<comment><USER6> This is the correct answer. Management promises a unicorn, works you like a dog, and then pulls the rug out from under you, just before you deliver.

Alternatively, if you dig in, and refuse to deal with that bullshit, quitting, or being dismissed for not being a team player, half-way through crunch on a shitty project is a great way to burn bridges in that industry.

<comment><USER4> > Alternatively, if you dig in, and refuse to deal with that bullshit, > quitting, or being dismissed for not being a team player, half-way through > crunch on a shitty project is a great way to burn bridges in that industry.

I don't doubt it, and your comment supports my original point: that there is a surplus of devs willing to tolerate such conditions. If that were not so, quitting would not be near as much of a problem for one's future employment prospects, because employers would not have as many candidates to choose from in the first place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've been in the game industry going on a decade now and I have zero interest in unionizing. I do not want my future in any way controlled by yet another external entity that I have little control over and promises nebulous results.

As an employer I want to be able to fire toxic or under-performing employees at will without jumping through a hundred hoops to make sure I am not breaking any union rules.

As an employee, I want to be free to negotiate my own wages based on my merit.

If there is one thing I would want a union to do it would be to collectively enforce some kind of profit sharing plan. The interests of the employees and the employer align -- make a great game that sells well. Anything else, no thanks.

<comment><USER8> These are all very old problems brought up when workers want protection from abusive employers by forming a union and is not unique to the video games industry at all.

Even railroads and textile mills didn't ask their employees to work 80 hour work weeks.

<comment><USER7> There are some serious bad actors in the game industry, Rock Star being one of the worst.

Where I've worked we valued work/life balance as much as possible. Did we have a bit of crunch close to a release? Yep, but it was short and a few weeks at max. Most of us enjoyed it due to the extra camaraderie.

If there were a unionization effort that focused on 1) a hard 40-50 hour cap on work hours (or with paid overtime) and 2) enforced profit sharing plans, I could support it.

The current main unionization effort basically says "things will be better for everyone" on their FAQ. Total bullshit.

<comment><USER9> Saying that 'most of us enjoyed crunch time' seems like a bit of projection, especially for people that might have families or other social obligations outside of work that crunch time eats into.

<comment><USER7> We were sane about it, family obligations always took priority. There is a difference between a sprint to the end and a death march like Rock Star.

<comment><USER10> Just so you know, this is the knife edge that leads you down to crunch.

Literally every time I had a 3-4mo 80-100hour crunch it always started out with "we're going to push for a week or two" which just transitioned into "just one more week" for the next 3 months.

Also, shame for celebrating a crunch. You may have enjoyed it but there's a high likelyhood someone else went along just to not "rock the boat". I don't care who you are putting in more hours puts stress on other parts of your life.

I just don't understand how that industry has their head up their ass from top to bottom for such a long time. There's some interesting problems in that space but after my 6 years I'd never go back.

<comment><USER7> Shame for celebrating a crunch? I'm talking 50 hours a week instead of 40 for a period of a few weeks. It is possible for a company and project to need that extra work and not turn into a sweatshop afterwards. I am 100% against the crunch that is par for the course in so many studios, but I am also disappointed by an attitude that work is always just work and god forbid it ever intrude on life outside.

I worked for five years at early and late stage startups before transitioning to games, and I cannot recall there ever being a time when extra work was not needed to get over the finish line.

If a union ends up being the only way chronic overwork can be addressed in the industry at large, so be it. Perhaps the real solution though is a legislative one, as suggested below.

<comment><USER11> > I worked for five years at early and late stage startups before > transitioning to games, and I cannot recall there ever being a time when > extra work was not needed to get over the finish line.

I worked at such company too. It had zero to do with need for overtime and and a lot to do with people wanting to work this way. E.g. unwillingness to prioritize, unwillingness to negotiate, wish to be seen like the one who stays late and thus finding work to stay late when not needed. Overtime is not seen as failure of organization, so the organization does not learn how to do it. People staying late are seen as heros and people managing projects so that overtime is not needed are not rewarded, so latter leave and former create culture.

To large extend, people who stay in such companies don't believe it is possible to make deadline without overtime, so they are not even trying.

<comment><USER7> It's trivial to never have overtime if you either 1) have no deadlines or 2) have a project so unoriginal you can plan its schedule to the hour.

Show me any project with dynamic requirements that has some sort of deadline, be it time or money running out, and I guarantee there has been some extra work at some point.

<comment><USER11> I am not saying it is trivial. I am saying it is not rewarded. It takes skill and willingness and some companies are not motivated to do it. Nevertheless, it is quite possible to not cruck when you decide you don't do that, period.

Prioritization, negotiation and saying no. Estimates large enough that they have buffers. You don't need on hour predictability. It is precisely when you have dynamic requirements when you are supposed to use tools like that.

After crunch, there are typically many bugs and convoluted code. It just adds to overall time in long term. Pretty much all studies found crunch to not be effective. It is not about achieving more.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Not to be pedantic, but this headline is not accurate. There's nothing that makes me confident that respondents to the game dev conference survey are representative enough to say "nearly half of game developers."

This is a really important point as trying to represent a bunch of people's opinion based on a single, limited survey is not productive.

<comment><USER13> Statistically speaking 4000 is a good enough number. I mean, election polls in the US usually use less than that for a population of 300 million and they're usually close to the real number.

<comment><USER14> Except in 2016. And that 4000 is a biased population of only game devs that attended a certain conference. Maybe if it was a totally random sample of 4000 of all game devs it would be statistically significant.

<comment><USER15> >Except in 2016

In 2016 the national polls were very close to the final result--within a couple points. Remember that Clinton won the popular vote.

State polls were less accurate, but the general consensus is they were wrong due to undecided voters breaking more for Trump than is normal in the final few days--after the final state polls were conducted.

That being said, your point stands. Sample method is generally more important than sample size, and 4,000 game devs who self selected to attend a conference is very unlikely to be a representative sample.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Unions would very likely increase game prices. I will happily pay more for games in exchange for better conditions for game developers.

<comment><USER17> Labor cost does not determine a product's sale price. That is a disastrous myth. Demand changes selling price. If a company cannot price to sell to their demand because of capital or labor costs, the free market has stated that the business is not viable.

<comment><USER18> Labor / Employee costs is a lot of the times the most significant costs to a company. It's not the sole determination but it's definitely one of the top 3 factors Labor (forever and growing) > Infrastructure (large but incremental) and R&D (medium and ongoing)

<comment><USER17> Right, and if the costs of running your business are greater than the revenue you can generate from market demand, then you are not running a viable business.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I never understand employees who _don 't_ want to unionize. It just shows what a sorry state the labor movement is in.

<comment><USER20> Some insight as to why someone may be anti union:

My union has done nothing perceptible during the course of my employment, outside of protecting employees who are under performing.

My union dues cost 1% of my salary, and my perception is that they're taking that money and spending it on protecting bad employees.

I have friends who are higher up in unions at other workplaces, as well as friends who are involved with labor law. The impression all around is that my union and its representatives are "not good".

Unions don't automatically make working conditions better. They need to have good people working in the union to achieve that.

<comment><USER21> > Unions don't automatically make working conditions better. They need to have > good people working in the union to achieve that.

I see it everywhere, this weird argument that "shitty unions are shitty." Well, yes. "Shitty [anything] is shitty."

Unions are a tool. That tool can be misused! But it can also be used well for great effect.

Sorry your union isn't working well for you.

<comment><USER22> You're recommending everyone unionize, even though some unions are shitty and may end up being a net negative for people. But, aren't some businesses or sectors not shitty? Why unionize in nonshitty sectors or businesses?

<comment><USER23> Unionizing in a non-shitty sector will give the workers a way to help ensure that the sector _continues_ to not be shitty, both by maintaining a baseline for what a union shop looks like, and by contributing money to politicians who will work to pass laws that help keep the sector free of shittiness.

<comment><USER22> But the sector is already doing a good job of being non-shitty without a union. And what about the case where you're in a non-shitty sector, but end up with a shitty union, resulting in a net negative for the employees? Do you just say "Oh well, it was for the greater good. Someone else somewhere has a union which is non-shitty, just in case some day the sector becomes antagonistic with employees"?

<comment><USER24> Isn't the whole point of the OP about how shitty the video game sector is

<comment><USER22> OP is saying that they don't understand why _any_ workers would not unionize, not just workers in the video game industry.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Since it's game programmers, why not apply some game theory?

Aside from not wanting to be part of a union, people are reluctant to join a union if others do not do the same. Many people might actually join one if there was a big one, but a big one can't grow because nobody wants to be the first guy to raise his hand.

So someone needs to make a website that manages this. Everyone pays a deposit, say $100 bucks, and signs onto some secure site that will keep details private. If you get more than some minimum, the money is sent to the new union. Otherwise send it back.

<comment><USER26> So basically, you're suggesting a union Kickstarter. Makes sense.

<comment><USER27> unionkickstarter.com is available!

<comment><USER28> Not according to international trademark law.

<comment><USER29> Do you suspect this would fall under trademark confusion? It's definitely towing a line but I don't think it's necessarily that clear-cut. It's not like they own the term 'kick starter,' they just used it in their trademarked brand.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I don't know what's driving people to work in the gaming industry. If you worked on simulation software, for example, you could still do graphics programming, have a phenomenally better working environment, reasonable hours, and more pay.

<comment><USER31> It's because it's a dream for people, comparable to working on movies. That's like saying why should a AV technician not work on movies when they can make more money doing recordings for corporate events.

<comment><USER32> So why should anyone outside this "dream" industry give two shits about the people inside the industry being mistreated? If they don't like it, they should go to work in some other "boring" industry that uses those same skills. There's no shortage of jobs out there for skilled people these days, the problem is too many prima donnas like these game devs who want to live their dream and then also be treated well. When everyone and their brother is clamoring to work in a particular niche industry, producing a huge oversupply, this is what you get. Go work in an industry where there's a shortage of qualified people instead.

<comment><USER33> Maybe, and hear me out I know this is a crazy idea, but maybe everyone should be treated well.

<comment><USER32> Sorry, I don't believe that. I believe people who don't have a good choice should be treated well, but if people are happily signing up to be treated poorly, and they KNOW they are going to be treated poorly there, (and they have plenty of far better alternatives, and they're only signing up for this because it's "cool") then I don't have any sympathy for them whatsoever.

If you want to be treated well, then stop flocking to people and places that treat you like crap.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Whats lost in all this is how idiotic the extra hours are to begin with. Games aren't different than other tech. Burning out your employees is demonstrably counterproductive. There's some usefulness in short term crunch but some large studios crunch for a full year. But games are run like entertainment companies and a lot of the decisions are not fact based.

Even if the only thing a union did was stop the exempt status for developers with regard to wage law we'd see a huge quality of life increase without much of a real impact on worker output.

</comment><comment><USER34> Game testers should unionize. I've met some game testers who are as dense as a box of hammers. I've also met some game testers who are valuable, awesome people who know things and who I'd be glad to work with. Unfortunately, the game industry seems programmed to treat them all like trash. I think this is another form of bigotry obscuring real human value. If one could find the really good testers, pay them well, and retain them, it might just pay off in increased quality and productivity.

</comment><comment><USER23> I hope that the folks at the forefront of trying to unionize the game industry are talking to existing entertainment unions. I suspect there's a lot of similarities, especially when you get into absurdly huge projects like a sprawling open-world game or an animated feature.

(And by 'animated' I include pretty much every effects-laden action film. IIRC there is _not_ currently an effects worker union in Hollywood, while there _is_ an animators union - guess which craft sucks less to be in?)

</comment><comment><USER35> I never understood the desire to work on games. Is it because many people get their introduction to software via games (legitimate question)? I remember many of my classmates in my college days were really about entering the gaming industry, and I just never understood why.

<comment><USER36> IMHO, it's also some of the least interesting dev work you can do. A few people might get lucky and work on physics engines, but for everyone else it is basically a gigantic UI project with a ton of control flow and throwaway code.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Been that way for more than a decade(at least since I was looking to get into the industry around '00 or so).

Problem is there's a thousand young devs out there trying to bang down the doors to get in. In that situation I don't see how you have effective leverage.

With things as it stands today there's a good ~50-60% churn in the industry and things seem to keep rolling on(although I wonder what improvements we'd see with better working hours and improved pay WRT other dev domains).

<comment><USER37> _> Problem is there's a thousand young devs out there trying to bang down the doors to get in._

The same could be said of acting and professional athletics, and actors and pro athletes have strong, effective unions. So this hurdle is not insurmountable.

<comment><USER38> > pro athletes have strong, effective unions

Absolutely false. MLBPA is a joke and NFLPA stands idle while its employees are killed and subjected to brain damage while ineffectively signing agreements that discharge liability by management.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Here's an alternative to unions, which many here seem to be skeptical of:

How about promoting software companies being run as co-ops, where all workers have more ownership and are self-managed?

<comment><USER39> > How about promoting software companies being run as co-ops, where all > workers have more ownership and are self-managed?

That's a fantastic idea. In all honesty, unions are merely a mitigation for some of the worker-hostile aspects of the division between owners and workers. That split is also seems like it's the root cause of a lot of pathological union practices. I don't think you'd have those problems if businesses were worker-owned or if a worker union had a significant ownership stake.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Unions work well if everyone can agree on the same wage, or the same wage increases over time, etc, _or_ can agree on barriers to entry.

Teachers unions, pilots unions, etc, generally agree on wage (usually some % increase per year of experience), and doctors which are harder to agree on wage because there is much more variation instead unionize with barriers to entry (stricter AMA requirements).

I wonder which would be better for game developers. Barriers to entry or agreed wages.

</comment><comment><USER41> Don't do it. The enemy of your enemy is not your friend. Unions are not a bucket of roses.

You're exchanging one set of overlords for another. Literally sit down with anyone in their first 8-15 years of experience in a union and ask them what kind of influence they have on their industry, what sort of choices of work they get to work, who gets "the jobs" before you do, and about their fixed pay scale, and what are the consequences if they take non-union jobs.

</comment><comment><USER42> The tradition means of labor taking their control of a company is through a strike, and you really can't unionize unless 75% of all game developers are willing to strike to keep wages high.

You'll find I think that most game developers would be willing to be paid pennies to be a part of the next big video game. And if that's the market you're trying to compete in, maybe you should be in a different market if you're worried about wages.

</comment><comment><USER43> With regard to crazy work hours, our platform is used by lot of VFX studios and freelancers. From our frequent interaction with them, we observed that the amount of work hours they put in are really insane.

Its the same story but unlike game developers they get into that grind very often too. I don't think this scenario is unique to game developers alone and it exists in other domains - most prevalent when artistic expectation gets mingled with technology.

</comment><comment><USER44> What would entering a union mean for the developer?

I've read that it would increase their protection (legal, and sometimes financial, I suppose?), and that it's supposed to improve working conditions (because unionized workers will have a more solid foundation to push against as they demand those conditions).

How deep does this go? Is there any other benefit? Something specific to the industry, perhaps?

<comment><USER6> The biggest problems that game developers face is working conditions (Demand for unpaid overtime), and lack of protection from capricious behaviour by management (Management promises not fulfilled, retaliatory firings, firing people so that you don't have to pay them a ship bonus).

I can't really think of anything else.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> People who make comfortable livings sitting at desks near company cafeterias, then disparage unions, need to remember that unions brought them labor laws and weekends, and paid in blood:

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

<comment><USER46> Capitalism and productivity had significant impact on giving us more leisure time, not demanding it. This pattern has been repeated in many places with or without strong labor. Making more with less lets people work less over time.

<comment><USER47> Making more with less, let's you make more. If you're not making more, you're losing money. The only thing that reduces working hours is reducing workers, as a cost cutting move. The workers eliminated have more "leisure" time because they're not working at all.

Working hours are longer [0].

Capitalism did not give you a weekend. Capitalism did not give you a workday that ends after 8 hours. These are things that people literally died for. Business owners hired Pinkerton thugs to _murder_ workers, to try to get them to fall in line. Never say that capitalists _gave_ people leisure time and benefits. My grandfather stood in a field in Southern Illinois when he was boy and watched men gunned down during a strike. These things were demanded and taken.

[0] [https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=93364&page=1](https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=93364&page=1)

<comment><USER46> >Capitalism did not give you a weekend. Capitalism did not give you a workday that ends after 8 hours.

Both of those things were offered by Ford (and others) without federal law forcing it as a way to attract the best workers away from his competitors, and as companies saw it worked, many followed suit. They've been obtained in many countries without using labor unions to force the govt to legislate them. Unions in the US fought for them, but those things were likely coming anyways as people got richer through producing more goods. And there are enough cases of those things being offered in non-union places long before federal law that it's not honest to say they are here solely because unions.

The point is unions did not solely give us those things, or they would not also appear in places without such a labor movement. Many factors contributed to these things, unions, more production, i.e., more wealth for everyone, which are results of lot of pieces of progress.

>Working hours are longer [0].

Americans working more then other OECD countries is not the result of unions or capitalism. It's culture. Hours worked has fallen as wages rose over the past few hundred years, wages rose because people became more productive. [1]

China is a perfect example of how capitalism, not labor laws, release people from work and given them leisure and money. Under communism, there is ample labor law, which is the point of communism - all men are equal and all share. China got a two day weekend without needing unions to fight it through, they got more vacation, etc. [2] This is a result of the people making more, giving them more power, which is a result of people being more productive. It was not labor union there obtaining these things.

As they've opened to capitalism, allowing growth by more efficient allocation of capital, the everyday person has vastly improved quality of life. The same pattern played out in USSR->Russia for a while, which then went back some on the capitalism part. India did the same. Other countries followed suit.

[1] [https://eh.net/encyclopedia/hours-of-work-in-u-s- history/](https://eh.net/encyclopedia/hours-of-work-in-u-s-history/)

[2] [https://confuciusmag.com/chinese-leisure- life](https://confuciusmag.com/chinese-leisure-life)

<comment><USER48> >Americans working more then other OECD countries is not the result of unions or capitalism. It's culture.

Ironically, this is one of the topics which Marx (wearing his sociologist hat) tried to get at, as well as his descendants (Weber and the Frankfurt School etc.)

>Under communism, there is ample labor law

Under Communism there wouldn't be labour law because there is no such thing as "labour" requiring a law - labour law literally only exists due to its position in relation to capital.

>China got a two day weekend without needing unions to fight it through

This is due to a combination of China being founded by Socialists (and despite not being a Socialist state, needing to keep up appearances of being one) and importing already established Western ideas (in a very similar way to what Japan did).

>more efficient allocation of capital, the everyday person has vastly improved quality of life.

This is not contrary to the Marian thesis that capitalism requires free workers, free in the first sense of being able to sell their labour how they wish, and free in his more ironic sense of freedom from the means and produce of production.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> So, >50% of Game Developers Want to Unionize?

I'd like to see how this >50% is distributed across various measures, especially in terms of salaries and lines of codes produced. My bet is that according to Pareto's distribution they fall in the bottom 50% in terms of headcount whose output and compensation is ~15% of the total.

</comment><comment><USER50> Unions can't solve everything, but considering the most prevalent complaints game devs seem to have is getting overworked, underpaid, and fired as soon as a project is done, unions seem like a perfect fit.

At my last corporate job I was very vocal about the benefits that unions would have for software engineers. I still believe that.

</comment><comment><USER51> There is a vast market of companies willing to scoop up talented software developers - many don't require the demanding work schedules that the gaming industry takes for granted. Especially in such a highly-skilled field, I don't see the need for unionization when switching industries can be done easily.

</comment><comment><USER52> As always: 100% support them wanting better situations, and they have a right to pursue it. I would just not want to end up with a situation where I want to put my own self-developed game up on itch.io or otherwise and they require me to send a copy of my union approval.

</comment><comment><USER53> This software developer union thing is not going to happen, no matter what people prefer. At least a union that has any real clout.

It's not a situation like Detroit in 1954. It's a somewhat global marketplace with easily shifted capital and labor.

</comment><comment><USER54> Ironically, despite the famously abysmal working conditions in the game industry, they might have a hard time organizing, because there is such an enormous supply of qualified people who want those jobs.

</comment><comment><USER55> I'll take a shot at how it could be successful.

Unions can add value in industries that need vast numbers of highly specialized individuals.

If you think of a film or a play, both unionized industries, a production works by hiring a mess of specialists who show up ready to go. Everyone knows what they're doing, why they're there, etc. There's a very good discussion (with a libertarian economist, no less) here[1] about it.

There is a large part of game development, especially in the "blockbuster" game development that seems like it fits this model quite well.

It might not apply to more specialized elements like game engine design, but for modern games that are designed more like movies than games, it could be highly effective.

[1]: [http://www.econtalk.org/mitch-weiss-on-the-business-of- broad...](http://www.econtalk.org/mitch-weiss-on-the-business-of-broadway/)

</comment><comment><USER56> I neither think there should be impediments on unions nor should union dues malndatory, nor that there should be restrictions on the number of unions active in a workplace or industry. People should be able to go it alone and suffer/benefit from the consequences, or form a union spontaneously consisting of just a couple of fellow workers with shared demands. Let unions compete in their own marketplace to achieve both better and flexible representation of labor. And to those that will ojext that this puts a heavy burden on business by having to negotiate with multiple parties, well too bad.

</comment><comment><USER57> As a non-game developer, I'm surprised the numbers are so low. From the sounds of it, game dev is unnecessarily brutal and lives even get destroyed.

</comment><comment><USER58> As soon as they do, those jobs will move overseas. Unless there's some kind of legal / regulatory block to prevent it (e.g. tariffs)

</comment><comment><USER59> Yes, I'm sure that 20 something dev would look forward to waiting for years to get on the game dev team due to union seniority rules. And I'm sure the junior devs on the team would feel great about not getting the choice vacation times because the senior devs would have first choice due to union rules. After all, its fairer if those people who have put the time in get the most benefits, right?

</comment><comment><USER60> This is not at all reflected in the different game development groups on Facebook.

</comment><comment><USER61> any industry that has unions and/or requires unions, is an industry that is ripe for automation.

<comment><USER5> Go automate teachers and actors then.

<comment><USER61> actors and teachers are so easy, they've been replaced by software programs.

what's hard is replacing programmers, but we're getting there, no worries.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> As I've said before-- game development is the sort of industry that everyone _thinks_ they'll want to work in, only to change their minds very quickly once they see how the sausage is made. Never mind unionizing, even just raising awareness about the work conditions in the industry - and making it clear that they're not representative of "tech" more generally - would help a lot!

<comment><USER63> this. When I was a little kid I wanted to make games. Worked in the industry for 13 years. It's pretty brutal. 10AM to 10PM for months on end (this was when games were deployed on disks so there was a hard deadline, hence brutal crunch). The basic (but unsaid) feeling inside was that there are a ton of people who would be happy to replace you, so don't complain. Its an art form (visuals, audio, story, mechanics, math etc) so maybe suffering is innate. :). I don't miss it, but, I have always wanted to flesh out some ideas that have bouncing around for years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> Unions are formed, and are profitable for the members, when the work is the same for everyone and they are easily replaceable, since in that case, the workers can be easily exploited. The best engineers would not want to join a union since they'd have no reason to. Unions can help mediocre engineers who are replaceable code monkeys (Many of us are, including myself I think). But the thing is, why would I want to associate myself with that group? I'd rather try to be one of those awesome engineers. This dynamic doesn't exist in other well-unionized jobs. For example, all plumbers can do the same work in mostly similar way. So nobody is losing out by unionizing.

<comment><USER65> I don't think the dynamic of 'stigma' as you allude to will be a concern - <USER2> a company 'goes union' effectively everyone will be a part of it anyhow.

FYI - there is a _vast_ difference in quality and talent between good and bad plumbers/carpenters.</comment></comment>


Thousands of California soldiers forced to repay enlistment bonuses - <AUTHOR> http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-national-guard-bonus-20161020-snap-story.html <comment><USER2> "Robert D'Andrea, a retired Army major and Iraq veteran, was told to return a $20,000 bonus he received in 2008 because auditors could not find a copy of the contract he says he signed."

How is this possible? If private businesses could do this, it would be mayhem.

<comment><USER3> I'm surprised that this is somehow even passed the slightest political oversight.

You need to be a special kind of bastard to ask some one who willingly signed up to get shot at while defending their country to pay back any amount of money they got paid for doing so.

Wars aren't pretty, regardless of what you think about them, and especially about Iraq and Afghanistan never ever take it out on the soldiers, they are probably on your side because unlike most of us they actually seen war.

Soldiers don't decide when, where or against whom to go to war, they are not at fault I never understood how the left in the US could blame people who either got drafted (vietnam) or signed up to defend their country (post 9/11) for the atrocities of war.

<comment><USER4> My understanding is that the US has a professional army. Why are they called "volunteers"? Over here, a volunteer is someone who voluntarily joins earlier than required to begin his mandatory army service. People who join a job are all volunteers of course, but that's not remarkable.

<comment><USER3> There are two types of military service compulsory and voluntary hence they are called volunteers.

Compulsory involves conscription or a draft, I'm not sure how the "jail or army" thing is classified but since you are given a choice it's technically stelly voluntary.

The "professional" classification of the army doesn't mean it's voluntary professional means that you can be a career soldier and you are paid for doing so even if you are drafted, conscripts on the other hand are not paid other than a small stipend.

That said once you sign up the contract this isn't a job, you can't quit, you can't "call in sick", can't say no to anything, you are effectively forced to give up certain rights for the duration of the contract.

<comment><USER4> compulsory is definitely not voluntary. otoh i dont think theres any difference between professional and voluntary.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm not a veteran, I'm a desk jockey. I didn't like the foreign entanglements we've been involved with over the past 15 years. But that's not the point here.

When young men and women volunteer to fight and die for our country, and are made promises by the system, these promises should be honored.

This behavior by the California National Guard is disgusting.

<comment><USER6> I don't get why it has to be at all about the role itself, the honour of the military, or anything else.

If I'm extended an offer of employment including a $10,000 signing bonus, sign, take the job, receive my bonus, complete the job as agreed, and the contract expires and I go on my way... The company doesn't get to come back to me years later and say "Oh, oops, I actually forgot to have my boss sign off on that bonus I gave you. You need to give it back."

If you broke agreements with your financers on where/how that money was to be spent, that's _your problem_. Our contract was still valid - you have broken your contract with your financer and _you_ can deal with the penalties.

<comment><USER7> Seriously. The people who illegally gave away the government's money should be on the hook for repaying it. Not the people who accepted it legitimately and in good faith.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> _"We'd be more than happy to absolve these people of their debts. We just can't do it. We'd be breaking the law."_

Ok. There's a law, a bad law that needs to be changed. Is Congress so dysfunctional it can't fix this monstrosity?

<comment><USER9> Yes. Think about the 911 bill. Taking a decade to help cover medical costs of first responders and those that helped dig out dead bodies and hoping to find survivors. It was so sad to see Jon Stewart talk about this years later with only one person from the original panel because two were too ill now to show up and one died.

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3350433/John- Stewart...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3350433/John-Stewart-s- poignant-return-Daily-three-chairs-Former-host-Trevor-Noah-s-guest-leaves- spaces-9-11-responders-dead-ill-join-show.html)

<comment><USER10> Kudos to Jon Stewart though. He walked the halls of Congress on his own time after leaving the Daily Show to shame representatives into passing the bill responsible for covering the care of first responders.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L11Bxolo44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L11Bxolo44)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This smells like recruiters gaming the system while under pressure from the top to fill quotas. In the same vein as Wells Fargo.

Hit this impossible target or you're fired. We can't tell you to lie/cheat people to hit the numbers but we will promote the people who do and PIP the ones who don't. Meanwhile we will go through the motions of legal compliance.

Everyone gets what they want and the higher ups can come back later and act like it is a huge surprise to them that the people they hired and trained were gaming the system.

</comment><comment><USER12> Elsewhere, a for-profit prison extended their contract[1] with Feds barely a month after the Department of Justice said it would end[2] contracts with private prison operators.

[1] [https://twitter.com/i/moments/789498562904293376](https://twitter.com/i/moments/789498562904293376)

[2] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post- nation/wp/2016/08/1...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post- nation/wp/2016/08/18/justice-department-says-it-will-end-use-of-private- prisons/)

These are pretty quick u-turns by an establishment that's confident about business as usual following elections. Gravy-train!

<comment><USER13> This was for a DHS immigration facility, not for a prison. (Not that it makes it any better, but it doesn't break with Justice's decision.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The article doesn't quote anyone from California's Congressional delegation, or from the White House. Is there really no reaction here? We're talking about a few million dollars from the federal government to relieve an awful situation.

<comment><USER15> Personally, as a Californian I'm calling everybody on my chain-of-legislation on Monday.

<comment><USER10> THANK YOU. Only through action does change occur.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It's not clear from the article how this situation came to be.

Were these soldiers told how much they would receive before enlisting? If so surely that is a contract and they don't have to repay. It only makes sense if they ALL received more than they were told and all didn't report it. But ~10,000 people doing this doesn't make sense.

<comment><USER17> From the article "Investigations have determined that lack of oversight allowed for widespread fraud and mismanagement by California Guard officials under pressure to meet enlistment targets."

<comment><USER16> But fraud on the part of the California Guard is an internal matter. If I form a contract with a company that says they will pay me some amount of money, but the company representative was committing fraud internally then too bad. The company needs to deal with that. It can't reneg on its agreement years later after having already fulfilled the terms of the agreement.

<comment><USER18> If you buy a piece of electronic equipment from a dealer at a flea market, and it is later found out that the merchandise was stolen, you have to return the merchandise to the original owner. Even if there was a valid contract between you and the dealer that sold it to you.

I think this is seen as something similar -- the people giving out the bonus money basically "stole" it, so it wasn't theirs to give. Kind of like if a sales person at a store told you "buy now and I can give you an instant rebate", then pulled rebate money from the cash register. I think you'd have to give that money back too (assuming the "rebate" wasn't authorized, and was effectively stolen money).

<comment><USER19> But if the dealer was known he would have to reimburse me, no?

Also what if I where no longer in possession of the good?

<comment><USER20> > But if the dealer was known he would have to reimburse me, no?

Yes, but even if you've caused a judgement against him to be passed there'd likely be nothing to collect from (because you're not the only person in such a situation and he's likely had used the money).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I tell my son, his friends, and anyone who will listen: don't join the military unless this is your calling, indicated by God's finger touching your heart.

Because the military will treat you like shit if it's merely inconvenient to do otherwise. VA. Guard units called up to combat for one day shy of the time that would qualify them for combat pay. The linked article. Institutional abuse. Forced reenlistment during questionable wars. Etc.

USN, E6, 1975-1981. Not that that gives me any particular place on the moral ground. And for the record, I had a relatively easy time in the Navy. But even if I'd never been in, I'd be as outraged as I am now.

</comment><comment><USER22> I imagine this only damages the USA. The next time they need heavy recruitment numbers, people will look at the signing bonuses offered and either say "My life is worth more than this amount" or "this amount is too good to be true, they'll ask for it back in the future" and not sign on.

</comment><comment><USER23> So did recruiters cut bigger checks than they were supposed to? If so, someone had to sign off on that... either recruiters or the managers should be held accountable.

Soldiers got contracts promising one amount but received checks for another amount? Yeah, they should have to pay that back then.

But who wrote checks and / or promised numbers higher than the contracts?

<comment><USER24> > Soldiers got contracts promising one amount but received checks for another > amount? Yeah, they should have to pay that back then.

No, soldiers got promised one amount, got contracts for that amount, got paid that amount, and now it's being clawed back because the people who did the original promising and paperwork filing were breaking various laws.

<comment><USER23> Well if they have contracts for the higher amount... how is this a thing?

Unless the contracts weren't signed by someone from the government who could sign those contracts?

How would the soldiers know if the government recruiter was legit or not... yeah seems fucked. Government didn't supervise their recruiters correctly. Wouldn't that make all the contracts void? Messy.

If the military needs bodies, they should just go back to drafting them. Would help society see the true cost of policing the world instead of taking advantage of the poor.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> As an Army vet myself, the truth is is that the Army will never miss an opportunity for fucking you over. Its the nature of the system. If you can make it to 20 years, you are some combination of exceptional/lucky/broken from years of fuckery.

"We just can't do it. We'd be breaking the law"

Yeah, I'm sure the California National Guard tried _really, really_ hard not to go after their bonuses.

<comment><USER26> Can you go into more detail? I'm not trying to dispute what you say, but as someone who's never been in the military, I'm curious what kind of trouble soldiers are likely to run into.

<comment><USER27> Note he's talking specifically about active duty Army, not necessarily any other branch. I can relate a story as an example.

I was enlisted in the late 90's and stationed Germany. I had a POV (personal vehicle) that I had to license/register. I had to drive to a neighboring facility to get to the license office. The office was closed, for some stupid reason (they where short staffed, and someone was out sick). The Area Military Police where in the same building, and I (stupidly) stopped a the desk sargeant and complained. I was escorted in to see the MP Sergeant Major, who yelled at me for a while, and took my ration card and confiscated my license plates (for no reason other than he could bully a lower enisted).

So this all meant I had to leave my car, and take the train back to my home base. I was late, and got into a lot of trouble for that. Then, I had to beg and finagle to go back and get my car properly licensed a week later, when I was supposed to have already had it done. This all contributed to me getting a reputation as 'shit bag', do nothing low life of a private. You get a lot hell when you have that type of reputation; a lot of 'extra duty' and unfair treatment. Like being ordered to crawl through mud in near freezing weather, with no change of clothes and no oppurtunity to dry off for DAYS.

But yeah, normal humans can't comprehend; fuckery. The term "fuck fuck" games from the reddit link is very fitting.

<comment><USER25> I was actually a reservist :) And I'm a she not he :D

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> And yet we can afford to bail out Wall Street firms that pay their executives millions in bonuses for driving their companies into the ground.

</comment><comment><USER29> Instead of hitting the soldiers who signed what they thought were reenlistment bonuses, why don't they pommel the commanding officers who presided over these "overpayments"?

</comment><comment><USER30> Wasn't clear from the article; did someone or a group of people break the law so that these ("illegal") bonuses could be paid? Basically, who (or what org) will be held accountable for this so that it won't happen again?

<comment><USER31> At least a partial answer is there, but presumably there are lot more people involved:

> _Army Master Sgt. Toni Jaffe, the California Guard's incentive manager, > pleaded guilty in 2011 to filing false claims of $15.2 million and was > sentenced to 30 months in federal prison. Three officers also pleaded guilty > to fraud and were put on probation after paying restitution._

<comment><USER32> It's disturbing that someone whose actions have brought such heartache and hardship to so many gets such a short sentence compared to 'blue collar' crimes. Rob a shop with a weapon, and you harm one person and get a trivial amount of money, but you'd be lucky to see a sentence that short.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> It sounds like this was not at all limited to California, just that there were more cases there due to various reasons (population, individuals, policies/incentives).

I'll be writing to my representative (Duckworth), both candidates to replace her, and her Senate opponent (Kirk). I expect responses at least from the two named since both are former military.

</comment><comment><USER34> Honestly, this story is just sad. I understand that there was fraud involved in order to incentivize soldiers to reenlist, but it's not their fault; It was the people who manipulated them into reenlisting.

I definitely think in this case the government should "forgive" this debt - and they probably will. VA benefits are already pretty flimsy, our vets have it hard enough.

</comment><comment><USER35> >>Robert D'Andrea, a retired Army major and Iraq veteran, was told to return a $20,000 bonus he received in 2008 because _auditors_ could not find a copy of the contract he says he signed.

>>We'd be more than happy to absolve these people of their debts. We just can't do it. We'd be breaking the law.

\- Stop quoting laws at us. We carry weapons

</comment><comment><USER36> Not really surprised, the California Guard has been a corrupt mismanaged scandal-plagued organization for a long time.

</comment><comment><USER37> This is so unbelievable they could mess up somthing like this. I hope this becomes major news. These people shouldn't be paying for someone else mistakes. If the money is mentioned in the contract, I don't see how they could just take it because of their mistake.

</comment><comment><USER38> So much of war is already unapologetically about about money. This is just adding insult to injury.

<comment><USER26> Looking down Wikipedia's list of active conflicts ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflict...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts)), it's hard to believe that money is a primary cause of any of them. I'm sure someone somewhere is making a profit, but that's different from the conflict being "about money".

<comment><USER39> It would be poor press to announce that a war is about money, but the veneer of pretense is thin. The Syrian war, especially given Russia's involvement is almost certainly about securing passage for natural gas pipelines.

Who thinks the Iraq war was actually about Freedom? That might have been the rallying cry but it was about securing access to oil and securing massive re- building contracts and/or reparation money. Many argue that the 1990s stock market boom was a direct result of the US getting $10/barrel oil via the Iraq war reparation deal, where they repaid the US for the costs of having to attack the US.

Any war where people suddenly have an interest in saving humanity should be viewed very skeptically, since there are hundreds of crises of freedom around the world. If the crisis happens to be on top of a giant oil field, well, then there may be some conflating variable.

<comment><USER26> "The Syrian war, especially given Russia's involvement is almost certainly about securing passage for natural gas pipelines."

Do you have a cite for that? No one on any side is building pipelines in Syria anytime soon, because, well, war. Also, pretty sure if I told Suheil al-Hassan or Abu Mohammad al-Julani they were fighting for natural gas pipelines, they'd knock my teeth out.

<comment><USER40> I have no idea if or how much this factors in, or even if it's true, but the story I've heard is that several years back, there was a plan for a pipeline that would go from Qatar and Saudi Arabia through Jordan, Syria, and Turkey to Europe. This would be a significant economic threat to Russia, since gas exports are about $25 billion/yr, about 2% of Russia's GDP, and a big source of hard currency, but also important is Russia's use of its gas pipelines to Europe to threaten to cut off supplies to countries in Eastern and Central Europe, which would not be possible if there were a gulf source of gas available. Saudi Arabia and Qatar have a lot of gas that is going to waste or is staying in the ground, so they could easily supply the European market. Supposedly, Assad turned down the deal, and the civil war started shortly after.

<comment><USER41> The main Russian alternative pipeline I'm aware of is Nabucco, which would be from Iraq, Azerbaijan, and Turkmenistan via Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Austria and Germany. I've not been aware of any pipeline projects from Qatar and Saudi Arabia--their natural gas is exported mostly via LNG. Considering that, unlike oil, natural gas prices are not priced equally around the world, and that the price for natural gas is much, much higher in Asia than elsewhere (Europe is about 20% the price of Asia and the US about a third to a half that of Europe (yay fracking!)), it's much more profitable for them to export to Asia.

Edit: After doing some research, I did find that there was a proposal for a Qatar-Turkey pipeline in 2010 (see [https://web.archive.org/web/20120228125310/http://pipelinesi...](https://web.archive.org/web/20120228125310/http://pipelinesinternational.com/news/pipeline_projects_in_the_middle_east/040183) ). It was proposed to connect to Nabucco, which hasn't been built. The articles that link the Syrian civil war, or more specifically Qatari involvement in said war, contend that Qatar wants a Muslim Brotherhood government to build the pipeline, which ignores Saudi coolness to the idea of the pipeline (Saudi Arabia also funds rebels in the civil war) and the fact that Qatar also funded the uprisings in Libya and Egypt, in the path of no contended pipeline.

In other words, the idea that the Syrian civil war is mostly about gas pipelines looks rather like people trying to find some resource that the war must be about because they can't believe war is about anything other than resources.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Maybe this is a good thing as it will make it harder to get people to go to war next time. Perhaps we might think twice about invading other countries.

</comment><comment><USER43> It's a scheme as old as the world, even Julius Caesar owed money to his legions men and did not pay them.

</comment><comment><USER44> Isn't there a statute of limitations on such belated claims?

</comment><comment><USER45> This is weird. I'm extremely surprised that some kind of statue of limitations does not apply here. I'm not sure we are getting the whole story.

</comment><comment><USER46> That is sickening

</comment><comment><USER47> Sue.

</comment><comment><USER48> Abhorrent.

</comment><comment><USER49> Idiots all the way to the top, looks like something only the President or Congress can remedy</comment>


Ticks may be the next global health threat - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2018/jan/25/forget-ebola-sars-and-zika-ticks-are-the-next-global-health-threat <comment><USER2> Had to go through a Lyme treatment last year myself.. it was _not_ fun. The antibiotics regime was easily one of the lowest points in my life - just felt terrible for weeks.

The thing I was taught by this experience, is to never, ever screw around with it. In my case I was attacked by a swarm of ticks during a hot period (Vienna, Austria) and I kind of ignored the bites .. thought nothing of them after discovering the ticks (2) and removing them .. but after 2 days, I had 4 red splotches over my body, and it was clear that I had the characteristic 'bullseye' symptoms.

Thought "okay, I can live through this" and didn't do anything about it for about 5 - 6 weeks; splotches went away, and I thought I was fine. No. Just, no. I was not fine.

Aches and pains like none I've experienced before (being Australian, I've had a few nasty bites in my life), and malaise and lethargy that was seriously affecting my ability to live life. Doctor told me I was an idiot for not coming in right away - that I could very well have done damage to my brain - and was put on a super strong antibiotics regimen .. which was pain itself, since it screwed with _everything_.

Anyway, had my blood tests, and they think I'm fine. But I have to go back in a month for another round of tests - because even if you think you're fine, after Lyme, you may not be fine for a few years. It can persist in the human body.

So, don't be a fool like me: if you get a tick, go immediately to the doctor and get it sorted. Trust me the symptoms are just awful.

<comment><USER3> > So, don't be a fool like me: if you get a tick, go immediately to the doctor > and get it sorted. Trust me the symptoms are just awful.

I'm glad to hear you're on your way to a full recovery given the severity of Lyme.

Your advice to "go immediately to the doctor" is not only important with regard to ticks but to all manner of infection. Most infections have similar symptoms and distinguishing between something discomforting and something deadly is a matter for a health care professional.

Stoicism with regard to maladies is practically a cliché among strong-willed people (men especially). _Always_ consult a doctor with unusual infections, and seemingly usual ones, too, if you can.

<comment><USER4> If you remove a tick within a few hours you're likely to be fine especially if you don't see the telltale red circular rash.

Running to the doctor for non-issues is part of why our medical costs have increased so much the last few years. There's so much marketing to "ask your doctor" about this and that and the other thing these days. And when you go, of course the doctor is obligated to run a battery of tests to cover his ass.

<comment><USER2> Yeah, Lyme disease is not a "non-issue", it is an issue, and a serious one, and you don't wanna fuck with it.

So, learn to spot the symptoms, and go get it sorted with a doctor. Like you would with any parasite.

<comment><USER5> Depending on what part of the country/world you're in, there's also a wide variety of tick-borne illnesses with _very_ scary mortality rates if untreated.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Hopefully we'll get a Lyme vaccine pretty soon.

[http://www.newsweek.com/lyme-disease-vaccine-valneva-fda- app...](http://www.newsweek.com/lyme-disease-vaccine-valneva-fda- approva-641796)

Back story on why a vaccine existed years ago ...and then was shelved because of anti-vax outrage is absolutely enraging for people who live in Lyme territory.

[http://legacy.wbur.org/2012/06/27/lyme- vaccine](http://legacy.wbur.org/2012/06/27/lyme-vaccine)

<comment><USER7> The withdrawal was unfortunate IMO. But it's not as simple as "anti-vax outrage." Efficacy wasn't great, vaccination only protected for a few years, and there were questions about side effects especially over the long term. [1] Especially given how Lyme has become such a problem in some areas, it's too bad it was withdrawn, but it's not a black and white case.

[1] [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870557/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870557/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Ticks and mosquitos are why I spray my hiking clothes with permethrin. It's a potent contact neurotoxin for both. It takes a little bit to act after exposure, but ticks will die quickly. Mosquitoes will also fly away and die after contacting my clothes.

It's derived from a chemical found in Chrysanthemums.

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

<comment><USER9> we make Permethrin 'tick tubes' for our yard. In a nutshell, it's bedding for mice laced with permethrin. Ticks attach to the mice during the mice breeding cycles in March and July here in New England.

[https://organicdailypost.com/make-tick- tubes/](https://organicdailypost.com/make-tick-tubes/)

I'm out in the yard a lot, I pull ticks off daily. I fortunately never have had Lymes but I noted (anecdotally) that the tick population has exploded in the last 10 years with the milder winters.

It's concerning. Probably going to get a flock of guinea hens this year.

<comment><USER10> Get your whole yard sprayed, too. It does make a difference if you do it a few times. As other commenters here, and I, can attest, it just isn't worth getting a bite. Lyme is awful.

<comment><USER11> _Get your whole yard sprayed, too_

Problem with this is Permethrin is quite a broad-spectrum insecticide and won't kill just ticks but also a lot of other insects (which take care of e.g. pollination and in turn are food for others, etc, the usual picture) and is also not exactly friendly for aquatic life. Also mammals are not completely out of the danger zone, depending on dose. And longer term effects are as far as I know simply unknown. So it needs at least some careful consideration in my opinion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> When I was 9 my mom got bit by a tick. Her mother had just died and she had just been divorced. She got Lyme disease was in excruciating pain and bed ridden for almost a year. She gained at least 100 pounds. I have very distinct memories of going into her room to just be with my mom and she would just be lying there in excruciating pain. As a kid I didn't really understand it and couldn't understand why she never wanted to do anything. Before she was very engaged and that year she just disappeared. Last year I was driving with my girl friend on a road trip. We stopped at a scenic view and picked some wild flowers. About an hour later I felt something crawling in my beard, discovered a tick before it bit thankfully but it got lost in the floor. I calmly told my girlfriend we have to stop it's an emergency. We promptly pulled over at the next exit and scoured that car and found the tick. Of course it was a spotted dear tick. We took a 30 minute breather and reflected on mortality. Really really scary! I was fortunate to have sensed it and found it before anything happened. So yeah ticks... It only takes one bite. That tick in very high likelyhood is carrying Lyme disease and that one bite will destroy your life. Worst of all... You probably won't even know it's there before it's too late.

</comment><comment><USER13> Ticks are awful. I used to be completely unconcerned by them as a kid, and have a knack for removing them without breaking, but after having a number of family members and pets affected by Lymes I am super careful.

The random tangent about deforestation and global warming seems ideological to me. Ticks aren't being forced into contact with us, they want to be wherever they can be.

If anything my guess would there's a problem with lack of predators, like a reduction in possums or something similar.

<comment><USER14> It's really strange... I grew up on a farm and remember running through the fallow fields barefoot with shorts on all summer, but the first time I actually saw a tick was in my mid-20s after I had moved to the city and took a walk through the local park. Since then I've found at least one tick on me every summer.

I don't know if I just got lucky in my youth or if ticks are getting worse, but it's something that's stood out to me as curious.

<comment> 52-6F-62 I had the exact same experience, sans farm. I grew up in a small town, though. Spent a ton of time in the country on friends' farms, lying in long grass in shorts no shirt—all of it. I never had a single tick bite. Horseflies, mosquitoes, spiders, all of that, but never ticks. Even in the city I've (thankfully) never seen one.

Now beaches and parks back there (rural south-western Ontario) are littered with "Tick Warning" signs.

You're not the only one who's confused and curious about it. It's like they used to be a non-issue. We were warned about them, I remember that—but that's all.

<comment><USER15> Me too. Grew up in the country (running through cornfields etc) in SWO and never had a single tick or even thought about ticks. Then this year my son picked up a small tick in McGregor Park on Lake Huron which thankfully tested negative for Lyme. The areas around the shoreline of Lake Huron seem particularly bad these days.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> If you do get bit. Get your tick tested. [https://www.tickreport.com](https://www.tickreport.com)

I'm from Massachusetts and spend a lot of time on Nantucket, which is like ground zero for Lyme (lots of deer, no predators). A service like this can really give you peace of mind if you do get bit.

Also worth noting, a tick bite is not like a snake bite. It's not really like being instantly injected with a venom or a foreign pathogen. From what I understand (after I got bit and looked it up) the tick really needs to be dug in for about 24-48 hours to cause a problem. So it's more like the tick is giving you an infection, and in the course of that passing on these terrible diseases (sometimes).

<comment><USER16> At least in my whereabouts, tick testing is no longer used. They said chance of false negative is too high. On top of that, bad tick doesn't mean you're infected. Two stages blood test is only fool proof way to test for Lyme.

Can confirm that ticks need time to give you Lyme. I've had Lyme twice. Both times I missed a tick on initial check and found it a day later. I get bitten few times a year and every time I find them on time all is good.

<comment><USER17> Do you build up any kind of immunity after repeated exposure?

<comment><USER18> It's a bacterial infection, so I believe immunity just doesn't last as long as it does for e.g. chicken pox. The vaccine, when it was available, recommended rather short intervals between boosters.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Quick story for 10 years of friend's Doctor visits which did not diagnose a Lyme infection - insufficient CDC guidelines:

Friend has had increasingly difficult health problems - mistook for thyroid issues - neurological issues (difficulty standing), thinning, pain, very scary stuff. Lyme swelling around nerves in brain, I believe was the explanation. Could not work. Finally diagnosed and undergoing months of traumatic antibiotic treatments involving a "heart port" :P is improving now, back working.

Tick bite in New York.

<comment><USER11> _mistook for thyroid issues -- Tick bite in New York_

Unfortunately it wasn't, but this should have been a major warning sign. There's still a lot of education to do. Almost the number one thing related to ticks I was taught by people from nature organisations is: if you know you had a tick bite, and you feel anything seriously out of order (of which the chances are still fairly small btw), check with a doctor; and if that doctor does not come up with anything tick-related (which happens, 10 years ago I also thought Lyme disease was the only bad thing which was spread by ticks), then get a second opinion from a doctor who has experience with most cases occurring in your area.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Lyme disease is unpleasant, but at least North America doesn't have Russia's tick-borne encephalitis, which kills or causes permanent neurological damage.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tick- borne_encephalitis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tick-borne_encephalitis)

<comment><USER5> Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever has case fatality rates well above 50%, can cause multi-organ system failure, and has a 20% hospitalization rate even when treated.

It's transmitted in many of the same places Lyme is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Ticks are widespread in Central Europe, but if you are cautious things are usually safe: wear long pants if you are in the woods, especially in summertime. No Flip flops. After you come home, check your entire body for ticks, it takes up to 24h to get Lyme. Have a tick card on you all the time, one like this: [https://www.amazon.de/Zeckenkarte-mit-Lupe- Kurzbeschreibung-...](https://www.amazon.de/Zeckenkarte-mit-Lupe- Kurzbeschreibung-H%C3%BClle/dp/B003E0F422)

<comment><USER15> Thanks for pointing out tick cards to me. For those in Canada MEC has one [1] which is half the price of the same card on Amazon.

[1] [https://www.mec.ca/en/product/5050-423/Tick-Remover- Card](https://www.mec.ca/en/product/5050-423/Tick-Remover-Card)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> One of the side effects of the fire ant problem in Texas is that they have significantly reduced the tick population. I have heard more than one person mention how they no longer find ticks after having been out in the woods, fields, etc.

Here is a page that talks about fire ants and some quotes:

[https://aggie- horticulture.tamu.edu/galveston/beneficials/be...](https://aggie- horticulture.tamu.edu/galveston/beneficials/beneficial-56\(partial\)_red_imported_fire_ant.htm)

"Fire ants voraciously consume populations of fleas, ticks, termites, cockroaches, chinch bugs, mosquito eggs and larva, scorpions, etc.—after learning this, I realize that it really has been years since I last set off a flea bomb. A non-overstated culinary creed for fire ants could be the following: If it will stay still for a bit . . . then it's dinner!"

"Although fire ants are a big challenge to keep under control, one of the benefits of having the fire ants around (at least in East Texas) is that they kill ticks. If you have ever spent any time in the Piney Woods of East Texas, you understand how valuable that can be to you, your dogs and your livestock."

</comment><comment><USER23> Perhaps we need more opossums (in north america at least). One of those suckers can eat 5000 ticks in a year.

[http://www.caryinstitute.org/newsroom/opossums-killers- ticks](http://www.caryinstitute.org/newsroom/opossums-killers-ticks)

</comment><comment><USER24> Interestingly enough it seems to be poorly recognised in France. (according to my personal experience, would love to hear more feedback)

I have two members of my family fighting to get diagnostic even though they both got bitten where here in the UK it doesn't seem to be a problem at all.

<comment><USER25> After reading this comment thread, i can attest that it's clearly not known enough in france indeed. From what i've read before (because i knew about Lyme), the only region affected by Lyme is nord-east of the country. We get tick bites whenever we go to south of France with my family, but so far nobody every got anything looking like Lyme.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Happy to not have Lymes but I'm on year 3 of being allergic to meat that comes from hoofed animals (alpha-gal) because of a tick bite. I go out a lot less now but when I do I also use Permethrin.

<comment><USER27> Sorry to hear—my sister is in the same boat with alpha-gal from a lone star tick. It seems that very few people are aware of it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> If CRISPR can be used to eradicate malaria-carrying mosquitoes, then maybe it will help to eradicate ticks

<comment><USER29> Assuming we could do this, what would be the downside to eradicating all ticks?

<comment><USER30> Read on my friend : [https://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/science/would- eradicat...](https://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/science/would-eradicating- deer-ticks-hurt-the-ecosystem.html?referer=https://www.google.ca/)

" Diseases like these weed out sick or infirm individuals in the host population"

"Taken with other factors, like predation, "it might keep host populations within the carrying capacity of the land," he said, possibly by reducing overgrazing and other forms of destruction to vegetation."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> When you find a tick, make sure to take the necessary precautions. I know someone who could've carried it with him for as much as 72 hours before discovery, and who didn't go to the doctor. He ended up with lyme.

Whereas if he had gotten antibiotics right after he'd probably have been okay.

<comment><USER32> It is also important to note that removing ticks quickly reduces the chances of contracting Lyme Disease. This means having a good and thorough tick check routine when outdoors is important. It is annoying after a long day of hiking or what not, but very important.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Always check for ticks after spending time outdoors in the summer. Here's a tip: if you have body hair, use your hands to check in addition to your eyes. It's easier to feel them than it is to see them.

<comment><USER34> My personal experience is: After spending time outdoors, get a shower and a complete clothes change. They often don't bite right away but crawl around for some time until they find a spot they "like".

Also, the lore that was told in my family was, that ticks dropped from trees in the forest. But you can get them also from gras, hedges, bushes. So not being in the wood is no protection against ticks.

<comment><USER35> Yes, they will definitely keep climbing on you until they find a 'good spot'. The bite is also usually painless, so they can often hang on unnoticed for hours or days (iirc, they inject a numbing agent, as getting noticed kind of ends their life cycle).

I read an article that described their basic algorithm as climb to the top of whatever they are on, blade of grass, shrub branch, etc., and just hang out there waving their arms until something brushes by and they snag it, then climb again until they find a good spot.

In New England, I've had to get in the habit of immediately dropping the clothes in the wash, showering, and then diligently checking the whole body for tics after a run, mtn bike, or hike. And I still occasionally find one hours later. The good thing is that they don't really inject the disease until they've been attached and biting for 24 hours or so and are mostly engorged.

Definitely a hazard to be diligent about!

[edt: spelling]

<comment><USER36> In your experience, can a tick attach to you if you just brush against it while moving fast (running or cycling)? They're rather slow-moving, so I thought they can't latch onto you that quickly.

<comment><USER35> YES, especially to any fabric such as socks, shorts, etc. seem especially good for them to snag, considering the number of times I've caught them crawling up a leg or something. I'd guess less so against a shaved leg or something, but still check diligently, since shoes, socks, etc.

Running is probably an ideal speed for them to snag you (think how they'd be snagging deer, dogs, etc), and I've never found biking fast enough to not get them. It seems like they don't grab by any reflex, but just by hanging a few hooks out in the breeze to snag whatever comes by.

Another thing I found that I didn't expect -- I'd guessed that they'd be most active in hotter weather, making motion easier, etc., but it seems that the most active times are moderate temps, maybe 10-25C (50-77F), but we still need to watch out outside of that range. I've seen them all the way down to almost freezing and up in the 30C+/90F+ range.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I have gone through the article, suprisingly, there was no data to backup claim that "the ticks are comming". Is that a real threat or just a mere speculation?

I couldn't find the name of the author of the article, just to make sure it is someone who knows something about health problems.

Lack of data plus IStock photos suggest that the research behind the article might not have been very thorough. For instance it would be interesting to learn what persentage of ticks carries bacteria dangerous for people, how the number of people infected was changing over the past years, etc.

<comment><USER38> It's been a while since swine flu and africanized honeybees. They need a new threat!

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> While the article is focused on transfer of various pathogens from ticks to humans, there is also a risk of developing and allergy to mammalian meat:

[http://www.mydr.com.au/allergy/mammalian-meat- allergy](http://www.mydr.com.au/allergy/mammalian-meat-allergy)

There is evidence of similar allergies occurring in the US and Europe due to tick bite.

So it is very important that you remove a tick carefully to minimise the potential for the tick to vomit. Permethrin creams (used to treat scabies) can be used for small/juvenile ticks.

</comment><comment><USER40> One summer, during an outing, I remember trying to remove a tick with tweezers, leaving the head in and having to use a pen knife to remove it. At the time I did not (or ignored) about Lyme disease, so in my mind it do not warranted a trip to the doctor.

Reading all the comments on this thread make me glad I don't spend as much time as before in place where ticks are present.

</comment><comment><USER41> For the uninformed, what's the proper way to remove a tick these days? When I was younger I heard advice to put a flame or extinguished match near the tick until it unlatches, but I've also heard that that's a bad idea because it causes them to emit some irritant into your body or something to that effect. What's the correct way?

<comment><USER42> That's terrible advice. The flame will cause the tick to unlatch, but it can also cause it to vomit, giving you any pathogens it's carrying.

The correct way is to take tweezers, side on grasping the top and bottom of the head and pull gently straight up (perpendicularly from the surface of your skin). Be patient. Taking a few minutes to do it right is better than rushing; you have about 24 hours before any significant risk of infection. Make sure you identify the head first and grasp that, as sometimes the head is buried. If you grab the body, you'll just decapitate the tick by pulling.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> I spent a couple of years in Chile in some poorer parts of Santiago and I saw lots of ticks on lots of street dogs. I was outside much of the day and yet I never got a tick. I kind of wonder if the dogs being a plentiful and easy target resulted in the ticks just not trying with humans.

</comment><comment><USER44> I'm reading the comments about people spraying their yards for ticks and I'm astonished. I've been bit by hundreds of ticks throughout my life. My wife has never been bit and has a terrible fear of them. But for me it was just growing up in the woods. You went out and when you got back you pulled a few off your ankles and back. Now that I live in suburbia its much rarer but even when it does happen I just remove the tick and move on. I've never thought to seek medical treatment for it.

<comment> v-erne I have hard time guessing if You are serious or just trolling. Lyme disease is no joke. It can destroy Your life. And first real symptoms often comes when damages done to nervous system are irreversible. My father had it and and lost ability to concentrate when reading text longer than one page. Son of my uncle almost died from it when he was 18. Even if You think You are healthy, You should test Yourself.

<comment><USER44> I _know_ I'm healthy. There have been 420 confirmed cases of Lyme disease in Tennessee over the past 15 years. One person for every 250,000 will get infected in a given year. And even then, those people will only get infected if they leave the tick on themselves for _48 hours_. Shower once daily and you're fine.

But let's pretend the tick _is infected_ and the tick feeds for _48 hours_. Take some antibiotics and you're fine. Lyme disease is stupidly easy to treat. And no it does not come upon you suddenly. There's a huge rash that covers the infected area.

I'm sorry for what happened to your father and uncle's son. Truly, I am. More awareness should be raised about Lyme disease. You don't need to fear it or spray your yards. If you see the rash go to a doctor.

<comment> v-erne It seems that Your country's ticks are way better than mine. I would gladly swap. According to my countrys newspapers (Im from Poland) there were at least 10000 confirmed cases of lyme last year. The main reason is that almost 40 percent of ticks here is infected. And the rash is optional. You can contract the disease and have first sympthoms after 10 years. But this is rather rare.

<comment><USER44> I see. I assumed you were American. I'll keep your words in mind if I visit Europe!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I am currently going through Lyme & Bartonella treatment from a tick bite in northern Michigan last summer. I've been to multiple doctors, had multiple blood panels and blood tests(Lyme, Bartonella, Babesia, Erlichia, etc). I wanted to share what I've learned in hopes that it helps others. This is what I've learned (it's kind of lengthy):

\- Lyme exists everywhere on Earth as delivered by avian/mice/tick/deer/animal populations and it is adept at survival in many hosts for a long time. These tick bacteria are very adept at subverting portions of a hosts immune system to maintain their existence in the host. Healthier or adapted hosts can clear the bacteria, in all forms, easier that immuno compromised hosts.

\- Ticks can transmit Lyme within 10 minutes of feeding depending on the blood circulation from the host and saliva transmit rates. Co-infections like Bartonella (24+ strains), Babesia, Erlichia happen in a very large percentage of bites. The 'bullseye rash' may or may not appear depending on Lyme strain, the host immune system, and how the two interact.

\- Lyme feeds on collagen is ubiquitous in the body, that is why symptoms can occur everywhere and sporadically depending on immune response (local and systemic). Lyme uses Manganese to facilitate it's "feeding process" (Stanford has a in-vitro study on Claritin which disrupts Manganese in this mechanism). I've had brain fog, slight dizziness, eye film, tendon inflammation (ankles/elbows/hands), sore neck/shoulders, streaked rashes (bartonella), all sporadic.

\- 6 weeks after tick bite, I successfully diagnosed myself with Lyme and Bartonella. This took 3+ months for a handful of doctors and blood tests before doctors agreed. (Listen to your body, but don't go nuts and overexagerate ;-). See below

\- A dermatologist prescribed 1 200 mg 1 week after my tick bite roughly following CDC guidelines (useless). ~17 days after tick bite a 100 fever with severe achilles tendon inflammation (painful almost ruptured). Started 3 week Doxycycline 100 mg (2x day) from Urgent care doctor. ELISA, Western Blot IgG, IgM both negative (summary only, no antibody blots provided). Some brain fog improvement on Doxycycline. 2 week flares of my achilles tendon issues while on Doxycycline. Doxycycline extended to 5 weeks with no improvement. My primary care doctor said 3 weeks cleared it up, remaining symptoms were from something else (I dropped that dr). Next internist did more blood tests and suspected something. Out of pocket Igenex (out of pocket) test at 2 months indicate negative Lyme, with trace amounts of 3 Lyme specific antibody stains and 1 antibody shared with chlamydia. Infectious Disease doctor at 2 month mark said I was cured and that they would only treat symptoms caused by unknown with rheumatologist and neurologist with pharmaceuticals. Infectious Disease dr ignored my Bartonella claim due to ankle tendon pain and a week later ignored my email photo of Bartonella specific rash. I timed another set of Bartonella tests with my primary care (new) at 3 months and a peak in my symptom cycle. An insurance covered PCR (dna) test was negative while out of pocket Igenex Bartonella FISH (antigen) test that I found and asked the doctor to submit, was positive from blood samples taken that time/arm. My primary care y is striving to learn more about Lyme now and admitted the CDC was incorrect. I started acupuncture and Chinese medicine 3+ months in and it makes a difference. I finally saw a Lyme doctor 4+ months after the bite (I was on the waiting list for 2 months), I am getting additional western herbal treatment in combination with Chinese herbals. Things are improving but I get occassional spikes in symptoms (all over), which is usually what people are hampered by during treatment (antibiotics and/or herbal). Sadly, my case history is less severe compared to many.

\- Lyme testing (antibody/dna/antigen) via blood is problematic because the bacteria prefers to feed on collagen tissue and is rarely hanging out in the blood flow. The CDC, per Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA), recommends a garbage test first (ELISA - inconsistent results from same blood draw). The Western Blot results are often summarized instead of displaying entire results (it ignores Lyme specific antibodies related to defunct vaccination that almost nobody received). USE Igenex (Palo Alto), Galaxy Labs, or dnaconnexions for more reliable results (still not guaranteed).

\- Lyme vaccination would be extremely difficult since the bacteria can change its outer surface protein (OSP) depending on host and location within the host. Vaccination antibodies work against these proteins. The Lyme vaccination from the mid 1990s targeted protein 34 and 1 other OspA (I cannot remember). Both of these antibodies ARE IGNORED by the CDC Western Blot test unless you used a lab with more expertise.

\- The CDC and Infectious Disease doctors ignore millions of clinical observations and real world treatments in favor of small studies subject to selection bias (see uptodate.com and read through the studies). ILADS doctors, herbalists, and Chinese medicine/acupuncture actually treat chronic patients and their clinical perspective and evidences is often discarded as non- scientific by the CDC (which is bullshit, this data is all relevant). The CDC does not emphasize and has spent almost no resources to iteratively address the shortcomings in their positions and improve poor testing.

\- Because of poor testing and misinformation from the CDC, many people are misdiagnosed with MS, Dementia, arthritis, Alzheimers, etc and I've met a number of them in my limited circle of contacts. Kris Kristoferson's case is very common. For example, brain autopsies of beta-amyloid deposits (Alzheimers), have many of these bacteria in them. In short, antibiotics are not sufficient to clear the bacteria in ~100,000+ cases per year (lots of studies and clinical cases showing antibiotics won't work). Many people are prescribed steroids or other immune suppressing pharmaceuticals, or associated 'medicines' for neurological conditions (I was pushed to a rheumatologist).

\- Treatment: Chinese herbal, Western herbal, some antibiotic, vitamin supplements, acupuncture, intermittent water fasting (16-24 hours helps me with herxing or bacteria die off). Fasting also helps with autophagy and neutrophil trap activity (neither one of those works well with sugar in the system).

\- Improvements: awareness, better bacteria testing, better blood panels to track immune state at regular intervals throughout life (cytokine, chemokine, interferon, etc), more awareness of treatment options (pharmaceutical and/or herbal). EDUCATION and EMPATHY should be major goals of any doctor.

\- Resources: www.ilads.org, "Healing Lyme" by Buhner, Lyme Literate Doctors, and own/friends/family experience.

\- key points: listen to your body, educate yourself, be your own advocate, be open to treatment approaches, strengthening your immune system is always the best option (some genetic abnormalities aside)

</comment><comment><USER46> "May be"? "Next"? Where have these guys been the last several years? I'd say under a rock, but ticks might be there too. Out in space, perhaps?

</comment><comment><USER47> The article is somewhat alarmist, behavior modification can greatly limit the risk of ticks. This might be something that is more alarming in the UK for some reason if they haven't had to worry about it so far?

I live in Massachusetts, pretty close to ground central for Lyme's disease.

I've been mountain biking, hiking, doing outdoor photography, etc.. most of my life and have never managed to get bit by a tick and contract it. I've found 5 ticks or so in that time have always found them before they could bite me just because I was aware of the risk. And that's talking hundreds of days per year of outdoor activities.

Tall grass is high risk. Taking your sweet time golfing is risky. Riding your mountain bike through grass at 20mph is much less risky. You'd tend to be riding on a trail too, even if it's not more than 6" wide, it still somewhat reduces the surface for the ticks to cling to. Having a job like being a surveyor is very high risk since they're out in the grass working and not moving quickly.

Once you get under major tree cover (we have lots of it) the undergrowth tends to thin out and you'll contact less grass/leaves and have less exposure to ticks grabbing onto you. This is perhaps one of the reasons you hear a lot about people getting Ticks down on Cape Code if they're exploring tall grass environments, there is less dense tree cover on the Cape compared to the mainland.

By far the riskiest thing anecdotally seems to be owning a dog. Dogs love to go walk through the high grass, ticks love to grab onto their fur. Then they bring the ticks into your car, into your house, sit on your lap. When you walk your dog you tend to go where the dog wants to go within reason. And you're walking, so you're moving at speeds ticks are happy with. So you're perhaps walking areas you wouldn't walk alone if you're wary of ticks. It seems like practically every dog owner I know regularly deals with ticks brought in by dogs, and a lot of the dog owners have actually gotten Lyme's disease, some more than once! You'll hear stories of 10 ticks on a dog coming back from a walk.

If I guess I've found 5 on me in 25 years of outdoor activities 1 was biking in/around tall grass on Cape Cod (found it on my leg), 1 was walking in North Carolina (found it on my sock), 1 was brought into the house by a dog (the only deer tick of the 5). Not sure of the others, maybe 5 is generous.

The article also doesn't mention how certain activities can be done in different months to limit risk. Particularly deer tick are much harder to spot if you are out in risky areas in the early spring. They're super small at that point. But later in the summer they're grown and easy to spot.

For me that super high risk deer tick season where they are immature coincides with mud season. We are already discouraged from hiking & biking through the mud, so the double whammy of peak tick season + mud season makes it easy to select outdoor activities that are lower risk at that time of year.

It's just really hard to take the article seriously, this just is not going to be a risk for people who live in big cities and spend little time in natural environments, particularly if they also don't have pets. That covers a lot of the population.

</comment><comment><USER48> How is this hacker news?

</comment><comment><USER49> Nasty, nasty things. They've really exploded in the past ten years or so in New England. When I was a kid, you never had to worry about checking for ticks when you went outside and roamed around - you'd get chewed to death by blackflies, mosquitos and copperheads, but that's relatively harmless.

Last summer, one incident I had to pull a couple hundred off my dog after she wandered into a particularly bad section of the willowwacks. Just awful little beasties.

<comment><USER50> I read an article in New Scientist a year or two ago about these. They were talking about counting the acorns on the ground as a predictor as to Lyme disease in two years time. Quite an interesting article overall.

I read the physical magazine but think that [https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23431195-800-lyme- dis...](https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23431195-800-lyme-disease-is- set-to-explode-and-you-cant-protect-yourself/) is the same article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Global threat? Not exactly. You know where there aren't any ticks? The desert. No fleas or bed bugs, either.</comment>


Man Buried in Haiti Rubble Uses iPhone to Treat Wounds, Survive - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/01/haiti-survivor-iphone/

<comment><USER2> This guy is actually a friend of my co-founder. Amazing story.

For general amusement, read through the comments on the Wired article. The guy is accused of lying because "a DSLR flash can't light a pitch black room" and "his iPhone battery couldn't last 65 hours".

</comment><comment><USER3> This is just as much a story about what "man + computer" equals. THIS is what early computer pioneers dreamed a computer could be to people.

</comment><comment><USER4> And look at that, he even had to courtesy to review the app in the app store after his ordeal.</comment>