The First Randomized Controlled Trial on Vitamin D and Covid-19 - <AUTHOR> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960076020302764 <comment><USER2> From the results:

"Of 50 patients treated with calcifediol, one required admission to the ICU (2%), while of 26 untreated patients, 13 required admission (50%) p value X2 Fischer test p < 0.001."

Which sounds like as strong a signal as a study of this scale could hope to show.

<comment><USER3> It's useful to note that this study doesn't need to stand on its own as evidence. It contributes to a growing body.

As most of you may have already seen, there is a lot of observational evidence that people with low vitamin D have the worst C19 outcomes. Obviously, correlation by itself doesn't mean causation. But it is a hint.

On top of the hint, we already have dozens of RCTs that vitamin D supplements suppress respiratory infections.

[https://www.bmj.com/content/356/bmj.i6583](https://www.bmj.com/content/356/bmj.i6583)

And now we have this study. Every study and line of evidence has flaws, which is why you look at the totality of the evidence.

From the evidence I've seen, low vitamin D is a bigger problem in modern societies than vitamin D toxicity. Vitamin D is available OTC and many people use it apparently responsibly. I would expect that to continue with appropriate messaging.

It would be great if we could pursue a consensus on this while it can still make a difference, even in the absence of perfect data. It was a mistake in the early US messaging to downplay the importance of masks even though we didn't have perfect data on it.

<comment><USER4> We actually have an expert on this comment here quite often, too high Vit D dose can cause problems with calcium:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=devaboone](https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=devaboone)

And she's done a series on it:

[https://www.devaboone.com/post/vitamin-d-part-1-back-to- basi...](https://www.devaboone.com/post/vitamin-d-part-1-back-to-basics)

<comment><USER5> IIRC, calcium toxicity is serious, but only a consequence of sustained Vitamin D supplementation.

Also there's some Joe Rogan-esque "just take the 5000 IU bro" even though 4000 is the recommended supplement upper bound. And devaboone warns against even using that much.

<comment><USER6> Taking more than recommended is ok, your body will flush it out.

It is basically wasteful, only in extreme cases you could 'overdose' vitamins.

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

<comment><USER7> > Taking more than recommended is ok, your body will flush it out.

This is not true. Vitamin D is fat-soluble, not water-soluble. Your kidneys can only filter out water-soluble vitamins. B vitamins are water-soluble; that's why there's practically no upper limit to how much you can take. Your kidneys will filter out the extra (assuming you aren't eating buckets full of the stuff).

Vitamin D toxicity occurs specifically because your body can't remove the excess vitamin D stored in your fat.

That's also why severe overdose happens over time, as opposed to instantly. You have to take a huge amount of Vitamin D at once to overdose (like millions of IUs) but you can cause toxicity using smaller doses over longer periods of time. If your body could flush it out, that wouldn't be true. Any excess would be removed and you would start each day "fresh".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Non-white skinned people: sunlight may not be enough to increase your vitamin D.

[https://www.google.com/search?q=dark+skin+vitamin+d+minutes](https://www.google.com/search?q=dark+skin+vitamin+d+minutes)

<comment><USER9> Is there a scientific classification system for evaluating how light vs. dark a person's skin is? I'd like to know how much my relatively darker skin is preventing vit D uptake / creation in the body

<comment><USER10> There is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitzpatrick_scale](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitzpatrick_scale) which I learned about from the apple health app, no idea how widespread it is or how useful it is as a model.

<comment><USER11> I learned about this from a dermatologist who specializes in skin cancer care. He says it is a very strong indicator for skin damage and cancer risk (sounded stronger than genetic/family history factors), but how it relates to vitamin D deficiency was not really in his domain.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Previously on HN, a physician shared some thoughts on treating Vitamin D as a medication and not as a dietary supplement:

Part 1: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24138590](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24138590)

Part 2: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24261948](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24261948)

To summarize - popping in large doses of Vitamin D is not exactly safe.

<comment><USER13> Deva is deep into writing part 3 at the moment (the physicians husband here) where she reviews these trials, what they mean and how they should be interpreted. I think she will be finished soon.

<comment><USER14> Thanks for the update, would love her opinion on this paper's outcome.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Can someone tell what is the equivalent dose of said calcifedol in regular D3? The article claims 0.532 mg have been used, which seems too large. From [1] I gather it's about 3x more potent, meaning we are talking about equivalent of 1.596mg of D3. Or, 10000% of RDA according to [2]. Is that right?

[1]: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5460735/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5460735/) [2]: [https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminD- HealthProfessiona...](https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminD- HealthProfessional/)

<comment><USER16> That's about 60,000 IU? Not necessarily out of line for such interventions. In cases of deficiency doctors will often prescribe weekly doses of 50,000 I believe. Have also seen RCT on vitamin d and the flu where groups where given 250,000-500,000 IU's in one shot.

....obviously nobody reading this should take anything near those doses without consulting a doctor and without knowing your current blood level, to be clear.

<comment><USER15> Yup, 60kIU from my understanding. And here I am wondering if the 2kIU I'm doing would have any effect...

<comment><USER17> The amount used as an interventional or short term treatment can greatly exceed what is a prudent amount to take daily. Taking 50k/day long term is probably a bad idea.

<comment><USER16> No probably about it, it's a disastrous idea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> > Serum 25OHD concentrations at baseline or during treatment are not > available.

This is mind boggling. These 76 patients had extensive blood work done so why did the study design not include serum concentration testing before and after treatment?

<comment><USER19> Welcome to every Vitamin D study done ever. I follow some PHD/RD combination researchers on Twitter and they all get together each time one of these studies is done and bang their heads against a wall.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> This follows quite a lot of observational evidence. There are currently 11 studies that have found an association between serum vitamin D and Covid severity. These are listed here:

[https://github.com/GShotwell/vitamin_d_covid](https://github.com/GShotwell/vitamin_d_covid)

</comment><comment><USER21> Noteworthy that this is in combination with anti-viral drugs at hospital admission: hydroxychloroquine (400 mg every 12 hours on the first day, and 200 mg every 12 hours for the following 5 days), azithromycin (500 mg orally for 5 days). Regardless, I'm going to assume this means being outside and getting sun is good for me.

<comment><USER22> Except for all the skin cancer, right?

FWIW, I was told that when the Sun is above 45 degrees over the horizon you will accrue DNA damage, and it stacks up over your entire lifetime. There is no "reset" or "heal", it just adds up.

For that reason I'm doing my darnest best to stay in the shade between 9am and 3pm. Or covering clothing.

<comment><USER23> I'd be really interested to see a comparison of the relative risks between skin cancer and vitamin D deficiency.

A lot of what I've read lately suggests we're discovering a lot of benefits of vitamin D that were previously unknown, and some evidence that the recommended vitamin D levels should be higher than they are.

For a generation or so we've told people the sun is dangerous because of skin cancer, and obviously skin cancer is really bad. But I wonder if we have a case of need to weight risks that are high cost, low probability (skin cancer) compared with low cost, high probability (low vitamins D complications). What is the overall effect of these two things?

<comment><USER24> This article gets into that: [https://www.outsideonline.com/2380751/sunscreen- sun-exposure...](https://www.outsideonline.com/2380751/sunscreen-sun-exposure- skin-cancer-science)

Short excerpt: People don't realize this because several different diseases are lumped together under the term "skin cancer." The most common by far are basal-cell carcinomas and squamous-cell carcinomas, which are almost never fatal. In fact, says Weller, "When I diagnose a basal-cell skin cancer in a patient, the first thing I say is congratulations, because you're walking out of my office with a longer life expectancy than when you walked in." That's probably because people who get carcinomas, which are strongly linked to sun exposure, tend to be healthy types that are outside getting plenty of exercise and sunlight.

<comment><USER25> > _The most common by far are basal-cell carcinomas and squamous-cell > carcinomas, which are almost never fatal._

My grandpa died due to complications from a basal-cell skin cancer. He was almost 90 years old. The cancer itself was a few decades old. He served in the Navy during WWII, and likely got it from years of tropical sun exposure with no sunscreen.*

So, yeah, as far as cancers go, that's one you'd rather get if given a choice.

* (Well, and the additional years of fishing and other outdoor activities. Obviously the cause can't be pinpointed like that, but it must have contributed)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> > parallel pilot randomized open label, double-masked clinical trial.

Dumb questions: What is a parallel pilot | what is open label? And Is double- masked the same as double-blind?

<comment><USER27> "Parallel" generally means that different groups of patients receive different treatments. The opposite is a within-patient study, where all patients get all treatments over time (possibly varying the order to prevent order effects).

"Open-label" generally means "not blind at all." Basically, the patient knows what treatment is being administered.

"Double-masked" is usually synonymous with "double-blind," because "masking" sounds less violent than "blinding."

What did they actually do in the study? Well, §2.2.1 says the following:

      > 2.2.1. Randomization and Masking
      >
      > An electronically generated randomization 2:1 list was prepared by
      > independent statisticians. The list was accessible only to nonmasked
      > specialists in the study in an attempt to minimize observation bias.
      > The patients' data were recorded in the hospital's electronic
      > medical record, with blind access by the technical data collectors
      > and the statistician who carried out the study.

My takeaway is that... the authors don't do a great job of describing who had access to what information.

It sounds like those who analyzed the data didn't know which group was which, but in the case of unequal 2:1 group allocation it is typical for the larger group to be the treatment group. Why was unequal assignment used in the first place?

The descriptor "open-label" suggests that _someone_ knew which patients were in which groups: was it the people who administered the treatment, or the patients, or both? Unclear.

The authors themselves write: "This pilot study has several limitations as it is not double-blind placebo controlled."

<comment><USER28> >"Double-masked" is usually synonymous with "double-blind," because "masking" sounds less violent than "blinding."

This is literally the first time I've heard of "double-blind" being interpreted this way.

<comment><USER27> I think it's a common euphemism, similar to referring to "subjects" as "participants" and so on.

\- [https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-3...](https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-3-540-68706-1_1425)

\- [https://az.research.umich.edu/medschool/glossary/double- mask...](https://az.research.umich.edu/medschool/glossary/double-masked- design)

\- [https://aidsinfo.nih.gov/understanding-hiv- aids/glossary/211...](https://aidsinfo.nih.gov/understanding-hiv- aids/glossary/211/double-blind-study)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Surly now it's time to just start giving everyone some free vitamin D.

Best case scenario: Less dead people.

Worst case scenario: We all have healthier bones.

<comment><USER30> Vitamin D pills look to be 3-5¢ per day. Hardly seems like something I'd be supportive of creating a "free" supply chain for.

<comment><USER31> If the costs are low, then the free supply chain won't cost much to create. If the public health savings are greater than the costs, it may be better to just mail free supplements to people than mail them postcards advising they go out and purchase them (advice most people will ignore, no matter how low the cost).

<comment><USER30> How many people will need to be paid to operate this free supply chain to provide a good that is perfectly well-supplied inexpensively privately now? How many to answer questions, field calls about missed shipments, lost pills, changes of address, etc?

The answer to every problem shouldn't be "create a new government-funded agency to make this happen 'for free'". Mr Market isn't the answer for every single thing, but sometimes it's fine to let existing private supply chains operate. Supplying cheap dietary supplements seems to me like an area where that's the case.

It may need to be added to SNAP/WIC; that's a reasonable task for government to busy itself supporting this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Very small scale but sounds promising. I've been taking 2000UI/day for few years now since my doc found my vitamin D was pretty low, it's now far up in the normal range now. I didn't let him give me the massive doses that they want to give you for low vitamin D, and opted for just starting to take the supplement, when I went back in 3 months later everything was in the normal range. I don't actually get much sunlight as a den dwelling programmer so it's the next best thing.

<comment><USER33> Sounds great. What's important to understand with high vitamin D doses is that overdoses can occur unregulated by the body.

The regulation of vitamin D usually occurs before its synthesis after sunlight exposure. Supplementing synthesized vitamin D circumvents the regulation and allows vitaminosis to happen.

I have read wildly different recommendations for the dose. Typical package is 1000 IU, you take 2000 IU, others recommend upwards of 8000 IU due to possible issues with earlier studies leading to FDA/regulatory agencies recommendations. Again, rather stay below 5000 IU unless explicitly told otherwise by a doc. Always get blood work done to REALLY figure out your levels and how to fix them.

Again, why we can overdose with supplements but too much sunlight won't cause an overdose:

Sunlight + components ---> X (regulation) <\---> Vitamin D ---> effect in body

Supplements start _behind_ the regulation step...

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Looks promising, but I would want to see a true double blinded RCT on a few thousand people before we say that Vitamin D is an effective treatment.

Also, there's going to be a confounding question based on this study: is it just Vitamin D, or is it Vitamin D in combination with HCQ / Azithromyacin?

That said, it probably wouldn't hurt you to supplement with Vitamin D this winter, even if it doesn't treat Covid.

<comment><USER35> It's difficult to imagine how the placebo effect could produce this result. Both arms of the trial were receiving HCQ and Azithromycin, so to the extent that there is a placebo effect, you'd think that adding a vitamin wouldn't change the result very much.

<comment><USER34> I'm not saying it's a placebo effect. Instead there could be unknown interactions between Vitamin D and HCQ/Az that could be the causal effect.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> And that's why I've been taking Vitamin D pills for the past 6 months. (It's been suspected for some time to have an effect)

This doesn't mean go outside and get covid.

<comment><USER37> I've been taking Vitamin D3 5000 IU and Vitamin K2 MK-7 100 mcg daily since February to boost my immune system, and I've noticed a radical difference in my colds.

I used to get a major cold every 2-3 month and they were really bad lasting two weeks with fever, fatigue, coughs, colds, really stuffy nose, etc. Now? The two colds I've had were over in a week and the symptoms were so incredibly mild - mostly a light runny nose - that I'm legit grateful when I get a cold.

Regardless of vitamin D's effect on covid-19, the supplement has already paid off big time as far as I'm concerned. I've started to take 1g of vitamin C for the same reason, i.e. to boost my immune system. I should add that I live in a Nordic country with long dark winters and that I can't/don't go outside as much as I should.

<comment><USER38> Are you sure you just aren't getting colds because of better hygiene, and less contact with others? Without controlling for social distancing, you can't reasonably conclude that it was the vitamin D.

I haven't had a cold since we initially locked-down in April, which is very unusual for me, but completely explained by social distancing.

<comment><USER37> Oh I absolutely believe that social distancing and better hygiene are the reasons why I've gotten so few colds this year but those actions can't fully explain the decrease in severity. My colds have gone from being absolutely miserable to barely noticeable and are over in a week or less. I could be totally wrong but I'm not willing to remove vitamin d/k/c from my diet just to validate the hypothesis.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> The problem I see with this trial is that it's open-label, small n, and has subjective endpoints (ICU admission as the primary outcome). The study is underpowered to detect mortality. Given the open-label nature of the trial, the subjective outcome with the small n makes this result less strong.

Why is this the case? Well, for this trial the physicians treating patients knew who got the Vitamin D and who didn't, and thus they may have been more likely to admit those who didn't to the ICU (subjective). Something like mortality is not as subjective, but there are too few study participants to detect a mortality signal in this trial.

If I had been conducting this small open label trial I would have picked some less subjective outcomes, like maybe P/F Ratio.

</comment><comment><USER40> when i was doing the covid19 kaggle competitions in march and april, someone asked me what I learned.

I was like I dont know, the data is messy but the sun seems to have something to do with reducing fatalities. (I used weather data as additional covariates)

<comment><USER41> In general, the segment of the population that avoids sun exposure has _twice_ as high an all-cause mortality rate as the segment that actively seeks sun exposure.[1] To put that in context that's on par with the health difference found between smokers and non-smokers.

[1][https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/joim.12251](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/joim.12251)

<comment><USER42> Maybe also because staying inside makes it easier for the virus to spread.

<comment><USER11> That study is from 2014.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Yeah we wear too much sunscreen, a significant number of people are vitamin D deficient. From the UltraMind Solution book, you need the active form cholecalciferol in your supplements. You can safely take 5000-10000 IU a day for 3 months to get up to the optimal levels, then 2000 IU a day for maintenance. The Ideal range is 50 to 80 ng/ml in your blood tests. Also just minimal outdoor sun exposure is the best way to get it, no sunscreen. 15 minutes if you're light skinned, 35 if you're really dark.

<comment><USER44> > Also just minimal outdoor sun exposure is the best way to get it, no > sunscreen. 15 minutes if you're light skinned, 35 if you're really dark.

These prescriptions seem to always lack the amount of exposed skin. Is exposed hands enough or should one be naked?

<comment><USER43> Yeah the time is dependent, I just try to think of like our evolutionary history, pre clothes and where your ancestors are from. So I try to sunbathe by the pool during the summer. But if you work indoors, cholecalciferol is useful and you can get the blood tests for your levels.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> > open label, double-masked clinical trial

Aren't "open label" and "double-masked" contradictory?

"An open-label trial, or open trial, is a type of clinical trial in which information is not withheld from trial participants. In particular, both the researchers and participants know which treatment is being administered." (Wikipedia)

"Double-Masked Study. A type of clinical trial in which neither the participants nor the research team know which treatment a specific participant is receiving." (NIH)

</comment><comment><USER46> This is not a strong signal. The adjusted odds ratio is 0.03 (95% CI: 0.003 - 0.25). For randomised trials, it makes no sense to say that the difference in baseline is not significant because we have already observed the outcomes. It is better to use ASDs and in such small trials, small differences in baseline matter a lot. In this case it's pretty obvious the effect of vitamin D would easily be non significant if you shift around some variables. Reeks of p hacking imo

<comment><USER47> > This is not a strong signal. The adjusted odds ratio is 0.03 (95% CI: 0.003 > - 0.25)

Are you for real? Smallest effect in the 95% CI is a 4x reduction in ICU admission. Yes, it's probably closer to the bottom end of this range, but this is a fantastically different.

> For randomised trials, it makes no sense to say that the difference in > baseline is not significant

For randomized trials, the baselines are not likely to be massively different. And, of course, the authors compared risk factors and ages to rule out some of the ways that the trial could be ridiculously tilted from the outset.

> In this case it's pretty obvious the effect of vitamin D would easily be non > significant if you shift around some variables.

...??? The endpoint was pre-declared, and we're just comparing two pre- randomized groups. Exactly what variables would you shift around?

> Reeks of p hacking imo

If you're going to cast aspersions, be a little more concrete.

<comment><USER46> I...had such an epic brain fart, I don't even know what to say. Please disregard my entire comment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Dai (2018): Magnesium status and supplementation influence vitamin D status and metabolism: results from a randomized trial [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30541089/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30541089/)

"Our findings suggest that optimal magnesium status may be important for optimizing 25(OH)D status. "

</comment><comment><USER49> There's a handful of blood-test-by-mail sites you can use to do a vitamin D test. Cost is around $50.

</comment><comment><USER50> You know, at this point, I'm basically over debating the merits of vitamin d. Take it, don't take it, I don't really care, just please tell your doctor you're taking it.

To pharmaceutical companies or supplement companies, or the NIH: fund a well powered study, pretty please?

</comment><comment><USER51> This seems pretty promising, though small n, result. Vitamin D is so ably we'll well attested as a prophylaxis for pulmonary infections — in fact there was a large UK study published in January on this very facto.

Starting in February I went on a prophylactic supplement of Vit D, Vit C and aspirin because of the then-unnamed Covid-19 virus. The aspirin (actually started that in april) is because of the pervasive excess clotting and sudden strokes in young people showing up in ERs (less attested in the US than some other countries for reasons I'm not sure about). I'd never taken supplements before.

I'm immuno compromised so with my doctor we worked out the regime above plus some prescription drugs I won't mention.

So far, so good, but I'm isolating' so this could be a case where I'm also preventing tiger attacks.

<comment><USER3> N can be small when the effect size is huge.

<comment><USER51> It can be, depending on the protocol. This was a double blind yet open label (?) study. I've never done an open label study so don't know how they have to be powered (and I'm not a biostatistician so won't render a guess)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> As someone with low vitamin D this kinda sucks. Does anyone know how effective OTC vitamin D is at raising vitamin D levels and what kind of doses to take?

<comment><USER48> Dai (2018): Magnesium status and supplementation influence vitamin D status and metabolism: results from a randomized trial [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30541089/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30541089/)

"Our findings suggest that optimal magnesium status may be important for optimizing 25(OH)D status. "

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> Can anyone here help demystify how "oral calcifediol (0.532 mg)" maps to an equivalent amount of Vitamin D in the form you can buy in a drugstore?

<comment><USER54> I take 5000 IU pills, and they're labeled as 125 mcg. The 0.532mg pills they were getting would thus be around 4.25x as much, or a bit over 21,000 IU based on how D3 is usually labeled for over-the-counter purchase.

Though my pills are "cholecalciferol" not "calcifediol", so there's not a perfect 1:1 correspondance, but your body converts cholecalciferol into calcifediol, so based on nothing else my above calculation is probably not far off.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> Meat (vitamin B) and sun (vitamin D) are the bane of COVID. We definitely have not been fighting this pandemic with the right tools.

</comment><comment><USER56> It this gets confirmed, we'll have a dilemna: confined people will become deficient in D vitamin by lack of sun exposure.

</comment><comment><USER57> Anyone knows what rol sunscreen plays in vitamin D intake/generation by sunlight?

<comment><USER16> This is not a direct answer, but:

1\. Uva is the cause of most skin cancer

2\. Uvb generates vitamin d and sunburns

3\. When uvb is present, you can make sufficient vitamin d quite quickly

This would suggest you would want sunscreen for longer exposures, or with much uva exposure. And could get vitamin d from a briefer exposure pre sunscreen.

I can't say how completely sunscreen blocks vitamin d however.

<comment><USER58> Given that sunburn is a response to cellular damage of your skin cells, why would it be the case that the two are de-coupled w/r/t UVA and UVB?

<comment><USER16> Actually, it seems I was wrong. I thought it was just UVA, but uvb also causes melanoma.

I'd delete the above comment if I could. The main point that you can get vitamin d from short exposure without sunburn is correct, but I was incorrect on the risk. But he fact I was wrong about uvb and melanoma also makes me think I may be incorrect on the risk of uva during periods without uvb.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanoma#UV_radiation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanoma#UV_radiation)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> In the future we may decide on windows that permit some UV B.

</comment><comment><USER60> (db)RCTs are good. Fetishizing them is bad.

</comment><comment><USER61> Every year they issue a winter influenza vaccine instead of making vitamin D pills and artificial sunlight available. Young people never take the winter flu vaccine and are fine.

</comment><comment><USER62> GPT-3 ?

</comment><comment><USER63> Vaccine or bust.

</comment><comment><USER64> Is there a trustable authority that measures the actual contents of supplements in the US? When I try to search it, it's pretty heavily SEO'd.

<comment><USER65> LabDoor [0] maybe? Use them for their protein rankings mainly, but they have a Vitamin D section too.

[0] [https://labdoor.com/rankings/vitamin-d](https://labdoor.com/rankings/vitamin-d)

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> Anyone else notice that Calcifediol is the most expensive vitamin-D analogue on the market? What a huge surprise that the study chose that form of vitamin-D specifically.

<comment><USER38> That's quite a leap. Also, this study was done in Spain, so US intuitions probably don't apply without further study.

D3 takes 7 days to be fully metabolised to calcifediol. When Drs measure your D levels, they're actually measuring calcifediol.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> It would be tragic if taking vitamin D supplements had a negative effect on Covid survivability.

I think that it is extremely unlikely, though possible unless a specific study has ruled this out.

EG: Perhaps vitamin D supplementation upon Covid-19 diagnoses is only effective if you have not been supplimenting.

Like: Maybe drinking alcohol at a party is helpful to court a new partner, unless you are an alcoholic already. Not the best analogy but I hope you'll take my point in good faith.

</comment><comment><USER68> This test really doesn't hold a lot of useful data. It doesn't calculate any of the statistics of those that died which is kinda of important when age and previous health conditions are important. It doesn't gather BMI, physical activity levels, ethnicity, secondary/multiple infections, cause of death, type 1 or 2 diabetes, etc. Medical trials are hard because of all the variables. I think it actually works against this trial having it randomized especially when there is no placebo group.

</comment><comment><USER69> Good on you, Spain. A study like this could never take place in the USA :(

Too many powerful people are heavily invested in the belief that there is no treatment for it.

<comment><USER70> Seems like a ridiculous claim when I'm sure almost absolutely everyone would like to get out of this mess.

<comment><USER71> It shouldn't be hard to sit for a moment and think of some people who would certainly like for there not to be a treatment consisting of ~$3-5 worth of off-the-shelf, completely unpatentable medicines and vitamins.

There are absolutely some powerful vested interests in not seeing an easy treatment for this disease, or, by the same logic, pretty much any other disease either since there's nothing special about this one. (A not infrequent complaint on Hacker News.) I can't prove they're driving the discourse on treatment for COVID-19, but it sure isn't disproved by what I see happening out there.

<comment><USER70> The original claim said "invested in the belief that there is no treatment for it", not "no inexpensive treatments".

What you are rebutting is not against what OP is claiming.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> "Don't go outside, you'll get COVID", sounds more and more like horrible advice. Before knowing the virus died in sunlight, I still couldn't fathom why people were avoiding going out to parks and stuff. It was totally non sequitor.

<comment><USER73> I got one that is still in effect in Michigan-

"Gyms are closed" (but bars and casinos are open)

A virus that kills old and _obese_ people, and you are shutting down the gym?

If anything I hope Coronavirus shifts politicians from business leaders to scientists.

<comment><USER74> Weight gain and loss is simple physics. If you want to reduce obesity, focus on the dietary input. Virtually nobody is active enough to burn the extreme number of excess calories consumed that leads to obesity and the maintenance of obesity.

<comment><USER75> I have always thought that diet and exercise are both needed. If you can cut your caloric intake by 250 calories a day, and increase your aerobic exercise to burn 250 more calories a day, you should be able to lose a pound a week, without going to extremes of diet or exercise.

Of course, someone who is obese will take a long time to get to a healthy weight if they are only losing a pound a week, but most people would have a hard time maintaining extremes of diet or exercise for a long period of time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> >All hospitalized patients received as best available therapy the same standard care, (per hospital protocol), of a combination of hydroxychloroquine (400 mg every 12 hours on the first day, and 200 mg every 12 hours for the following 5 days), azithromycin (500 mg orally for 5 days.

Fascinating how hydroxychloroquine is routinely used and considered standard of care in most countries where the drug has not been politicized.

<comment><USER76> >The best available treatment that at the beginning of the outbreak in our hospital, included the use of hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin therapy [23,24,26]. However, taking into consideration more recent data on the safety and efficacy of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in small randomized clinical trials, case series, and observational studies this treatment is no longer considered effective [32] in treating COVID-19.

calling it the "standard of care" in the present tense is very disingenuous. it was briefly considered to be effective at the beginning of the outbreak. it was determined relatively quickly that it was not actually an effective treatment. this has nothing to do with politics.

</comment></comment><comment><USER77> Experts and health authorities were adament to tell us that vitamins have zero effect against COVID. Not: we don't know and taking a Vitamin C can't hurt, unless you count an upset stomach. But: stop sharing fake health information, this is an infodemic! Just wash your hands.

So to add to the infodemic: selenium and iodine deficiency also increases severity. Take some iodized salt and Brazil nuts now, or wait 5 months for the authorities to understand that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And no matter what Youtube bans you for going against the WHO: tumeric is an efficient antiviral.

<comment><USER78> Any examples of the CDC, FDA, or NIH statements telling us that vitamins have zero effect on COVID? I'd also be interested in statements from the WHO, but that one I wouldn't be at all surprised by.

<comment><USER77> Vitamin C is listed as fake news on WHO. Fact checker sites listed vitamin D as false, then switched to correct after research. Doctors, journalists, and health experts in Brazil and the Netherlands chided social media for not removing "fake" info on vitamin supplements.

I'll check some CDC sources later to contextualize these claims to the US.

<comment><USER79> Mayo Clinic: Debunking COVID-19 (coronavirus) myths. Extremely unlikely to work and might cause serious harm. [...] Supplements. Many people take vitamin C, vitamin D, zinc, green tea or echinacea to boost their immune systems. While these supplements might affect your immune function, research hasn't shown that they can prevent you from getting sick.

Notice the weird mind crinkle: Got to debunk it, and use "prevent you from getting sick" as the reason for it not working (and the subtle differences between: "No research has shown", "research hasn't shown", and "research has shown that it can't prevent you"). Even though plenty of research shows it prevents you from getting severely sick, when you do get sick. Willing to bet that garlic (a famous folk knowledge cure for the flu, smashed boiled garlic with hot water) is actually effective in recovery and severity, but the fact checkers present it as a "COVID cure" and of course that can be debunked. But it is a debunking based on a weird strawman we saw with masks: Masks are not protective to COVID because the eyes can catch it too. As if protectiveness and immune health is binary and anything else than 0 or 1 has to be a lie.

Could not find anything about the CDC, just [https://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/infantandtoddlernutrition/vita...](https://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/infantandtoddlernutrition/vitamins- minerals/vitamin-d.html) where they recommend Vitamin D for children under 2 years old, to prevent deficiency, but no where mention a recommendation for using it during a pandemic to keep your immune system healthy.

As for selenium deficiency and iodine deficiency, the research is slowly catching up:

> Certain micronutrients are seen as supportive for the treatment of and > protection against viral diseases with some vitamins (A, B6, B12, C, D, and > E) and essential trace elements (zinc, iron, selenium (Se), magnesium, or > copper) discussed as particularly promising .

> However, the data base is very small and it is unknown whether certain > vitamins or trace elements are deficient in patients with COVID-19, and > whether the concentrations are related to disease severity or mortality > risk.

> The collaborative research team from Germany hypothesised that Se may be of > relevance for infection with SARS-CoV-2 and disease course of COVID-19 and > that severe Se deficiency is prevalent among the patients and associates > with poor survival odds in COVID-19.

As for turmeric, mentioned in relation to COVID a bannable offense on Youtube: It inhibits and suppresses Zika, Hepatitis, HIV, Noro, coxsackie, HBV, herpes, influenza, encephalitis, dengue, corona, and chikunya. It also suppresses cytokine signalling. But experts warn that it may interfere with the immune system when fighting COVID, and that it is neither a cure nor a treatment nor a helpful supplement. WHO lists it under hoaxes (except when discussing Chinese traditional medicine). And you are a bad person if you share this potential online, because you don't have a randomized trial to back up that it works against SARS-CoV-2.

MedicalNewsToday: In a rapid review of the evidence published on May 1, 2020, researchers from the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom unequivocally conclude: "We found no clinical evidence on vitamin D in [the prevention or treatment of] COVID-19." They also write that "[t]here was no evidence related to vitamin D deficiency predisposing to COVID-19, nor were there studies of supplementation for preventing or treating COVID-19."

Potential Effect of Curcumin Treatment of COVID-19: Curcumin may have beneficial effects against COVID‐19 infection via its ability to modulate the various molecular targets that contribute to the attachment and internalization of SARS‐CoV‐2 in many organs, including the liver, cardiovascular system, and kidney. Curcumin could also modulate cellular signaling pathways such as inflammation, apoptosis, and RNA replication. Curcumin may also suppress pulmonary edema and fibrosis‐associated pathways in COVID‐19 infection.

WHO Fact or Fiction: There is no scientific evidence that lemon/turmeric prevents COVID-19.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Photoshop help? - <AUTHOR>

Learning Photoshop is a big industry. Where can a beginner go to ask questions and don't get bashed by "pros" ? <comment><USER2> <http://psdtuts.com>

</comment><comment><USER3> Some public libraries have tutorial sessions for things like this.</comment>


Heyzap (YC W09) Launches Social Bar for Games - <AUTHOR> http://games.venturebeat.com/2010/01/26/heyzaps-new-social-bar-makes-flash-games-more-social/ <comment><USER2> I've always been impressed with Heyzap's willingness to describe itself in terms of other well-known services. e.g., "Meebo bar for games", "YouTube of flash games."

</comment><comment><USER3> Venturebeat is down right now. I'm sure it will be back up soon, but in the meantime check out our blog post:

<http://blog.heyzap.com/general/heyzap-launches-social-bar/>

</comment><comment><USER4> From the title it sounded like they are starting a franchise of Bars where gamers can socialize.

Anyone else find it weird that it seems like almost everyone under 30 plays video games but they are entirely confined to home? I wonder why there aren't more places like Portlands amazing <http://www.groundkontrol.com/> .</comment>


Deciding among a hacker's best friend: pens - <AUTHOR> http://jseliger.wordpress.com/2009/04/05/product-review-pens <comment><USER2> I used to have a Koh-I-Noor brass barrel Rapidomatic 0.5 mm mechanical pencil that was the best thing I'd ever written with. Foolishly, I took it to a training class one time and lost it. I've never been able to google or eBay a replacement. (There is still a Rapidomatic line, but it is plastic barreled, without the stability and heft that made the brass barreled model so exceptional.

The closest I've found is the Rotring 600 line, which was still carried by Levenger. Also metal, and with a decently decisive action, but neither as precise nor as well weighted as the Koh-I-Noor. Checking now, it appears Levenger no longer offers it.

The Koh-I-Noor loss has been a bitter blow. The weight of the brass provided just enough pressure to allow the pencil lead to glide very smoothly over paper with minimal downward pressure. And the weight was just enough to dampen slight tremors without making writing an effort -- in fact, it was less effort as I didn't have to work as hard to suppress the tremors and minor motions or stutters against an uneven paper surface.

As for the "hacking" aspect: Pencil/pen and paper is still one to the best interfaces I've found for prototyping and for freestyle association. In addition to its freeform nature, I find writing is enough slower than typing that it causes me, in slowing down, to really think things through. I may generate less raw output, but it tends to be of higher quality. That extra bit of delay often allows my mind to go further on a point and to gain insight I otherwise might not achieve.

There is also something kinesthetic about pencil/pen and paper that resonates with my personality. Working in the medium itself begins to generate a positive feedback loop.

</comment><comment><USER3> I like the Pilot G2 XF very much. The normal Pilot G2 is a little thick. For Fountain Pens I really like the aluminum Rotring pens (German). They're a bit heavy, but they feel like a real tool. Ah damn, Rotring doesn't make em anymore... Well, Lamy fountain pens are really good and cheap (also German): <http://www.lamyusa.com/safari.html>

The Pilot Disposable Fountain Pen is hilarious: [http://www.pilotpen- store.com/product_detail.asp?T1=PIL+SV4B...](http://www.pilotpen- store.com/product_detail.asp?T1=PIL+SV4B%2DBLU&).

</comment><comment><USER4> My Koh-I-Noor was a 0.5mm Rapidomatic 5635, white plastic barrel. Great pencil, until the barrel broke. I replaced it was a Rotring (probably the 600, although I'm not exactly sure), sold by Levenger under their name. (The clip is stamped Rotring, though). It's very nice, solid brass, and easily as good as my (plastic) Koh-I-Noor.

I've had a few other very nice pencils. Less technical is the Pentel Kerry (<http://www.jetpens.com/index.php/cPath/45_356>) --everyone should own one. The Ohto Tasche (<http://www.jetpens.com/index.php/cPath/45_131>) is almost as nice.

The Pentel Graphgear 1000 (<http://www.jetpens.com/index.php/cPath/340_118>) is good drafting pencil, but not quite as 'dense' as the Rotring. It has a decent retractable sleeve, which might give it just a bit more wiggle. I also have a Ohto Promecha 1000 (<http://www.jetpens.com/index.php/cPath/340_154_659>) and Super Promecha 1500 (<http://www.jetpens.com/index.php/cPath/340_154_663>), but to me they seem to be more about trickery than solid quality. The SP1500 has about four adjustments, so it's got quite the geek factor going for it. Pick one up if you're into mechanical pencils.

I love the _very_ fine line gel pens that are now available from <http://www.jetpens.com> and <http://www.jstationery.com>. The Pentel Slicci (<http://www.jetpens.com/index.php/cPath/239_342>) is my fave, but check out the Pentel Hybrid Technica (<http://www.jetpens.com/index.php/cPath/239_241>), the Uni-ball Signo DX (<http://www.jetpens.com/index.php/cPath/239_286>), Uni- ball Signo Bit (<http://www.jetpens.com/index.php/cPath/239_61>), and the Pilot Hi-Tech C (<http://www.jetpens.com/index.php/cPath/239_284>).

As you can tell, I'm a little bit obsessive about writing instruments too.

</comment><comment><USER5> I enjoy the Pentel Graph Gear 1000 - pretty heavy for the $20 price and the extended drafting-style tip retracts when the clip is opened. <https://www.pentelstore.com/index.php?grp=760>.</comment>


Sweden Grants Religious Recognition To File-Sharing Church - <AUTHOR> http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/sweden-grants-religious-recognition-to-file-sharing-church-52689

<comment><USER2> This is the same country that recently had a school that is on a crusade to get rid of he/she pronouns.

This news doesn't surprise me.</comment>


IP over Avian Carriers - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_over_Avian_Carriers

<comment><AUTHOR> Since the pigeon story - <http://searchyc.com/pigeon?sort=by_date> \- is proving to be so popular, I thought I'd remind people of the RFC concerning IP over this "new" medium.

I use this as a specific example of an RFC when describing the concept to people. It comes as a shock to some just how readable RFCs are. Then I pull out the very original descriptions of how the internet works, and some get really quite interested.

It's amazing how clear those first explanations were, and how quickly one can advance to explaining a lot about the current "InterWeb" thingy.</comment>


State-Sponsored Trolling: How Governments Are Deploying Disinformation - <AUTHOR> http://www.iftf.org/statesponsoredtrolling/ <comment><USER2> The three authors make the recommendation that, to deter fake/unapproved information from being circulated, the US should amend the US Constitution:

"Under US law, adapt the First Amendment, perhaps by building upon existing hate speech prohibitions that are permitted by the First Amendment, such as the federal cyberstalking statute (18 USC § 2261A); create exceptions and add possible new regulations to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, a provision that shields social media platforms from legal liability for the actions of third-party users of their services; and amend and evolve electoral regulation."

</comment><comment><USER3> really fascinating video linked there</comment>


Patent Trolls Are Mortally Wounded - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/06/alice_v_cls_bank_supreme_court_gets_software_patent_ruling_right.html <comment><USER2> I'm still scratching my head trying to understand what principle drives the distinction between an abstract idea and a non-abstract one. It seems to me that the very definition of a computer program is the description of an idea - in pedantic detail, yes, but it will always come back to an idea. If that is true, and if, as many say, it is only a matter of time before "software eats the world", is there anything left that will be patentable?

The court decision this week seems to entangle two things; the fact that the abstract idea was not novel, and the fact that it was abstract. It is not clear to me: had the abstract idea itself been truly novel - would that have changed the outcome? A lot of people are saying this ruling is against patenting abstract ideas but it seems to me that it is mostly about the fact that directly transcribing an idea to a computer doesn't ADD concreteness (or novelty?), NOT a judgement about the veracity of the original idea. Would love to hear any insight about this.

<comment><USER3> I think it's something like this:

Abstract idea: something to clean your windshields in case of rain/snow

Non-abstract (concrete) idea: a device composed by a wipe, mechanically connected to a motor that cleans the windshield with an oscillating motion

<comment><USER2> Thanks, that does help.

It almost seems then that written into the definition of non-abstractness is that the idea could be implemented multiple ways. In other words, If there was no possible other way to make a windscreen wiper then the abstract idea itself would be sufficient to specify the actual implementation (or the implementation can be derived as an inevitable logical consequence of the abstract idea). But if we can postulate a different way (perhaps less optimal) then we can say there is an abstractness about the original idea.

I still have trouble with this though because the point where you define the abstractness seems a bit arbitrary. There are many ways to make a wiper blade, a rotating mechanism, a motor, etc. So aren't those abstract too? If the patent specifies it exactly then it is truly concrete, but then it's too specific - competitor can just use a slightly different material.

And then at some point we invent a generically programmable army of nanobots that swarm to accomplish any physical task using a goal oriented AI type language ... and now merely specifying the idea IS the implementation for ANY task.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> It seems to me that in almost all cases, the "specialty" Courts tend to rule on the side of what they were meant to "judge". If it's a "patent Court", then they will almost always rule in favor of the patents. If it's a spying Court (FISC), then they will rule in favor of the spying, and become a rubberstamp Court for surveillance requests.

So maybe we should get rid of specialty Courts, no?

<comment><USER5> It is rather unfair to lump the "FISC" system in with all the courts, because it is more of a board, panel, committee, in camera hearing, or administrative proceeding. "FISC" lacks the essential qualities of a court, as the defendant has no right to appear, they are not represented by counsel, charges are not presented, evidence is not disclosed, and there is no right to trial by a jury of the accused's peers.[1]

[1] [https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/order_granting_governments...](https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/order_granting_governments_motion_to_dismiss_and_denying_aclu_motion_for_preliminary_injunction.pdf)

<comment><USER6> Yes it's dreadfully unfair. Little children are crying. And yet GP's observation that _" specialty" Courts tend to rule on the side of what they were meant to "judge"_ is true, without consideration for particular procedural differences.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I know the author didn't write the headline, but trolls are not "mortally wounded;" they're barely scratched. This ruling will have little effect. The Supreme court declined to offer any guidance about what "abstract" means, so courts will go on making it up according to the feelings of the presiding judge.

Legislation like the Innovation Act that could be brought back next year would be much more important.

<comment><USER8> _so courts will go on making it up according to the feelings of the presiding judge_

Keep in mind: a lawyer tried to attack the crypto credibility of Whit Diffie!

[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/11/newegg-trial- cryp...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/11/newegg-trial-crypto- legend-diffie-takes-the-stand-to-knock-out-patent/)

For some reason patent attorneys wonder why so many of us programmers regard the legalese surreality around patents as a Kafkaesque morass.

<comment><USER7> _Keep in mind: a lawyer tried to attack the crypto credibility of Whit Diffie!_

Remember, that lawyer who attacked Diffie won the case! The jury decided that the Patent Office knew better than Whitfield Diffie about encryption and awarded millions to the guy who claimed to invent asymmetric transport cryptography in the 1990s.

<comment><USER9> Well, the jury decided on the facts that the lawyer presented, which were facts that Diffie could not deny. He was introduced by the defense as the "inventor of asymmetric key exchange". But the plaintiff simply pointed out that, since somebody at GCHQ had already invented it secretly, he was not the true inventor. _Yet_ because the prior GCHQ invention was secret, it did not count as prior art, which was why the DH patent was still valid!

And here's the kicker: the defense was actually arguing that the plaintiff's invention had already been invented by DH and as such was invalid, and the plaintiff had already pointed out that DH's work was _not published_ and hence could not invalidate their patent. Exactly like the GCHQ work did not invalidate DH's patent.

Given that the plaintiffs argument was "secret prior art does not invalidate patents", it probably wasn't the best idea for the defense to bring in living proof of one of the better known examples of the plaintiff's argument to support them.

<comment><USER10> Just when I think it couldn't get worse, find myself even more astonished at how broken the [software] patent system really is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> _Most of the worst software patents do exactly what the court said they couldn't: present an idea (like hedging risk, one-click shopping, etc.) and say that, because it's executed on a computer, or a generic piece of hardware, it is not just an idea anymore._

Does this mean Amazon will lose their one-click patent?

<comment><USER12> Hopefully. And refund all the money people lost due to being unable to implement the idea and fight it in court.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm disappointed that the post's title was not literal. Don't DO that.</comment>


US National Park Service Forced to Cease Use of Twitter Until Further Notice - <AUTHOR> http://gizmodo.com/national-park-service-banned-from-tweeting-after-anti-t-1791449526 <comment><USER2> A few thoughts:

The National Mall is an NPS property, so it makes sense at one level that they would tweet photos of it relative to the inauguration.

This particular comparison, however valid it may be, does carry political connotations, however, and government agencies should present a more politically neutral tone. They represent all of us, not just a particular party.

A blanket ban for even just one agency, let alone every agency under the Department of the Interior posting on Twitter is ridiculous overkill for something like this. The person who posted it should get be reprimanded if it was deliberate, or even be fired under certain circumstances, but banning the entire agency from using Twitter is absurd, especially when federal land management agencies often use Twitter as one means of communicating hazardous conditions and closures to the public.

<comment><USER3> > A blanket ban for even just one agency, let alone every agency under the > Department of the Interior posting on Twitter is ridiculous overkill for > something like this.

It doesn't sound as if it's permanent, it said additional communication should be expected next week. It's Friday.

<comment><USER4> What if they need to send a message today or tomorrow? There is a sizeable march on DC today on the Mall.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> A national Park Service RSS feed would be a better use of taxpayer money than validating a single propitiatory commercial messing app.

<comment><USER6> Gotta go where the people are. Most Americans are on twitter. I don't think a National Parks RSS feed would get anywhere near that amount of viewership

<comment><USER7> While most Americans know what Twitter is, less than a quarter use it. Facebook would be a better bet for reach.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> One thing that bothers me about the 2017 photo is I've seen heaps of others from the same day and it looked like there were heaps of people - not as many as Obama but way way more than what's shown in the picture.

So is it just from earlier in the day or something?

</comment><comment><USER2> Nitpick: It's the National Park Service, not Parks.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. I've fixed the typo.</comment></comment>


L.A. Company Wins China Hyperloop Deal - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/l-a-company-wins-china-hyperloop-deal-1532087032 <comment><USER2> Very cool to see this technology progress. Will be interesting to track. China certainly has shown that it both can invest in and build public infrastructure at an amazing scale and pace.

It's a little concerning that this isn't really a sale - it's a joint venture. From the article:

"HyperloopTT will form a joint venture with the Tongren authorities, according to the Guizhou provincial government, though the company's announcement didn't say whether it would be expected to transfer technology."

Has to be taken with a bit of caution as we've seen how this worked out in high speed rail:

"China's early high-speed trains were imported or built under technology transfer agreements with foreign train-makers including Alstom, Siemens, Bombardier and Kawasaki Heavy Industries. Since the initial technological support, Chinese engineers have re-designed internal train components and built indigenous trains manufactured by the state-owned CRRC Corporation." [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High- speed_rail_in_China](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China)]

You'll find that China now is battling for dominance in the global high speed rail market and the formerly leading European providers (Seimens, Altrom) and in trouble and may have to merge just to survive.

"European rivals unite as CRRC threatens to corner train market " [[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-27/alstom- si...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-27/alstom-siemens- forget-high-speed-rail-feud-amid-asian-onslaught)]

[[https://www.credit-suisse.com/corporate/en/articles/news- and...](https://www.credit-suisse.com/corporate/en/articles/news-and- expertise/the-market-for-high-speed-trains-stays-the-course-201502.html)]

<comment><USER3> which part is the interesting technology?

the train or the tunnel?

<comment><USER4> "Hyper" in the name?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> While I was traveling in Beijing I remember hearing stories that the Chinese hired Japanese contractors to build the rail. Had them build one track of the rail and sent them home. Then they copied their design and built the rest of the railway.

</comment><comment><USER6> Tongren county? That is like out in the middle of nowhere (well, near fenghuang in hunan) and is only known as a tourist destination for seeing Miao (Hmong) villagers. Strange.

Backpackers should visit this place, it's like yangshuo/Lijiang before they became saturated.

</comment><comment><USER7> lol China will steal this company's tech in 3...2...1...

</comment><comment><USER8> Does anyone know why they are building it in a seemingly less populated/ prosperous province?

<comment><USER9> Since the capacity of a Hyperloop system is close to zero (less than 1000 passengers per hour, much less than a lane of highway and two orders of magnitude less than an ordinary railroad), it doesn't really matter where you put it.

<comment><USER10> Should we be comparing it to trains or planes though?

<comment><USER9> Did you mean should we compare it to airports? LAX will land 54 aircraft in the 60 minutes starting now, and I assure you that amounts to rather more than 1000 pax/hour.

<comment><USER11> LAX is 3,500 acres and only provides 1/2 the land area need for a flight. Worse you can't build anything tall near by and need all that land close to cities, making high speed trains a surprisingly good trade-off.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Wait, the US finally comes up with some new cool mass-transit technology and we're not even building it here?

Shame.

<comment><USER13> We can't build any public infrastructure in the US anymore. Too complicated between environmental regs, NIMBYism, and corruption.

<comment><USER14> > _We can 't build any public infrastructure in the US anymore._

I know it feels that way, but it's not strictly true. Here in Seattle in the last decade we've built a new floating bridge, multiple miles of underground light rail track, and nearly two miles of deep bore road tunnel.

I think there is a real problem that our new infrastructure is way too expensive and takes way too long to build, but we've demonstrated that we can definitely build new stuff.

<comment><USER15> Seattle's light rail is mediocre. I wish they had gone full in with a heavy rail and subway system instead.

They could've used that to link up Seattle, Tacoma, Redmond, Kent, Bainbridge Island, Vashon Island, and the entire Seattle area.

And to keep costs of building the infrastructure down, then they should consider outsourcing it, and hiring Chinese labor. (Apparently, the Chinese are very good at building railroads.) That way, you keep development costs down, and afterwards, the local citizens can enjoy first-world infrastructure, at low rates.

But, when infrastructure projects become billion dollar estimates, then that just kills any opportunity of it ever being developed. Simply, because it now becomes a major high-paying jobs program.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This move was very puzzling to me, in light of Trump's trade tactics. Especially, of his accusations that China "steals" American technology.

So, given this, why would any new American company, choose to enter into a 51/49 partnership with China? Where China has the majority share, and where the American company must share with their Chinese partner, all the system processes, techniques, and new technology of their product.

This is just adding fuel to the fire, and the resentment that Americans have of the Chinese people.

Here, the American company is willingly entering into such a business agreement. The Chinese side is not holding a gun to the American company's head.

For the Chinese side, they are investing a lot of money into this research project, to fund this hare-brained idea. So, there is a lot of risk on their part, that nothing will emerge from this.

The alternative, is that the American company can just choose not to do it. Don't accept the money. Go it alone. Don't enter the Chinese market. The rest of the world is a huge playground as it is.

<comment><USER16> It's not like the US is investing in rail technology. If we're not going to build it, China will.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I wonder if this has something to do with the Belt and Road Initiative. A huge corrupt money sponge.

</comment><comment><USER18> Paywall work-around: [https://t.co/jZyOpZbbtD](https://t.co/jZyOpZbbtD)

<comment><USER18> Completely serious question given the downvotes: Is this discouraged or banned on HN?

Whenever I hit a paywall from an HN link, I immediately go to the comments to see if somebody has linked to the full article. Thought I'd help folks out since nobody had done that for this article yet, but if I'm out of line I won't do it again.

<comment><USER6> You might be being downvoted because your link doesn't avoid the paywall.

<comment><USER18> Really? Works for me...

That would explain it though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Basically means China will learn and develop their own hyperloop technology based on other's plans.

</comment><comment><USER20> Hacker News has assured me repeatedly that this is an imaginary technology that cannot possibly work, so I assume this must be fake news.

<comment><USER21> I think the criticism isn't that it couldn't possibly work, but rather that it was impractical and expensive. Basically, its the modern monorail.

<comment><USER22> "impractical and expensive" are invalid criticisms in the face of no other alternatives other than more cars and freeways.

The monorail at Disneyland works great and so does the one in Seattle.

<comment><USER3> Yea, monorails do work great.

They don't need to be surrounded by a vacuum tube, which is the impractical and expensive part.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Designing and building a keyboard - <AUTHOR> http://yager.io/keyboard/keyboard.html <comment><USER2> Related: a hardware hacker that I know recently designed and made a new keyboard[1], which looks really interesting and fun to make. Fortunately he also provided really good detailed instructions[1][2] so other people can make it too. I'm not at the skill stage yet where I can make it myself, but it'll probably be the first complex hardware project I eventually undertake.

[1]: [https://github.com/technomancy/atreus](https://github.com/technomancy/atreus) [2]: [http://technomancy.us/173](http://technomancy.us/173)

</comment><comment><USER3> OOP in _keyboard firmware_? Am I the only one who finds this quite a lot more complex than it needs to be?

> The fact that I2C communication blocks immediately is important. Button > debouncing is done by counting the number of "frames" for which a key is in > a certain state.

The obvious solution for this is to synchronise the I2C clock to the matrix scanning loop, so you receive/send one bit each time through the loop. Even better, do away with the I2C overhead completely and use a continuous serial protocol between the two halves.

<comment><AUTHOR> >OOP in keyboard firmware?

I could do it with FP if someone made a Haskell to AVR compiler :)

>Am I the only one who finds this quite a lot more complex than it needs to be?

What functionality would you propose stripping?

>The obvious solution for this is to synchronise the I2C clock to the matrix scanning loop, so you receive/send one bit each time through the loop.

That's the _wrong_ solution. The main loop takes some milliseconds. Communication at that rate would be intolerably slow. And how is that any better than natively clocked I2C? I'd have to re-implement the entire protocol _in software_ to get that kind of control.

>do away with the I2C overhead completely and use a continuous serial protocol between the two halves.

What overhead? Any overhead introduced by I2C is very minimal.

What benefit would a "continuous" (do you mean asynchronous?) serial protocol have? There are also a number of downsides: 1. It wouldn't work well with the symmetric halves design. The cable would have to switch the TX and RX lines, and no common cable does that. 2. It wouldn't support more than two keyboards at once, unless I implemented a shared-line serial protocol from scratch, and then why not just use I2C? And using an asynchronous serial protocol doesn't solve the board synchronization problem.

The new version of the board also breaks out the UART header for people who want to do exactly this, but the UART is not a better solution.

<comment><USER3> > What functionality would you propose stripping?

The complexity here is not in the functionality. It's in the design and implementation.

> The main loop takes some milliseconds.

The MCU has a 16MHz single-cycle core. That means a 62.5ns instruction cycle, or 16,000 instructions in 1ms. What makes it require >16,000 instructions every time through the loop?

> What benefit would a "continuous" (do you mean asynchronous?) serial > protocol have?

I do mean a continuous one, with the master driving the clock at the frequency of the main loop, and the slave(s) synchronising their transmissions with it. One of the biggest advantages I see is that you can make use of unused positions in the key matrix, so that they can be scanned at the same time as all the others. You just need to know which one, and instead of applying debouncing/up/down, accumulate the bits of scancode that are sent in and pass them through.

> 1\. It wouldn't work well with the symmetric halves design. The cable would > have to switch the TX and RX lines, and no common cable does that.

GPIOs are bidirectional. You can do the crossover configuration entirely in software, since the current design already detects whether it's plugged in from USB.

> 2\. It wouldn't support more than two keyboards at once

How would you do this with the current design? They're symmetrical, but I don't see any way to chain or hub them together (unless you use a USB hub to connect as many independently as you want...), so I think that's a bit of a moot point. But if you are thinking of a star topology for this "keyboard area network"(!), using another unused key position in the matrix of the master for more extension boards would work. Each board could act as a hub for more, but this quickly gets into "why would you ever want to do that" territory.

> unless I implemented a shared-line serial protocol from scratch, and then > why not just use I2C?

Because I2C was defined with different assumptions in mind.

<comment><AUTHOR> >The complexity here is not in the functionality. It's in the design and implementation.

I'd love to hear some proposals for simplifying the implementation.

>What makes it require >16,000 instructions every time through the loop?

Mostly USB library stuff, I think. Been a while since I profiled it.

>I do mean a continuous one...

Can you further explain this paragraph? I don't know what you mean by "unused positions in the key matrix".

>You can do the crossover configuration entirely in software

Like I said: I'd have no implement the protocol from scratch, in software. The hardware UART does not support this functionality.

>How would you do this with the current design?

You can splice a TRRS cable or buy a TRRS splitter. The new version of the board actually has a dual-jack USB-A connector to make daisy-chaining even easier.

Again, not sure what you mean by "unused key position in the matrix".

>Because I2C was defined with different assumptions in mind.

Which were?

<comment><USER3> > I'd love to hear some proposals for simplifying the implementation.

The one thing that stands out is that many of the classes only have one instance created, and they're classes that don't have much functionality in them. Returning structures from functions requires a copy, in this case the array of button states, and copies of them are also created inside of functions like ButtonDebouncer::update. Only one of these state arrays is ever needed, so make only one...

The actual matrix-scan loop in HardwareController could also be simplified greatly; this usually just involves shifting a 1 bit through the row/column driver output port register(s) and reading the input port(s). There's no need to turn all the rows/columns off each time, since getting the next col/row is only a matter of changing which one is being driven. Getting the button number shouldn't require a multiplication (I'll admit I was pretty shocked when I saw that!) either, since each iteration of the inner loop is the button after the previous one, so it can be done with one counter.

> Mostly USB library stuff, I think. Been a while since I profiled it.

I'm more familiar with PS/2 keyboard protocol which is much simpler, but USB shouldn't be that much more complex to send/receive info once everything has been initialised (and as I understand from working with USB controllers in non-keyboard devices, the SIE does much of the actual transfer work in hardware.)

> Can you further explain this paragraph? I don't know what you mean by > "unused positions in the key matrix".

There can be row/column combinations which don't have keyswitches at their intersection, but are scanned anyway. You can connect other units so that they act like keyswitches when they send information.

> Like I said: I'd have no implement the protocol from scratch, in software. > The hardware UART does not support this functionality.

Of course.

> Which were?

A non-continuous clock. Transfers that occur in small bursts instead of one continuous serial stream.

(I have studied the IBM keyboard firmware, and worked with one for an 8051-based controller before.)

<comment><AUTHOR> >The one thing that stands out is that many of the classes only have one instance created,

To maintain proper levels of abstraction.

>Returning structures from functions requires a copy,

Which is extremely fast, simple, side-effect-free, and likely optimized away by RVO.

>The actual matrix-scan loop in HardwareController could also be simplified greatly;

Nothing you described would actually be an optimization. Turning off all the rows/columns takes 1 cycle.

>Getting the button number shouldn't require a multiplication

Nit-picking. This is fast and easy to read. I'm not going to worry about the few nanoseconds required for a multiplication.

That's also not an issue of "simplification"; it's just premature optimization.

>but USB shouldn't be that much more complex

PJRC wrote that library. Not sure what they do.

>There can be row/column combinations which don't have keyswitches at their intersection, but are scanned anyway. You can connect other units so that they act like keyswitches when they send information.

Why would I do that? Part of the design is that each individual board is responsible for translating button presses to USB keycode deltas. This allows for better distribution of responsibility, and also the boards can be connected in any configuration/order and maintain the same behavior.

>Transfers that occur in small bursts instead of one continuous serial stream.

What's the downside to this? The bursts occur way faster than human perception could hope to notice.

Besides, if you want to be pedantic, any serial protocol communicates in "bursts".

<comment><USER3> > To maintain proper levels of abstraction.

Abstraction is only a tool, a means to an end; not the end in itself.

> Which is extremely fast, simple, side-effect-free, and likely optimized away > by RVO.

Copying is one of the fastest things a processor can do, but that's not a reason to do it unnecessarily, even if the compiler optimiser could simplify it.

> That's also not an issue of "simplification"; it's just premature > optimization.

Really? I suppose that if you consider abstraction the ultimate goal, you might think that shorter, simpler code would be "premature optimization"...

> Part of the design is that each individual board is responsible for > translating button presses to USB keycode deltas.

That functionality remains the same; the receiving board just collects each bit of the scancode and passes it through directly to the USB. The sending board is still the one doing the matrix scan and position-to-keycode translation. The receiving board is just a passthrough.

> What's the downside to this? The bursts occur way faster than human > perception could hope to notice.

It adds complexity to the software, because it has to deal with start/stop conditions, etc.

> Besides, if you want to be pedantic, any serial protocol communicates in > "bursts".

Not if the clock is continuous; once the receiver and sender are synchronised, the sender can e.g. keep transmitting 0 bytes when there is nothing to send, and keycodes (which are all nonzero) otherwise.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is interesting.

I've been looking for a split ergonomic type mechanical keyboard, but I haven't found any. The author just went about building what I was looking for.

<comment><USER5> How about this one [http://www.kinesis-ergo.com/shop/freestyle2-for-pc- us/](http://www.kinesis-ergo.com/shop/freestyle2-for-pc-us/) ?

<comment> loup-vaillant It has one unacceptable flaw: staggered keys. [http://loup- vaillant.fr/articles/better-keyboards](http://loup- vaillant.fr/articles/better-keyboards)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is awesome, and makes me want to try building something similar. On a related note, can anyone recommend a good source for learning about PCB design?

<comment><USER7> GeekHack has lots of resources and knowledgeable folks re: all aspects of keyboard building:

[http://geekhack.org/index.php?board=117.0](http://geekhack.org/index.php?board=117.0)

I built my board ([http://technomancy.us/173](http://technomancy.us/173)) primarily building on knowledge from geekhack.org and the #geekhack channel on freenode.

<comment><USER7> Of course I would add that if your goal is more to make a cool board than learn about pcbs, it's easier to skip the PCB entirely and just hand-wire the switch matrix yourself. PCBs make sense at a scale of 5+ but IMO just add extra overhead for a one-off design.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Was just thinking about designing a dream keyboard after the "look at my chair" and "what's your keyboard" threads here on HN.

Came up with the following requirements:

\- Must be split into a left hand and a right hand.

\- No wires! (since it largely defeats the first point)

\- All the regular relative raised key/ergonomic issues.

\- Mechanical, obviously.

\- Since the point is essentially arbitrarily positioned keyboard hands for touch typing, there's little purpose in having the letters on the keys: they're no longer necessarily right in front of you to look at.

\- Optional: can either free-stand successfully or have some various means to allow it to be mechanically attached to various things/surfaces/mechanisms: Say if i want to have a lazy-boy chair with each arm being one of the keyboards.

So get to work HN :P

<comment><USER9> There's the ErgoDox, a split keyboard which is essentially a DIY kit, but it's not wireless -- although the potential for setting that up has been discussed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Anyone working on anything a little more non-standard like a modern DataHand?

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

<comment><USER11> I had heard of this DataHand before but looking at the wikipedia picture I realized that the mapping was directly lifted from QWERTY. It seems such a waste to me to design a new input method and not try to make an optimized layout for it (since you'll have to relearn to type anyway...)

<comment><USER12> The layout and hardware are things that can be tackled separately and independently. The hardware isn't a waste if it works.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> While mechanical switches are everywere, it's simply impossible to find decent and decently priced scissor-switches. Does anyone know where to find such for less than $1 each?

<comment><USER14> I have been trying to find these or something similar for my keyboard project, but I haven't had any luck yet.

I don't know if it's a personal bias after using a Thinkpad keyboard over the years, but I feel like scissors switches don't put as much stress on my hands and require less effort.

<comment><USER3> How about buying a replacement Thinkpad keyboard and getting the switches from it?

I've used a Thinkpad as well as other laptop's keyboards over the years, and the Thinkpad ones usually do feel a bit more solid and accurate. They're still a bit too stiff for me, however, as my regular desktop's keyboard is an extremely soft rubber dome one (~40g actuation force). I've tried clicky keyboards, but never really liked them. It's definitely a personal preference.

<comment><USER14> I'd like to do that. The only problem is the switches are mounted on a custom plate. Fabricating a new plate isn't trivial because of tight tolerances. I haven't found any examples of someone who has taken on such a project as well.

What keyboard do you use?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Here's another take on a custom keyboard: [http://blog.keyboard.io/](http://blog.keyboard.io/)

</comment><comment><USER11> The website is already half dead, the pictures won't load here. Unfortunately without the pictures it's a bit harder to follow...

<comment><USER16> Here it is the whole post as a single pic: [https://www.dropbox.com/s/hvng9q9rnk6vkfx/keyboard.png?dl=1](https://www.dropbox.com/s/hvng9q9rnk6vkfx/keyboard.png?dl=1)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is a great article. Funny enough I'm seeing more and more of these detailed build your own keyboard articles these days. I don't know much about DIY hardware, has the market recently shifted such that making these things is much cheaper/easier than a few years ago?

<comment><USER18> Mechanical keyboards have been on the rise again, and that includes hardware enthusiasts who love to build! I enjoy taking care of my mechanical keyboards and admire others' collections. The growth here and in other areas like the RasPi has led to much more smaller production related to these markets and enabled communities to design their own hardware.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I always wanted to see someone make a proper attempt at a keyboard for "neutral" hand position. hands placed palm down are flexed "pronate", palm up "supinated", palms facing each other "neutal" is the most relaxed (face it: we're 'meant' to be holding our hands out ready to strangle each other) so i want a keyboard not rotated-up slightly, i want one built into a proper cone (apex up), or two cones (yes yes... i'm sure a couple of breasts might come to some of your filthy minds)

<comment><USER20> There have been some (shockingly expensive) keyboards in that format. I thought they were from Kinesis or Maltron, but I can't find them on either company's website atm. There are also ergonomic steno keyboards which can be placed in that configuration [http://geminiwriter.com/ProductdetailsV1.aspx?ID=24](http://geminiwriter.com/ProductdetailsV1.aspx?ID=24)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Great! I'm now tempted to build something similar but perhaps with Bluetooth instead.

Does the fact that the keys aren't staggered make it significantly better or worse to type on?

<comment><AUTHOR> >Does the fact that the keys aren't staggered make it significantly better or worse to type on?

Depends who you ask! Personally, I think it's a bit more comfortable to type on than a staggered layout.

Some people _love_ the matrix layout. Some people are rather put off by it.

<comment><USER7> I haven't used a non-staggered matrix layout, only column-staggered and row- staggered. Staggering the columns[1] makes allowances for the fact that your fingers are different lengths, and I like it a lot even though it takes a while to get used to. I suspect I would like a non-staggered layout better than row-staggering though.

[1] - like the Ergodox or my own Atreus design does: [https://secure.flickr.com/photos/technomancy/tags/atreus](https://secure.flickr.com/photos/technomancy/tags/atreus)

<comment><USER21> Sweet keyboard! It feels like it's missing a whole row of keys though.

<comment><USER7> Thanks. I intentionally kept the size small since it's not meant to be used as my primary board; I use an Ergodox when I'm at my desk and only use the Atreus when I'm out at coffee shops or relaxing on the couch, so the context is different. Using the fn key for so much definitely takes getting used to though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Source here: [https://github.com/wyager/micromechboard](https://github.com/wyager/micromechboard)

</comment><comment><USER22> More than a physical keyboard, a keyboard designed for mobile users excites me more.

Many people use one hand to type on the mobile phone (thumb to be more exact). However, the design of the keyboard on the mobile screen does not align well with the natural movement of the thumb. It is painful and hideous.

I believe an Arc keyboard on the mobile screen would be the best design. Anyone working on something similar?

<comment><USER20> The Twiddler3 [https://plus.google.com/105804767481830727070/posts/j4M9fmRr...](https://plus.google.com/105804767481830727070/posts/j4M9fmRr8dY) will be a physical keyboard suitable for mobile users. If you want a software keyboard then ASETNIOP [http://asetniop.com/](http://asetniop.com/) looks fairly promising, but it's probably only suitable for large tablet-size screens and hasn't been released yet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Am I truly that alone in not liking split keyboards? I can certainly use one, if I have to. I much prefer the standard flat keyboard, though.

Of course, I confess that I have been lucky enough to never have any problems from one. I fully understand those that need it for medical reasons. I just don't know as that I would choose it if I didn't need it. (Rather, I know I would not.)

</comment><comment><USER24> This is awesome... I've wanted my "perfect" keyboard for a long time. Maybe it might be worth trying to make.

</comment><comment><USER25> Very nice job. Have you thought about an enclosure for it yet? This has always been the hardest part of PCB designs for me. PCBs are easy and cheap and there are lots of standard box-type enclosures but you either end up hacking holes in the sides with a Dremel or forgoing the enclosure entirely.

<comment><USER26> That's one of the greatest use cases for 3D printers! Whether ordering from Shapeways or printing on your own, making custom cases for projects is pretty awesome.

<comment><USER7> Unless you own your own, renting 3D printer time is crazy expensive for building a case for something this big. Laser-cut acrylic is faster, cheaper, stronger, and more precise.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Great read, it is very interesting reading about the process you followed designing and building a hardware project from scratch.

Hopefully this encourages more people to have a shot at building something interesting, and write about it.

Thanks a lot.

</comment><comment><USER28> The keyboard market makes me wonder if there would be a market for custom pcbs in customs shapes instead of just flat, or possible a 3D printer that can deposit both a polymer and conductive traces.

<comment><USER29> Non-flat PCBs would be a massive hassle to solder components to; normal pick- and-place+reflow is out of the question as the components would fall off, so you'd have to resort to gluing them on or soldering one leg manually.

Flexible (polyamide) PCBs are already available, with FR4 stiffeners where components are to be soldered. You could assemble one flat, bend to desired shape and attach to a form.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Nice work - very tidy and professional-looking. Thanks for sharing.

</comment><comment><USER31> WOW! Last week I was on forums checking out about coverting a rubber dome keyboard to mechanical...

Now you got me thinking!!! :D</comment>


Why Tiny Startups Can Still Beat the Big Guys. Not Because Your Team Is Smarter - <AUTHOR> https://www.saastr.com/what-are-the-advantages-of-being-a-startup-vs-being-an-established-business/ <comment><USER2> Warren buffet often mentions in his interviews that the sorts of small size deals that they used to pursue when Berkshire was smaller just sont move the needle enough anymore to be worth investing into. It's an interesting example of how we dont analyze absolute values of dollar return on investment or truly analyze all opportunities and invest in all NVP positive ones even if seemingly very small (though I guess a seed stage investor is a good counterexample) - and that we aren't always the greatest at evaluating the power laws that drive startup investing. Those same power laws apply to these internal corporate projects as well. I wonder what a company comfortably able to stomach investing in small things that dont seem to be able to "move the needle" enough to be worth it would look like - the biggest example I can think if might be AWS where a small thing turned into a huge business, could we be seeing more of that if companies were managed and capital was deployed a bit differently?</comment>


Under Socialism, Morality Is Scarcer Than Bread - <AUTHOR> https://fee.org/articles/under-socialism-morality-is-scarcer-than-bread/ <comment><USER2> Kinda funny using USSR as an example where communism as it becomes a dictatorship when Russia now is an authoritarian state using capitalism as a guise.

</comment><comment><USER3> What a bunch of simplistic blathering propaganda that, as usual for this sort of topic, ignores actual facts. The very essence of "conservative" "truthiness". I put "conservative" in quotes as most "conservatives" these days are not at all actual conservatives, but authoritarians having a raging temper tantrum.

Denmark etc are far closer to socialism than the USSR ever was, and they are well run societies with a better average standard of living than the US which is turning into a shithole for a lot of people. But socialism works for those societies because they are largely homogenous and culturally cohesive, unlike a 'melting pot' like the US or a very multicultural one like the UK.

That is a large factor in whether socialism works - because people are on the same page in what they believe society should be like. The US and UK, in comparison, are too individualistic and the basic sociological/psychological/philosophical principles their societies are based upon are not inclined to support socialism. Russia tried to change its basic principles and that was never going to work, especially in a country that had tsars and serfs for hundreds of years. How is Stalin anything but another version of a tsar? How is the current Russian oligarchy nothing but modern day tsars? You can't change a country that easily.

Well, the UK has some socialistic tendencies - the NHS, etc - which have worked over the years but the assault of the "Conservatives" over the years have weakened the social framework. And so I'd say the UK is a far less moral society than it was in the 50s when the NHS was set up... Fucking Thatcher.

Really, whether a society has morals or not depends on a lot of sociological factors and the economic system is hardly a significant one. Only 20 year old libertarian retards who think everything can be reduced to the price of something believe stuff like this. Libertarians know the price of everything, and the value of nothing...

<comment><AUTHOR> "I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."

(Lars Løkke Rasmusse, Danish prime minister)</comment></comment>