Soviet Collapse Echoes in China's Belt and Road - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-08-12/soviet-collapse-echoes-in-china-s-belt-and-road-investment <comment><USER2> I don't see any justification for the Soviet analogy other than wanting to conjure up the image of the impending collapse of China. This sounds like the infrastructure version of the 'financial bubble' prediction that crops up every other year.

If one wanted to pick a positive story there would be the example of the American progressive era, the creation of the interstate system, the railway system during the 19th century, and so forth. Not every large infrastructure project is indicative of corruption, someone needs to build infrastructure, after all, I don't think we've somehow transcended the need for transportation.

That there's military or geopolitical motivation, especially as far as the land component of the belt and road initiative is concerned seems accurate, but doesn't strike me as particularly bad. From a Chinese perspective it obviously makes sense to invest into continental infrastructure because it does not control the sea.

<comment><USER3> The comparison to Soviet Union is problematic but definitely more relevant than US investment scenarios that you highlighted.

The US scenario you highlighted would be more comparable to Chinese investment in the last 25 years, no?

The clear difference between Soviet Union and China is that China has a growing and robust economy, with a firm grip on the situation whereas the Soviet Union was aching away on so many lies.

Chinese fabricated financials can be papered over with any kind of magic the state wants to apply to it - so long as the economy continues to move forward the numbers will say anything they want them to say.

The articles comparison may be overblown but it's not without reason.

I believe that the China boom has mostly been had, and we're going to see lower growth from here on in; that said, it'll be consistent and positive and they aren't going to disappear as a superpower.

<comment><USER4> > Chinese fabricated financials can be papered over with any kind of magic the > state wants to apply to it - so long as the economy continues to move > forward the numbers will say anything they want them to say.

My feeling is business people and economists are upset that China utterly refuses to follow neoliberal economic polices. Preferring instead to follow old school Keynesian policies. Policy makers thus view China as economically in a state of sin.

Typically countries that try to follow Keynesian economic policies get hammered by western central banks and monetary institutions. However China is way both too large to be 'punished' like that and has iron fisted control of it's own currency. That leaves western and in particular US monetary authorities powerless to do anything.

Hence the constant butthurt blather for the last 30 years that that Chinese expansion only has 5 more years left before it collapses.

Notable: In 2008 the US and Europe followed neoliberal austerity policies to make sure that the banks and paper wealth were made whole. Resulting in a very slow recovery and increasing poverty and political blow back. China responded by building the worlds largest high speed rail network.

<comment><USER5> China's external debt to GDP is one of the lowest in the world, as is their debt per capita.

They aren't going to be 'punished' by creditors because they don't have significant debt. In fact, it's more likely that China will be the one doing the punishing down the road.

<comment><USER6> The issue is the China's corporate debt and off book debt to government owned / backed companies. They have $3.12T coming due in the next year.

For example:

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-18/a-china-b...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-18/a-china- borrower-s-11-billion-debt-mountain-comes-crashing-down)

<comment><USER7> > Designed to handle 320 trains a day, the Lanzhou-Xinjiang HSR currently has > only eight daily services. "Because of this large amount of idle capacity, > [the line's] annual revenues are not enough to pay for its electricity > costs," said Prof Zhao.

[https://www.ft.com/content/ca28f58a-955d-11e8-b747-fb1e803ee...](https://www.ft.com/content/ca28f58a-955d-11e8-b747-fb1e803ee64e) [Paywall]

> China's huge leveraged bet on HSR has also generated many other benefits as > it dramatically shrinks distances, transforms lives and boosts regional > economies. The now three-hour, 1,100km train ride between Guangzhou and > Wuhan used to take 11 hours, and tickets are now priced at just Rmb464.

Annual travel on China's HSR lines — 1.7bn trips — exceeds travel on conventional rail services. And about half of all HSR trips are, like Mr Liu's, business-related.

"When you think about that, a staggering 850m people are travelling [on HSR] to meet customers, get to their job, visit research centres and so on," said Mr Ollivier.

If China Railway's HSR network is ultimately able to pay for itself, it will be a testament to the miracles that can happen when the Chinese Communist party marshals the vast financial resources at its disposal to serve a common good. But if it cannot, there is little doubt who will have to make up the difference.

"China Railway's debt is government-backed," said Prof Li. "It won't default."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> >Great powers are the nations that best harness their economic potential to build up military strength. When they become overextended, the splurge of spending to sustain a strategic edge leaves more productive parts of the economy starved of capital, leading to inevitable decline.

This describes the US better than China. The US spends 7.8% of it's GDP on the military, while China spends only 1.9%. If any country is over-exerting itself and "starving the economy of capital", that's America.

<comment><USER9> I was with you on the first sentence.. but where did you get 7.8%? We only spend 3.5%. [Edit: World bank puts it at 3.1: [https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locat...](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locations=US)]

And according to the military, most of this higher than average spending is due to the military being voluntary, and needing to compete on wages in one of the highest earning countries in the world. Whether you agree with the military's assessment or not, it's true that a significant portion of US military spending is spent on wages/compensation. A lot (not all though) of the difference between the US and russia/china is due to the later having much cheaper labor.

Also the last sentence certainly isn't true... there are many countries that spend far more a percent of GDP on their military: Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the typical example of military excess: north korea.

<comment><USER10> It's really hard to get a precise number of how much money we spend on military. The budget for the military is snuck into other line items and obscures the true cost. For instance the VA is not included, even though we only need the VA due to having veterans. And the costs for nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants are included in the Department of Energy's budget.

<comment><USER11> The VA is a weird case — if we had comprehensive medical coverage for all Americans, the because-of-military costs would only be those incurred due to care for wounded veterans.

I _believe_ that's a minority of the VA's expenditures, but sometimes it is hard to separate. For example, my grandfather receives a hearing aid from the VA — is that because of too much time spent around jet planes, or just due to age?

<comment><USER10> Without a doubt, but as it stands now, it's part of the total compensation package that is offered to service members and should be accounted as such.

<comment><USER12> It's not appropriate to include in terms of proportion of GDP because they'd be spending that money on healthcare anyway.

<comment><USER10> It still is appropriate because it's compensation for a job. VA benefits are part of the package deal a service member signs up for. Without those benefits the military would have to offer a higher salary to recruit the same number and quality of employees, at the margin at least.

It's like saying a government pension shouldn't be counted as part of the cost of employing government workers because the workers would still have to buy food and housing whether or not their career was with the government.

<comment><USER12> By that logic you could affect the spending numbers by charging military spouses rent and making up for it with daycare pay to compensate them for watching their kids. It's just a difference in accounting.

<comment><USER10> I'm confused about what you're arguing. If governmental funds are being spent on military spousal housing, that's a cost of the military, whether it's accounted as salary to the service member who pays rent or if the military builds the house directly.

My original point is that nobody (at least publicly) knows the true spending on the US military because the accounting is so baroque. The VA is just one agency whose rather significant cost is typically forgotten when quoting these numbers, but it's far from the only example.

<comment><USER12> That might have been a bad example. But if you're comparing military spending between one country with the VA and another with universal health coverage, it will mess with the numbers if you include the VA. It's the other country with the difficult accounting.

<comment><USER10> Ah, I see what you're saying.

But I don't want to compare countries. I'm not sure if there's a "right" level of military spending, but I think pro-Military-Industrial-Complex forces in the US purposefully obscure the cost in order to not erode popular support.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Whether China will come up ahead with Belt and Road is uncertain. What is certain is there's a tremendous infrastructure gap, particularly in Asia. This is a great way to turn the overcapacity in Chinese steel and cement into something useful for the world.

[https://blogs.worldbank.org/ppps/forecasting- infrastructure-...](https://blogs.worldbank.org/ppps/forecasting- infrastructure-investment-needs-50-countries-7-sectors-through-2040)

</comment><comment><USER14> China's situation is entirely different.

1: The Asia Pacific is "hitting the knee on the curve" and modernizing its economy. Also, it's the most populous region on earth. It's why economic forecasters call the 2000-2100 period the Asian Century: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_Century](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_Century)

2: The Silk and Road Project ranges far outside "economically stagnant" areas. It's adjusted investments according to projected future growth, and also hedged into already modernized economies. It's as much about supply chain and trade routes as it is about direct economic investment. It connects China to Europe.

</comment><comment><USER15> One interesting project is the mostly Chinese-funded port of Gwadar, in Balochistan, Pakistan. They're trying to develop it as a deep water port as an alternative to Karachi. So far not with very much success, because of political instability and difficulty of attracting other foreign investors to the region.

[https://www.google.com/search?q=gwadar+port+china&ie=utf-8&o...](https://www.google.com/search?q=gwadar+port+china&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1)

Now this part is just my opinion, but the _really, really hard part_ is the proposed road or high-speed rail cargo link from Gwadar to Western China. The Karakorum highway is no joke. It's narrow, twisty, carved into steep rocky mountain passes. I've driven from Islamabad via Gilgit to the Chinese border. It will take many, many billions of dollars of tunneling and road construction to bring it up to the standard of a highway that can take a large volume of 20/40ft cargo container traffic. Right now trucks spend a great deal of time in 1st gear crawling along at 15km/h.

[https://www.google.com/search?q=karakoram+highway&ie=utf-8&o...](https://www.google.com/search?q=karakoram+highway&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1)

</comment><comment><USER16> China is located among countries with large populations. Border disputes and historical warfares with neighbors are among its handicaps.

Looking at the world as a grand chess board, the Belt and Road Initiative is a move which China turns this disadvantage into an edge. By promoting trades with neighbors, it gains geopolitical influence, potential integration into the local economies, and friendships with the political classes.

To match this, the US needs to further strengthen its ties with the countries in question. Several of which are projected to become some of the largest economies in the world by 2050 [1]. Regardless of the extent that the projection comes true, the regions from East Asia to South Asia, where about half of the world's population live in, clearly have great long-term strategic importance.

[1] [https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/economy/the-world- in-2050.h...](https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/economy/the-world-in-2050.html)

<comment><USER17> It isn't as much about sincere trade as much it is about making those countries dependent on China.

Just take a look at the projects completed so far, every single time they brought in their own people and companies to build oversized unnecessary infrastructure that remains mostly unused.

When countries default on those loans, things aren't quite bright.

<comment><USER16> I do not condone all of their tactics, some of which look questionable. I only tried to analyze the thinking behind their plans and strategy from a detached point of view. Their overall strategy appears quite sound.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> When you compare the cost of Belt and Road to wars that cost trillions of dollars, the money spent is peanuts.

The belt and road is already working. China-Finland train link connects Nordic countries with China in 10-12 days. They carry heavy and expensive machinery and machine parts between China and EU. Too heavy for air-travel economically and needs to arrive relatively fast.

<comment><USER19> I don't think your example shows that, and the article disagrees with you:

"The value of freight between Europe and Yiwu, a much-touted overland rail hub near Shanghai, came to 2.27 billion yuan ($330 million) in the first four months of this year [snip] China's top four ports alone process about the same value of cargo every three hours."

Also see this graph from the article: [https://www.bloomberg.com/toaster/v2/charts/e6c45ea06db24277...](https://www.bloomberg.com/toaster/v2/charts/e6c45ea06db242778dfc03bec79dcfae.html?brand=view&webTheme=view&web=true)

<comment><USER20> So what? The trade route only just opened up. The numbers started at _zero_ and started only recently, so of course they are small. By how much the trade is going to increase and at what rate is what everyone is arguing about. People underestimate how _large_ Eurasia is along its east-west axis and how underdeveloped it is in parts. I predict the naysayers and doomsayers will be eating their hats.

In nominal terms the US is the world's largest economy. Let's put it at ~$20tn gdp nominal with moderate growth. EU is about ~$17tn with less than moderate growth say and China is about ~$13tn and growing fast. Problem is that EU and China are at _opposite ends_ of the Eurasian landmass. Anything that reduces trade times and cost between the poles of this massive continent and interconnects a combined ~$30tn economy is going to have an enormous impact.

But even so the article contradicts itself.

"The overwhelming majority of China's trade with Europe is by sea and air. Overland routes don't cut it"

What the detailed stats show is that _by value_ rail is 2% and road is 6% of total trade. (Air is 28%). Take into account that,

"Just 10 years ago, regular direct freight services from China to Europe did not exist. Today, they connect roughly 35 Chinese cities with 34 European cities."[1]

And that,

"Rail services are considerably cheaper than air and faster than sea"[2]

So 2% of trade captured in 10 years. So if people stop thinking in terms of years and start thinking in terms of decades it is obvious that improvements in land logistics will far surpass those of sea and air. By the middle of the century it is anybody's guess what fraction of total trade will be capture by road and rail but it could be _very_ significant. From my reading most analyses put Khazakstan as one of the major bottlenecks, an upgrade there could have huge knock on effects. (And that's not even taking into consideration different sized rail gauges.)

[1] [https://www.csis.org/analysis/rise-china-europe- railways](https://www.csis.org/analysis/rise-china-europe-railways)

[2] [https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs- public/180228_fig1.p...](https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs- public/180228_fig1.png)

<comment><USER21> > _The trade route only just opened up_

This is about the fundamental capacity constraints and costs of rail versus maritime transport. The former will _always_ be more expensive than the other, and _always_ be further capacity constrained. The only thing that could change that is a quantum leap in several technologies, in which case the current investments become useless.

> _"Rail services are considerably cheaper than air and faster than sea"_

Where are you getting this quote?

<comment><USER22> In this comparative study from New Zealand: [https://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/resources/research/reports/4...](https://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/resources/research/reports/497/docs/497.pdf) you can find a _Comparative evaluation of transport modes_ where maritime shipping is cheaper than train, but this depends on the number of containers (you can put much more on a vessel). If we can increase the number of containers on trains, this could change. Also right now the China-Belgium trip can take 20 days by train (cf. [https://www.train- chain.com/](https://www.train-chain.com/)) and usually around 30 days by sea.

<comment><USER21> > _If we can increase the number of containers on trains, this could change_

This increases wear on the train and tracks. We might have materials breakthroughs that change the balance. But such materials would make (a) shipping more efficient and (b) large fractions of the existing Belt and Road obsolete.

> _right now the China-Belgium trip can take 20 days by train > (cf.[https://www.train-chain.com/](https://www.train-chain.com/)) and > usually around 30 days by sea_

Emphasis on can. In any case, there is a reason the world's commercial shippers are all focussing on Arctic maritime routes.

Rail is a neat way of controlling territory. It's better than trucking or flying, when it comes to cost. But water beats it at scale.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Come on, building and rebuilding other country's economies is a boon to the local economy, particularly when that other country is footing the bill. That's literally why the US was on top starting at the end of WWII. Not everything the Soviets were doing in the 70s is the reason for their downfall.

<comment><USER24> > building and rebuilding other country's economies is a boon to the local > economy, particularly when that other country is footing the bill. That's > literally why the US was on top starting at the end of WWII.

I'm sure it helped, but the U.S. was already by far the dominant power before that economic activity.

At the end of WWII, the U.S. produced half of the world's GDP, a staggering number. It was the only advanced country which was physically untouched by the war, it had troops stationed throughout Europe and the Pacific, and it was the only country with nuclear weapons.

It says a lot, IMHO, that the U.S. didn't pursue a global empire at that point.

<comment><USER25> >It says a lot, IMHO, that the U.S. didn't pursue a global empire at that point.

I think that, politically, it would have never been accepted by the population or the (conscription-based) army. Also they ended with big not-quite empire with NATO soon after.

<comment><USER24> > I think that, politically, it would have never been accepted by the > population or the (conscription-based) army.

I agree, but the population is how the U.S. makes decisions (very broadly speaking) - that's the advantage of being a democracy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> "The bulk of major Belt and Road projects are in Malaysia, South Asia and Indochina" \-- subheading of the 2nd chart

Malaysia and Indonesia control the Strait of Malacca, one of the world's busiest shipping lanes which doubled in traffic over the past decade [1]. The strait connects manufacturers in China to fast-growing large population centers in South Asia, including India, Pakistan and Bangladesh with over 1.5 billion people in total.

Most of the projects facilitate trades between South Asia, Southeast Asia, and China. About half of the world's population live in these regions [2].

The projects to connect China to Russia and Europe serve two major purposes:

1) Energy security: Over 40% of the oil China imports comes from the Middle East [3], where it does not have much influence. Even imports from elsewhere are largely shipped over the seas which China does not control.

2) Geopolitical influence through trade and investment

[1] [http://www.seatrade-maritime.com/news/asia/exclusive- malacca...](http://www.seatrade-maritime.com/news/asia/exclusive-malacca- straits-vlcc-traffic-doubles-in-a-decade-as-shipping-traffic-hits-all-time- high-in-2017.html)

Also: [https://www.shipmap.org/](https://www.shipmap.org/)

[2] More People Live Inside This Circle Than Outside Of It [https://brilliantmaps.com/population- circle/](https://brilliantmaps.com/population-circle/)

[3] [http://www.worldstopexports.com/top-15-crude-oil- suppliers-t...](http://www.worldstopexports.com/top-15-crude-oil-suppliers-to- china/)

<comment><USER16> More info on the Strait of Malacca (emphases mine):

"The strait is the main shipping channel between the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean, linking major Asian economies such as India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, China, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea. Over 94,000 vessels pass through the strait each year (2008) making it the busiest strait in the world, _carrying about 25% of the world 's traded goods, including oil, Chinese manufactured products_, coal, palm oil and Indonesian coffee. _About a quarter of all oil carried by sea passes through the Strait, mainly from Persian Gulf suppliers to Asian markets._ In 2007, an estimated 13.7 million barrels per day were transported through the strait, increasing to an estimated 15.2 million barrels per day in 2011."

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Meanwhile, the USA will dump 1 trillion dollars at a time on things like the Obama stimulus to apparently no effect, a decade of massive subsidies to an insolvent financial sector, billions of dollars on failed school districts... China might overpay, eventually, if they actually invest their claimed amount of money (doubtful), but they do appear to at least get a road when they pay for a road.

<comment><USER27> Yeah, people keep saying China is a house of cards, but they're spending their money on things you can see and use. The train I take to work is 40 years old, and the tracks are over a 100. I'm envious of all the new things they're building with all their 'fake' growth.

<comment><USER28> > Yeah, people keep saying China is a house of cards

No they don't, that is completely a red herring.

> I'm envious of all the new things they're building with all their 'fake' > growth.

We could have HSR also if we were willing to pay for it...if we thought it made sense to our economic growth. And the Chinese have taken out a lot of debt to pay for it, it wasn't free, and the only profitable line ATM is the one between Beijing and Shanghai. HSR might work out in the future, HSR might lead to economic growth, but these are bets like anything else.

I've taken HSR between Beijing and almost Guangzhou (my wife's hometown doesn't have an airport but has an HSR station). It was fairly empty much of the way during the 6 hour or so trip.

<comment><USER29> The profitable model does not always work everywhere. For these high speed railroad, I see no reason they should be profitable as a whole.

I mean, better is better. Let's not pretend that USA can still build the infrastructure as it needs, better than China.

On the other hand, China's infrastructure project are funded by cheap labors. That's maybe more relevant than financial models. Also they have little resistance from the locals affected by the projects. Here we cannot even build apartments higher than certain number...

<comment><USER28> > For these high speed railroad, I see no reason they should be profitable as > a whole.

They were paid for by investors and bank loans. The governments direct contribution is not that large. If HSR isn't going to pay off, those investors are losing their shirts.

> Let's not pretend that USA can still build the infrastructure as it needs, > better than China.

The USA takes advantage of cheaper goods from other countries. It can totally survive without that, but we like more stuff.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Heh, again China 'collapses', such articles keep coming for ~20 years now, yet it's only getting stronger. If I had to bet my money, I would bet that China will outlast any current major power and USA is in much more dangerous position stabbing long time allies in the backs, isolating itself and monkey for a president.

<comment><USER31> FWIW, if some reports are anything to go by (see e.g. [1]), and indeed China itself (see e.g. [2]), China has an enormous (and growing) pile of bad debt. If true, things could get very ugly when the bubble pops.

[1]: [http://carnegieendowment.org/chinafinancialmarkets/75355](http://carnegieendowment.org/chinafinancialmarkets/75355)

[2]: [https://www.caixinglobal.com/2017-10-20/china-must-guard- aga...](https://www.caixinglobal.com/2017-10-20/china-must-guard-against- minsky-moment-pbocs-zhou-says-101159201.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> While the collapse was unavoidable, Soviet Union collapsed when it collapsed, ie. in the 198x instead of say 10 years later or 10 years earlier, because of confluence of 2 factors - cold weather of 198x resulting in bad harvests and low price of oil which didn't allow for enough import to cover the food shortage. Food is the key in support [or lack of it] of a regime by its populace. We have just again observed the same thing of food issues leading to great political upheaval - Arab Spring. Wrt. China - so far there is no food (or any other basic quality of life) issues on the horizon.

</comment><comment><USER33> >In the 1950s, the Soviet economy grew faster than that of any other major country barring Japan.

I'd like to read more about what was happening then, was it largely military investment?

<comment><USER34> So much destruction post 1940s coupled with slave labor (local political prisoners and German prisoners of war) leads to roads and steel plants being built quickly. The population though lived on near nothing till the 60s.

<comment><USER33> Yeah, also I wonder how you compare something purely state run like Russia with something more along market lines in the short term .... they operate so differently. State run can often create a pretty big economic short term bump if they wish... not sure that means much.

<comment><USER34> Comparisons, however made, turned out to be false because of lack of information. Soviet Union may have had tremendous output of steel, on paper, but nobody had a microwave till the 1990s. The word economy was something else there than what it meant in the West. In the West it relates, though quite imperfectly, to financial wellbeing of the citizenry. In the USSR it meant how many tanks could be built. No one, even in the 1980s owned a car in practical terms. Some had a car but only used it sparingly, like going to countryside on weekends if they could find and afford the gas.

Plus all the numbers coming from inside USSR were inflated or imagined. Steel output was verified by CIA probably through satellite imagery, which turned out to be wildly false because industrial plant efficiency was nowhere near the West's.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Stopped reading when it started talking about pipelines in military terms. This isnt 1942. A fixed pipeline is a vulnerable asset of little use in any substantial conflict.

</comment><comment><USER36> When "keep the old magic going" is in essence a locust-like exploit and collapse on a planetary scale, "magic" isn't the most choice word.

</comment><comment><USER37> Some interesting points in here that I had not considered in a while. Definitely one of the big advantages of the western economies is the cutthroat nature in which they think about ROI.

If something won't return a profit to a high probability, then it's not built.

Japan has seen problems with the same Soviet top-down style, where there are a lot of excess infrastructure projects throughout Japan, particularly in rural areas.

Japan avoided the Soviet implosion, but it has still gone through a large period of flat growth since the early 90's.

Deflation has been a major problem since 1991 and still is.

China could be the exception to this top-down style and find a way to high growth despite it's inefficiencies, but I am betting that it all catches up to them suddenly. Maybe not for a few years, but it will most definitely happen like it has happened to every country that has adopted the top-down Japanese style modernization.

<comment><USER38> I don't agree that's the big advantage of western economies, especially for infrastructure project. Actually that's the big disadvantage, and short term of capital economy, as everything is about ROI, in short term. Think about high speed trail in California, the project at that scale, no private company can do that, in additional, it may take several decades to make any profit. Only the government can make such plan and invest on this project, but every four years election make it also impossible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> The key quote:

>"It's worth considering all this misdirected spending in the context of the Soviet Union's decline. Around the middle decades of the 20th century, Moscow presided over a China-style economic miracle that caused many in the West to fear they would be overtaken."

<comment><USER40> The key question may be to what degree China's economy resembles Russia's. If China's is some free-market lipstick on a planned-economy pig, they are likely to suffer Russia's fate. To the extent that the free-market reforms are real, they have a better chance of escaping it.

My personal opinion is that China's free market is real, but the state intervention is still fairly heavy for a "free market economy". What does that translate into in terms of China's chance to avoid collapse? I don't know.

<comment><USER41> There's also the fact that the Soviets over-extended themselves militarily at the same time, Afghanistan comes readily to mind.

China has a large, powerful and I would assume expensive militarily, but has not deployed significant number of troops in the past few decades (since Korea?), and in any case has never occupied a foreign country.

That's a huge amount of resources available to spend on infrastructure and "soft" power. The Chinese approach seems much more likely to succeed than the Soviet one.

<comment><USER40> > China ... has never occupied a foreign country.

I'm not sure that Tibet would agree with you.

<comment><USER28> It is China's position that they never invaded Tibet. The Yuan dynasty invaded and conquered Tibet, but they don't count since they were Mongolians. It is weird logic to be sure, but there it is.

Otherwise Tibet was supposed to be Chinese territory afterwards even if the Chinese dynasties following the Yuan didn't actively govern it and mostly left them to their own devices.

<comment><USER42> Well then based on what actually happened (invading a county where there were other countries people & troops there since before the founding of modern china) it's not true to say that they haven't invaded anyone. Will they 'not invade' taiwan next? Invading and then declaring it was ours historically is still invading.

<comment><USER28> It's not called the People's invading army, it's called the People's Liberation Army. Now who needs liberating?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> While I think there's a certain romance and grandeur about enormous and lasting infrastructural projects, it's a little frightening how quickly we can forget our mistakes.

Even though so very much has changed in China since the Great Leap Forward in the 50s and 60s, I wonder how carefully the consequences of poor planning, overstretching one's resources, shifting economic conditions and miscalculation were taken into account.

</comment><comment><USER44> Maybe its time to retaliate with our own continental super highways. A combination of these two would be interesting:

[https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/trans-siberian- road/index...](https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/trans-siberian- road/index.html)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan- American_Highway](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-American_Highway)

</comment><comment><USER45> China has been a regional superpower in Asia for millennia. Its sheer size alone ensures this. That has nothing to do with the USSR.

</comment><comment><USER46> If I try to connect the facts presented in this article, I don't get to quite the same conclusions. Let me walk through the article:

The article presents a chart of top investments. The top 3 are all in Malaysia, costing from $8.4B to $14.1B. OK, China is spending a lot of money in this Belt & Road thing.

The article details how the China-Myanmar gas and oil pipelines (a $2.5B investment) are under-utilized. Now we see that some of that money could have been spent more wisely.

The article points out that the majority of China's trade with Europe is by sea and the Malacca Strait is a choking point. The article doesn't say, but it seems to validate that the both investments above are good ideas:

* This validates that the vast investment in Malaysia is a really good idea. By having Malaysia's economy integrated with, or even reliant on China's economy, China secures the trade route by sea.

* This also validates that the China-Myanmar pipelines may also be a good idea, even if they are under-utilized now. It hedges the risk of the Malaysia investment, and gives China more leverage when it comes to issues in the Malacca Strait. Even at peace time, Malaysia, Indonesia, or the US could threaten to deny Chinese ships passage of the Strait and apply a _lot_ of leverage to China. That leverage is gone with the Myanmar pipelines. It is under-utilized now and will probably remain under-utilized because it's a strategic tool.

The article then shows how the Soviet economy went down due to investments in Siberia. I strongly feel it is the wrong comparison: not only because Malaysia and Myanmar are very different places from Siberia, but also because Siberia is part of Russia while Malaysia and Myanmar are not part of China. I am not implying that foreign investments are automatically better than domestic investments, but the analogy is a poor one here.

The article also shows how China's domestic investment is shifting from the east coast to the west inland areas, apparently trying to draw a better analogy with Russia's decline. That looks like a more valid point to me, but why the sudden shift to domestic investments near the end? Probably it is because the author wants to conclude the article with the following sentence:

> China's rise this century was driven by its embrace of world trade and the > coastal provinces most exposed to it. In this retreat inland, it's sowing > the seeds of decline.

But if the reader still remembers the earlier parts of the article, they should see that China is doing several things:

* Foreign investments along the traditional maritime trade routes -- most notably Malaysia

* Foreign investments along the new land trade routes -- I understand this to hedge the risk of maritime trade routes being blockaded

* Domestic investments to less-developed areas

This is hardly a "retreat inland", it is diversification of investments. Sounds good to me.

</comment><comment><USER47> Were the West Indies productive before the ports and sugar plantations? Was India productive before its railways were built?

Something smells of anti-China propaganda in this highly speculative piece.

<comment><USER48> India had the world's largest GDP under the Mughals and had continued positive growth, but by the end of the British Raj, was facing stagnant population growth and actually reduced agricultural productivity. So contrary to everything you're saying, India was not only productive before the British, it was actually worsened by Britain's exploitation.

<comment><USER49> There are other views on the economics of India under British rule: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India_under_the_Bri...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India_under_the_British_Raj#Economic_impact_of_British_imperialism)

example: * British increased the area of irrigated land by a factor of eight, contrasting with 5% under the Mughals. _

<comment><USER50> Let's not conflate correlation with causation.

It's industrial revolution that caused the increase in irrigated land. It's possible that in the absence of British rule, Indian kingdoms would have found a way to trade its resources for agricultural equipments and engineers. Unlike China and Japan, Indian kingdoms weren't isolationist, and were well connected to Europe and Persia.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Anyone else learn a new meaning to the word "founder"? Thought it was a typo for "flounder" only to learn that it can also mean "to give way, collapse." Stay weird, English.

<comment><USER52> I think of it as "The ship foundered on the rocks".

Of course I suppose if a fish did the same thing we might have a foundering flounder.

<comment><USER40> dictionary.com says that flounder may have come from a combination of flounce and founder (back around 1570 or 1580).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> A good read describing China's motivations behind this: [https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/08/30/chinas- inher...](https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/08/30/chinas-inherent- economic-weakness-why-they-need-one-beltone-road/)</comment>


Blizzard VP wants blitzchung's suspension 'reduced more or eliminated' - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2019/11/08/blizzard-vp-overwatch-director-jeff-kaplan-wants-blitzchungs-suspension-reduced-more-or-eliminated/ <comment><USER2> I see nothing about how this will be fixed. The VP 'wants it reduced', recognizes the decision was made too quickly, and improperly.

If the decision was made improperly, what kind of alarms do you need to tell you that there's a problem that needs fixing here. That problem being your 'arrangement' of employees.

But yet again it's empty statements.</comment>


Connexions: Open Source Learning - <AUTHOR> http://blog.learnboost.com/blog/connexions-open-source-learning/

<comment><USER2> An interesting idea however from what I've seen it's rather difficult to get professors away from the paper-textbook. Even in more technical fields where having the information online would seem more /plausible/ it still faces the dinosaur of education change.</comment>


Amazon (AWS) question. - <AUTHOR>

It appears that on Amazon, I can give someone a gift without knowing the person's shipping address, so long as the gift item is in the person's wish list. My questions are:
1) Is there a way to do this if the item is not in the person's wish list? It just seems strange that if I don't know someone's address but wish to give them a gift, the gift item would have to be in that person's wish list .
2) If 1 above is not possible then the next best thing would be to allow the giver to first add the gift item to the recipient's wish list and then give the gift. Is it possible to add items to other people's wish lists? If so can this also be enabled through AWS? <comment><USER2> I'm pretty sure Amazon would not let you add items to someone else's wishlist. This would mean that anyone could send arbitrary items to anyone else. While I'm sure you have good intentions, other people could use this to send inappropriate items ("Honey, did you order this Foxy Boxing DVD?") or do mail harrassment. You can receive unsolicited gifts using the Wishlist, but at least it's a pre-approved item.

As far as I can tell what you're trying to do, you'll either need to get the person to add the item themself or get their address some other way.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. Yes, the problem you are highlighting did occur to me after I posted my question. I note though that Amazon has kind of a social network feature where you can add friends and family and set privacy options on that basis. I guess receiving random gifts from people or having them add items to one's wish list would need to be limited to such 'friends'.</comment></comment>


Tech Elites Aren't Ruining Burning Man. They Get Their Hands Dirty, Too - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/22/you-can-go-your-own-way/ <comment><USER2> Well, you can't ruin something that's already ruined - that is to say, Burning Man hasn't been _Burning Man_ for a long time. I don't mean that in a cynical or superior way, just in a realistic one - it's become a very different thing from what it was even ten years ago, let alone twenty. What was once anti- establishment has become established, and an iconoclastic anti-brand has become the most powerful brand of its kind. It's a triumph in a way; it means it struck a chord and, as Josh says, it's a net positive. But the changes have rewrought Burning Man into a Burning Man theme park. The lunatics have surrendered the asylum. It's okay to mourn that, but it's a bit late to be pointing fingers. If you don't like it, start something new. That's how things like Burning Man happen in the first place.

<comment><USER3> Yeah.

I've never even been to Burning Man, but this is a completely predictable result for anything that reaches any level of popularity.

No system made up of people can scale and maintain its original identity, whether it is a IRL event like Burning Man or a website like reddit or Hacker News. People who were there before some new group will always define an easily identifiable scapegoat group of those who are ruining the thing, but really it is just a numbers game. The more people you add, the less easily identifiable shared culture there can be, the more regulations have to be put into place and the more that community loses what the original members saw as its identity.

I believe this is an immutable, unsolvable problem short of (as devindotcom suggests) breaking off and starting a new new thing that replaces the old new thing (and obviously this is only a temporary solution that will have to be iterated again if the new new thing becomes popular).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "Look at all the cool things we build and bring to Burning Man - no way we're ruining it!" is pretty much the exact same argument as "gentrification has resulted in far better brunch options in this area, no way we're ruining it!"

That being said, I thought this piece was super awesome for the insight into why tech folks go: it's a great way to show off and build something cool. Probably, folks are motivated by the same reasons my engineer friends back in Saskatchewan build progressively wackier campers to take to Craven Country Jamboree: a little to flex their hacker muscles, a little to blow off steam, a little to fly their freak flags and see who clicks with them. And that's nice. But it's worth noticing that so many pieces of Burner lore are now dependent on being subsidized by really rich folks. If we're being honest about how the economy of Burning Man works, it's becoming less an example of extreme self- reliance and more an example of of extreme patronage on behalf of the really rich.

And in itself, patronage isn't bad at all. It's great! But why doesn't this attitude extend to life back in the city? Why is Burning Man the one place that a rich person can help other folks out? Why is Mark Benioff the one dude who seems to give substantial amounts of money to people in the place he lives?

</comment><comment><USER5> An outsider's perspective:

Burning Man : Silicon Valley :: Gathering of the Juggalos : Rest of America.

<comment><USER6> Is the joke based on the idea that Juggalos are the dregs of society, and the dregs of Silicon Valley go to Burning Man?

Or do you mean it's a camping and music event for Silicon Valley?

(a further-outside-era perspective)

<comment><USER7> Let's put it in English: Burning Man is to Silicon Valley as a gathering of Juggalos is to the rest of America. He probably means there aren't a whole lot of influences that can be detected in either direction in either of those relationships, he's surprised at the line: "In the end, Burning Man has likely influenced the tech industry's culture much more than the other way around."

<comment><USER5> Yes, except to add that the annual Gathering of the Juggalos is a single big event that people from around the country go to, not just something that happens when you get a bunch of juggali together in a single location.

<comment><USER8> > juggali

I lost it at this. Can't contain myself. Maybe it's because I'm from Michigan. _sprays Faygo everywhere_</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you host your email/cal/files (using your own domain)? - <AUTHOR> Who knows a company that offers: – email, calendar, file hosting using a – custom domain with – servers in Europe and a – beautilful UI?
Currently using ZOHO, but it's incredibly buggy. Self hosting is not really an option as I find email too complex to host it myself reliably
What alternatives are you using and happy with? <comment><USER2> If you are fine with setting up an own nextcloud for your calendar and file hosting - go with uberspace.de

Their servers are located in germany and they use roundcube as email client. Pay what you want, but minimum 1€/month which is very cheap imho. Though they only offer 10G space and the configuration of domains is only possible via ssh.

But once you are finished with your setup, nextcloud and roundcube are looking very nice.

</comment><comment><USER3> Most of gone quite expensive for a quick & easy setup for a little used domain (Even Google is quite expensive for a domain which is little used for example).

I'm using Zoho for one recent new domain I've registered but interested in other options...

</comment><comment><USER4> I currently have my domain, and use protonmail.com. Email is "hosted" securely through protonmail, but I get the email of my choice, as I route through my DNS provider. It's simple, easy, inexpensive, and secure.

</comment><comment><USER5> I've found Google Apps to be the best and easiest solution to set up, but those obviously aren't EU based.

Agree on Zoho. Super buggy.

</comment><comment><USER6> I don't know about a beautiful UI but mailfence.org suits me and does all you ask. Not free though.

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm also looking for the same - but not specific to Europe. I'm based in Australia.</comment>


Optimism, it seems, is in the genes - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13176767

<comment><USER2> _Disclaimer: I haven't read the Article_

Everything is in the genes!

I see genes as the frying pan and the ingredients, you have veg, meat, spices, salt, etc... The environment is the cook, he decides what dish will come out and whether it will be cooked to the right degree, how the ingredients are mixed and most importantly whether the dish will be delicious or rotten to eat.</comment>


Ask HN: Should a scientist be highly moral and give an oath to serve for good - <AUTHOR> I've been just shocked about accusations of 77 y.o. Marvin Minsky in sex with an underage girl and having "deep ties" with Epstein and participating in AI conferences at the finencier's private island. Now I can imagine an after-party very well.
And the whole John Brockman's Edge scientific community which is probably benefited from Epstein's activity terrifies with thoughts "who else".
I could imagine also myself being a scientist at age 30 and willing to hang out with a millionaire-billionaire. But I'm expecting that with age my priorities would shift from being famous and rich to being less ambitious, more careful and being a caretaker or at least an advisor to teenagers.
A scene of 77 y.o. Minsky, whose lectures I've been watching and whose ideas I tried to adapt and understand, forcefully fucking a teenage girl:
* scaries me: would I do the same being in his shoes?
* raises questions about intentions behind Minsky's intelluctual work: should I listen to his (and others', who did amoral acts) ideas, believe him when it's not very pleasant to even look at videos with him now?
* forces me to think about the need for a scientist, an engineer, a programmer, a journalist, a finencier or any professional to give an oath like doctors do to do no harm to other living beeing, a human, animal, plant for fun, for pleasure, money, satisfaction.
I see how technologies are advancing but I hardly can observe like the humanity is able to progress and not to degrade morally, spiritualy or how you call it.
Should I follow disgraced scientists? How I can avoid to be ashamed in the same manner? <comment><USER3> Dos the oath include not creating nuclear weapons?

Can a farmer work after s/he made the oath?

Can a doctor test drugs in mouses? (Why you excluded bacteria from your list?)

Is the oath pro-life or pro-choice? (Notice that there are more than two option in that debate.)

Who is going to make the rules about what is fine? You? The Pope? The Tweeter mob?

<comment><AUTHOR> > Can a doctor test drugs in mouses? (Why you excluded bacteria from your > list?)

Bacteria is included into a "living being", but anyway. I definitely do not pretend to present a well thought oath in the comment yet. But seems The Hippocratic Oath is a good precedent. Probably, it's better to compose such ethical principles for each activity, because there are different fallacies and temptations for different professions. And there is a separate set of temptations for a common human. We teach and study natural sciences, but we don't teach ethics and philosophy in popular nowadays STEM curricula.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Yes, but that's a good thing to commit to as a human being. From a professional standpoint, it's an acknowledgement of having access to moral/ethical as well as practical education.

</comment><comment><USER5> If you want to look for a moral scientist, Read up on Norbert Weiner.

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks for the reference

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Dont fall for the money.

</comment><comment><USER7> > * raises questions about intentions behind Minsky's intelluctual work: > should I listen to his (and others', who did amoral acts) ideas, believe him > when it's not very pleasant to even look at videos with him now?

What's the alternative? The Nazis did medical experiments. Do we now just throw away the knowledge that was gained?

> * forces me to think about the need for a scientist, an engineer, a > programmer, a journalist, a finencier or any professional to give an oath > like doctors do to do no harm to other living beeing, a human, animal, plant > for fun, for pleasure, money, satisfaction.

That's unreasonable, and not at all what physicians swear to do.

> Should I follow disgraced scientists?

You should follow (and question) their results, not them.

<comment><USER8> > Do we now just throw away the knowledge that was gained?

Simply? Yes. Most of it was scientifically poor research, of no value, anyway. Only the Luftwaffe hypothermia experiments had any value.

Following the doctor's trial at the Nuremburg Military Tribunals the Nuremburg Code[1] established a minimum set of ethics for human experimentation. It's subsequently shaped many international and national laws and treaties.

Whilst some of that research has been used and cited, there's been many times when referencing it was explicitly ruled out[2].

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

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation#Mod...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation#Modern_ethical_issues)

<comment><USER7> > Simply? Yes. Most of it was scientifically poor research, of no value, > anyway.

That's a different reasoning though, one where nobody would disagree, I'm pretty sure. If they have value, what then?

<comment><USER8> The scientifically invalid point was in addition to the straight no. :)

To expand: I still think it should not be used or even acknowledged. You're on untenably thin ice, ethically speaking. "people were forcibly experimented on or killed, but we got some great data" doesn't pass the most basic ethical sniff test.

The results should be case for the prosecution, not for citation. Citation should have you hauled before an ethics panel. Find a way to conduct the research that's achieved safely with willing consent, find an alternative methodology, or find an alternative career.

It gets greyer if you go back far enough into history that we hadn't established those ethical and human rights standards. You can't really hold standards and laws against someone in a time they didn't yet exist. Given world history, that probably means pre-Nazi and eugenics eras.

<comment><USER7> I didn't mean to get into the Nazis too much, just pointing to them as an extreme example. Certainly, they did research that wasn't unethical (think climate research, material science, architecture etc), but it was still done by Nazis.

The OP talked about Minsky, and I assume nobody thinks that whatever he did in connection to Epstein has anything to do with his scientific work.

I think there's a somewhat good argument to sever ties with a scientist that behaves unethically outside of science (but then again: do you -hypothetically- disregard a cure for cancer because the researcher is racist?), but to reject the results afterwards? Should we throw out everything that Tim Hunt ever worked on (and everything that cites/is based on his work) because some people perceived remarks he made to be sexist?

<comment><USER8> To the wider example, it gets much, much more difficult.

There is certainly a need for _some_ separation between work and personal life, but it can never be totally distinct. I'd find it very difficult to codify where the line should be. Context, extent and motivation becomes hugely relevant. That makes it far more suited to an ethics panel or court of law, and completely unsuited for the Twitter court of outrage.

We could paint different shades of grey all day, but for a flavour:

A racist researcher discovering a major cancer breakthrough has reprehensible beliefs, as does Minsky - if allegations are proven, but it need not impact on their previous work's ability or validity. I'd accept the previous work - <USER2> that were conducted ethically, just as I take the lunchtime sandwich from the guy I never spoke to about politics, race or what have you. But...

It starts to matter if it goes to law - was it a $50 fine or a 25 years conviction? A drunk weekend party with a one off incident of incredibly poor judgement is very different to a sustained predatory history over a decade. Employing them in the next job, even continuing to employ them, or placing in a position of visibility or policy, could indeed be a different matter. If they crossed the line to illegality, how often and how far, might they bring the organisation into disrepute? If it gets so heinous they are convicted and/or struck off, e.g. Andrew Wakefield with the MMR autism fraud, perhaps everything they researched is taitned too and should be struck.

Hence it should be for an independent and hopefully considered judgement, with proportionate penalty, not a headline and outrage fest on twitter.

Tim Hunt seems easier - he made a bad call on what I think was intended to be simply a joke. Poor choice for a specialist conference, but the outrage afterwards seemed way over the top for the offence. More a case of needing a quiet word with HR or management to engage brain before mouth, rather than discounting all his work or firing.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/donie/status/1252220943314927616 <comment><USER2> I usually stay out of the political/topical threads on HN but this is personal to me. From my point of view few if any of us commenting here are knowledgeable enough to connect all the disparate data points we keep snatching at and synthesize them into conclusions that are likely to be correct. The people who can do that are working on it, and generally too busy at the moment to post on forums or give interviews. The misinformation and unfounded conclusions that are flying around, and especially the atmosphere of political strife and mistrust are very frustrating to them (and all of us I'm sure). Most of us here have chafed at similar situations when people who don't really understand what we do express strong opinions about how we should do it. They understand how people are being impacted, but they can't give us certainty at the moment however badly we want it.

The mortality rate in this place or that; the experience on a cruise ship, or in Sweden, or in North Dakota vs. that in New York or Italy; the percentage of people who are positive and asymptomatic vs. presymptomatic vs. symptomatic; whether this or that drug seems to have a good effect on outcomes; they absolutely don't know how all of this fits together yet. All of them, doctors, nurses, researchers, are going in every day, treating patients, participating in daily conference calls to share information on outcomes, trying different therapies. They're figuring this out and all they have asked us for is some time. All these studies and hypotheses and numbers from various places don't always reflect what's actually happening on the ground.

Someone mentioned quarantining the "vulnerable" people and letting everyone else get back to work and develop our "herd immunity." Are researchers certain we gain long term immunity? Can they precisely define "vulnerable?" My wife is clinical care coordinator on a covid unit in northern New Jersey (that's the personal part). Her first patient was 51. I bet that's younger than most of you are thinking when you think "vulnerable." It looks like he's going to make it and drop into that large "didn't die" bucket I see referred to here over and over, but to get there he spent _five weeks_ in an ICU bed on a ventilator. My wife has treated lots of elderly people. She's also treated people in their 30's and 40's. People in those age groups have died. Children have died, too. How many of each type of person will be affected by this or that containment policy? We don't know.

When this thing started my wife's hospital was running about 2:1 patients to nurses. They're now flirting with 4-6:1. They don't have proper PPE. At another hospital near us a nurse was suspended for bringing her own to work. The general opinion is that the system can't handle much additional strain, and I don't think any of us are in a position to argue the point with them. It's been a month. We can absolutely make it through a few months if we have to, while they do their work. I personally think that would be easier with strong and consistent federal leadership, but that's a separate discussion. At the very least we should be willing to heed the people we expect to save our lives if we get sick.

<comment><USER3> > _It 's been a month. We can absolutely make it through a few months if we > have to, while they do their work._

You and I can. Many of my friends have missed a rent or car payment, and may soon miss another. Most people cannot work from home.

<comment><USER4> And that's why government action to shut down businesses, should absolutely be coupled with action to protect workers salaries. In the UK, government is paying 80% of furloughed workers pay up to a certain amount, and there is relief on property taxes etc for businesses.

In my opinion the two (shutdown and relief) go hand in hand.

<comment><USER5> Except for self employed people. Except for businesses that are supposedly just weeks away from running out of cash on a huge scale.

The idea you can simply shut down the economy at will and balance it with relief doesn't make economic sense.

<comment><USER6> >The idea you can simply shut down the economy at will and balance it with relief doesn't make economic sense.

Funny you say that because it seems to be no problem when it comes to bailing out corporate investors. Of course, near-zero federal interest rates didn't make "economic sense" either, but yet here we are.

<comment><USER5> Bailing them out of what?

The term "bail out" is usually understood to mean replacing funds after the owner of them lost them through bad decision making. What's happening here isn't a conventional bailout. Governments have destroyed the businesses of private investors deliberately and explicitly - reductions in the damage aren't bail outs.

<comment><USER7> The virus would have shut them down anyway if they had stayed open and their employees and customers became ill. The bad decision making here is the lack of foresight to keep cash on hand to weather a storm like this, despite making record profits in the billions. We are all told if we don't keep 6 months of cash on hand we are financially negligent. Large companies were begging for money within two weeks of shutdowns happening, after spending so much of their cash on stock buybacks to pump up stock prices.

<comment><USER5> Sweden shows that view is wrong.

<comment><USER7> These data show that retail, travel, and restaurants were all taking huge hits before lockdowns went in to wide effect: [https://www.ft.com/content/d184fa0a-6904-11ea-800d-da70cff6e...](https://www.ft.com/content/d184fa0a-6904-11ea-800d-da70cff6e4d3)

Bay area issued the first national stay at home order on March 13. By then demand had already dropped precipitously. If your restaurant is seeing 60% fewer bookings, are you going to keep as many wait staff? Are you going to order as much food? How is that going to impact your supplier? And their supplier?

On the flip side we have places like Smithfield food that stayed open and their workforce became infected. Smithfield alone has as many infected as the entire country of Sweden reported newly infected yesterday. These are problems of different orders of magnitutde. How does a factory stay open with 500 people infected at once?

<comment><USER5> Given how many people have mild symptoms and how age-dependent it is, it's entirely plausible that 500 infections would yield only a handful of employees to sick to work.

And yet Sweden still disproves your point. Businesses have stayed open, including restaurants and other such businesses, and yet Swedish companies are not evaporating due to their workforces being too sick to work. That's not even close to happening, is it?

<comment><USER7> Again, Sweden is not the US, they have not been hit nearly as hard. More people will die today in the US than have died total in all of Sweden. Sweden is not immune from the effects of Covid. They have imposed measures to limit the size of gatherings, have closed secondary schools and colleges, and have imposed restrictions on restaurants. Despite their looser restrictions they are still expecting to see the economy contract and have experienced record unemployment:

``` A record 36,800 people were handed their notice in March, more than 10 times the number from the same month last year.

The government has offered loans and guarantees and expects to increase expenditure by around 84 billion Swedish crowns ($8.35 billion) this year.

At the same time, the central bank has poured money into the financial system, offering 500 billion Swedish crowns in loans to companies via banks and boosting its purchases of securities by 300 billion crowns.

Banking group Swedbank said recently it expected the economy to contract 4% this year. ``` [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus- sweden...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-sweden- economy/swedish-economy-seen-shrinking-4-in-2020-as-pandemic-hits- idUSKBN21I149)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I guess it is easy to dismiss the message from ordinary people, since they do not express themselves as well as the professional speakers we are used to listen to. If instead of saying "I want a haircut.", they would say like Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." would they be taken more seriously?

In the movie version of "I Robot", since the three laws of robotics prioritize saving life over following humans' wishes, the AI ends up locking down every humans in their own homes for their own safety. Could facebook sensor this movie since it pictures the lockdown as an evil action?

For instance, in France, more than _half_ of private sector employees have already been furloughed. This is unprecedented. So, who could predict what would be the consequences, including in terms of life? The food production in Southern Europe is down. Can we know for sure that their will be no starvation?

Several countries have not decided to do a stay-at-home-lockdown including Sweden, most of Germany, Japan, South Korea, 95% of China. Praising the strategy of these countries should be authorized. Several eastern and northern Europeans countries are opening up as well, even though the disease is still there.

People should be able to take a calculated risk. When people drive to their job, they consider the risk of having an accident, and the benefits of being able to reach their work place, then they take a decision.

The most accurate data about the fatality rate of covid-19 may come from the Diamond Princess cruise boat where everyone has been tested. The 60-to-80 year old infected passengers had a fatality rate of ~2%. There was no fatality among the infected much younger crew.

Now, the government should inform people with data, and let them take a decision. For now, it seems that the overwhelming majority of people in France, Italy, and Spain want the lockdown, so they should be able to get it. But people who want the opposite should be able to express their voice as well. Otherwise, the democracy cannot work.

(Sorry for the bad English, it is not my native language.)

<comment><USER9> > If instead of saying "I want a haircut.", they would say like Benjamin > Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little > temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." would they be taken > more seriously?

Most people sound more like the latter than the former. If people were saying "We have a need for haircuts etc, this is serious", they'd get a lot more consideration than some appeal to "but our freedoms". Most people sensibly realize that a lock-down in the face of a pandemic is not a regression in our fundamental rights as US citizens, but _just a temporary measure to save lives_.

If instead you argue that you're legitimately going to see more harm done due to closures, and you back that up sensibly, people will care a lot more. You'll probably be wrong, but people might listen and take that seriously. In fact, they _very obviously_ already are listening to this feedback, and it's a huge part of the communications from govt officials right now - how we are balancing saving lives via lockin vs dealing with the fallout of that exact policy. They're hardly ignoring the issue!

> Could facebook sensor this movie since it pictures the lockdown as a evil > action?

Sure they could take it down, it's their platform. Would they? No, probably not, that would be really silly?

> Now, the government should inform people with data, and let them take a > decision.

The role of our government is not to provide data but then otherwise let people do whatever.

You say "People should be able to take a calculated risk." \- how would they calculate it? Most are not capable of making an informed decision like that, and likening this situation to driving is just ridiculous (and ironic, given that car safety was heavily regulated due to huge numbers of people dying while car manufacturers were left unaccountable. The government stepped in with license requirements, manufacturing requirements, etc.).

<comment><USER10> I just learned that Facebook censors gifs from Team America World Police, so I'm not sure that it should be relied on for a conversation about anything critical.

<comment><USER11> America is strange. The _idea_ of censorship seems to rile up more than the practicalities of it. Facebook is _hugely_ censored, and has been for _years_. There's a distinct lack of gore, of child porn, or even just porn in general. There aren't torrent links to download the latest TV show or video game. And, dare I say it, it's better for it.

<comment><USER12> That is not censorship but removal of illegal content (with the exception of non-child porn)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It's worth noting that there is a lot of discussion in serious circles (including here on HN) about the balance between too much and not enough with respect to quarantine, lockdown, etc., both in terms of where we are now and what we should do in the near future.

I see little reason to doubt that all involved are trying to minimize general death and misery, even if they may disagree radically about how to do that.

It'd be pretty wild if (say) Google decided that Chrome would no longer display pages that were "too far" in their discussion and advocacy of the options.

<comment><USER14> I'm too tired at the moment to figure out where I stand on this [issue of free speech / assembly] but I have a general question: I thought the Supreme Court has already shown that there are limits to speech, such as yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater. I guess the distinction is how directly the speech leads to harm. Would that apply in this situation where most medical experts would agree that the quarantine is necessary for saving lives? Or is the thinking that this is too far removed — like telling people they can't protest seat- belts.

Edit: I'll clarify by saying that (my personal opinion) is that the protests are at best ... misguided. My question is about precedent on free speech / assembly under circumstances where harm might occur or it violates something like a quarantine or shelter-in-place order. The Atlantic article linked below is fascinating because I definitely have always thought of the "fire in a crowded theater example."

<comment><USER15> > I thought the Supreme Court has already shown that there are limits to > speech

Yes correct, freedom of speech is not absolute, there are a lot of limitations in the U.S.: "libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Limitations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Limitations)

The problem in this case is it can be reasonably argued that quarantine is damaging to some people, and not quarantining is damaging to other people. Even if it really is a bad idea to protest, it might be really difficult to establish clearly and legally that protesting is causing unnecessary harm, and greater harm than not protesting.

I've read the Wikipedia page on Freedom of Speech before, but I just noticed for the first time the interesting criteria called "Imminent lawless action". I'm not a lawyer, but it seems possible this could apply even if harm can't be demonstrated.

"Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action)

<comment><USER16> > libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting > words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food > labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the > right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury."

Half of this doesn't apply to the US.

In the same Wikipedia article:

> The opinion in Brandenburg discarded the previous test of "clear and present > danger" and made the right to freedom of (political) speech's protections in > the United States almost absolute.

<comment><USER15> > Brandenburg [...] made the right to freedom of (political) speech's > protections in the United States almost absolute.

Ah, yeah that is a good point, since these protests are political speech. Does it matter that the protests are assembling? I could imagine the protected ability to say anything you want about politics, while reserving some rights about the ability to _do_ anything.

Personally, I don't think it should be illegal to protest this. It doesn't seem like a particularly bright idea though.

This situation doesn't have a lot of legal precedent, and it might cause some to occur right now. But since communicable disease is a threat to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and the law and constitution weren't exactly written with global pandemic in mind, do you think the ability to assemble should be absolute?

> Half of this doesn't apply to the US.

Here's the US specific list... it's still long

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

* Actually, would you mind listing the specific exceptions above that you believe do not apply to the US? I could be wrong, but I scrubbed through all of them and can't find a single one that doesn't seem to apply at least partially.

In the US, fighting words, obscenity and pornography are there explicitly; false statements of fact covers things like libel, slander, dignity and perjury; the imminent lawless action exception covers sedition and incitement; commercial speech and speech owned by others covers classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, and non-disclosure agreements; right to privacy is implicitly granted by several amendments in the constitution, and the right to be forgotten has legal precedent. I think that's all of them. What did I miss?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> These are Americans exercising their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and assembly. Whether you agree with the protestors or not is irrelevant. Your rights are impacted, too, by this arbitrary platform bias. This cannot stand for long. We have to move away from centralized monopolies on the web.

<comment><USER18> You should know that this is not a grass root movement rather someone astroturfing.

[https://krebsonsecurity.com/2020/04/whos-behind-the- reopen-d...](https://krebsonsecurity.com/2020/04/whos-behind-the-reopen- domain-surge/)

[https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/salvadorhernandez/coron...](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/salvadorhernandez/coronavirus- quarantine-protests-facebook-groups)

Also take a look at this Reddit comment

[https://www.reddit.com/r/maryland/comments/g3niq3/comment/fn...](https://www.reddit.com/r/maryland/comments/g3niq3/comment/fnstpyl)

If you don't trust BuzzFeed you can go look at the domain registration information for open[enter state name].com domains.

<comment><USER17> This is not astroturfing. I saw the protest in Austin this weekend. 22 million people have been laid off in the last 4 weeks. I've seen the footage of tens of thousands lining up at food banks across the country. This is just getting started.

<comment><USER18> I don't see the link here. Yes there are 22 million laid off. But given a choice between being alive and being jobless, I think people would choose being jobless. The people protesting are not the same people lining up at food banks.

I have seen wapo video of Michigan protest. People there were angry because they want to get their hair done or buy paint and fertilizer. They want others to go to work to they can stay home.

<comment><USER19> The disease does not affect age groups equally. From what I've seen, most victims are in the 60+ age groups. From NYC fatality report [0]:

        0-9: 1 0%
        10-19: 6 0.1%
        20-29: 56 0.4%
        30-39: 227 1.6%
        40-49: 535 3.7%
        50-59: 1410 9.8%
        60-69: 2863 20.0%
        70-79: 3811 26.6%
        80-89: 1753 25.4%
        90+: 12.2%

Think of people having a "vitality score" that decreases with age, and of disease as a stressor that kills people with the "vitality score" under a certain threshold. That's how the yearly flu works, by culling people under the threshold. We attribute the death to "the flu", but we could easily also call it "death by old age".

Most working age people will be just fine. Except they are jobless. Terrible times.

[0] [https://covid19tracker.health.ny.gov/views/NYS- COVID19-Track...](https://covid19tracker.health.ny.gov/views/NYS- COVID19-Tracker/NYSDOHCOVID-19Tracker- Fatalities?%3Aembed=yes&%3Atoolbar=no&%3Atabs=n)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> As we do serological testing, it is being revealed that the death rate was even lower than previously imagined -- potentially by a factor of 50x [1].

[1] [https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01095-0](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01095-0)

Most places (outside of super dense metros) actually don't need quarantine at all. Maybe for people working in eldercare.

With these new statistics the risk of death for those <65 is about the same as the normal risk of random death through other circumstances over the course of 2 months.

<comment><USER21> That preprint [1] is a great example of how far ahead of the skis you can get with motivated reasoning, bad math, and no peer review.

They recruited people over Facebook at a time that California's COVID tests were backlogged (with ads not presented in the paper, with links to signup that could, anecdotally, be shared out); in that situation, avoiding selection bias towards people that were sick with something previously and want to know about potential immunity would be rather tough. (Per WTO protocol, they asked about symptoms in their sample but _poof_ for some reason that data isn't in the paper).

They got a 1.5% positive rate in their sample with 50 individuals testing positive. They then immediately applied demographic weighing to move that raw number to around 3%. Only then did they contemplate the false positive rate, taking the data of the manufacturer and 30 samples as a _point estimate_ to figure out a 95% CI of positives around that 3%.

That's a no-no for correctly propagating uncertainty. The statistically legitimate way to do that would've been to generate the 95% confidence interval for belief about the test's false positive rate and carry that forward in the demographic reweighing. That basic math would've avoided the frankly laughable result that a randomly selected person in Santa Clara county could have a 5% chance of having had COVID-19 while in the same county people seeing a doctor and getting tests through their doctor are only around 10% positive for COVID-19 [2].

Another critique: [3]

[1] [https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v...](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v1) [2] [https://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Pages/dashboard.aspx#te...](https://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Pages/dashboard.aspx#testing) [3] [https://medium.com/@balajis/peer-review-of- covid-19-antibody...](https://medium.com/@balajis/peer-review-of- covid-19-antibody-seroprevalence-in-santa-clara-county- california-1f6382258c25)

<comment><USER20> Wow -- really enjoyed the write up by Balaji S. -- I had heard about these flaws earlier, but didn't realize how great they really were.

I still maintain the gist of my point though -- we don't have sufficient evidence for widespread quarantine. New York and Italy are outliers, and should be understood as such. Even if the results are 5x or 10x instead of 50x -- it still means decisions were made on grossly inflated worst case data.

<comment> 52-6F-62 There is some data.

[https://toronto.citynews.ca/2020/04/20/new-modelling- shows-p...](https://toronto.citynews.ca/2020/04/20/new-modelling-shows-peak- in-community-spread-of-coronavirus-growth-in-long-term-care-homes/)

Ontario is largely a rural province.

> _New modelling predictions show that the wave of new, community spread cases > of coronavirus in Ontario appears to have peaked, but the spread in long- > term care homes and other group settings is still growing._

> _Earlier models predicted the peak would be hit in May, however according to > data released by the province's Ministry of Health, public health measures > and social distancing have brought it forward._

In spite of this we are not yet moving to reopen, rather deciding not to cut the parachute just because it started to slow our fall.

<comment><USER20> Totally... no one is saying that we get off scot-free if we stop quarantine. The quarantine can't last forever, and the virus at some point _will_ spread... so even if you are at-risk if you don't get it now you might get it 6 months from now -- unless of course, younger folks get out there and build herd immunity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> For those of you cheering this move, imagine it applied to the causes you care about and decide if you still think its a good idea.

<comment><USER23> Never understood this argument. Let's take a cause I disagree with. I'm pro- equality, but still think Christian Mingle shouldn't be forced to match up same-sex couples. Because I disagree with their values, of course, I'd never use their website. OF COURSE conservative Christians should be allowed to have a website that aligns with their values. Not only don't I think this website should be outlawed -- I also don't think it's a "bad idea" that shouldn't exist. I simply disagree with the values, so I don't belong to it.

Moving back to the current situation...

I only want to belong to a social network that values science and public health. Why shouldn't I be allowed to be a user of a website that has those same values? You're going to tell me that the kind of website that I want to belong to should be outlawed and not allowed to exist? Or, let's not even go that far... that it's BAD that it exists?

Keep in mind, you can have any view you want. This is whether or not Facebook wants to use their social network to help spread events that would endanger the general public. A "keep things closed" event would be treated the same way.

(I agree FB is too big and should be cut into multiple pieces. And they shouldn't have been allowed to buy Instagram. But for very different reasons. Mostly I worry about their impact, as well as Google's, on publisher ad revenue.)

<comment><USER24> > I only want to belong to a social network that values science and public > health. Why shouldn't I be allowed to be a user of a website that has those > same values?

I think it's a problem of expectations.

Some expect Facebook to just be a social network. Others, like you, expect it to be a safe space where unapproved opinions aren't allowed. Neither kind is bad per se, but I don't think most people expected Facebook to be of the latter kind.

<comment><USER23> I'm rolling my eyes at your "safe space" ridiculousness and bizarre claim that I think unapproved opinions shouldn't be allowed, but putting that aside....

We should both agree that the real problem is monopoly. That if Facebook (and Google btw) weren't so powerful, people would be perfectly cool with the idea that maybe different people can have different values from one another and that maybe different companies could accommodate those different values.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> money is just a tool.

I'm a civil engineer. When we decide to buy, for example, protection side fences for a road, we calculate how many people will pass the road, how many will die with and without and how much cost the fence. If the price per life is bigger than target, lets say, we spend 5M$ to save 1 life, we Don't put the fence.

What you should do is to put a price to lifes, and then put a price to goods, and then make simulation to see how much goods are produced and lifes are taken in 2years range scenarios. Take in to account soft and harder measures, risk of second waves, asymmetrical lockdown by regions and ages and genders, inmunology ID, Testing, night work options to reduce contact... Anything!

Let the doctors do, let the engineers simulate, and let the best option execute as planned

</comment><comment><USER26> I'd argue that the other HN story about Krebs doing investigative journalism about who the players are behind the "reopen*.com" is a much more interesting discussion.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22928292](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22928292)

This story is going to dig up the usual FB hatred, battles over "freedom of speech" vs "corporate platform", and tired discussion topics that have been re and rehashed again here.

</comment><comment><USER27> How does Facebook distinguish from those who are protesting because they want to plant seeds, from those who want full reopening today?

</comment><comment><USER28> Facebook will censor itself out of relevance as its usefulness for connection and building relationships is replaced by insistence on creating a safe space for pro-establishment propaganda.

It was already selectively flagging certain news articles as true or not, countering certain misinformation while conveniently missing others. It's a questionable practice to become the gatekeepers of fact when the fourth estate itself is held to no such legal standard.

The centralized web needs to stop this subtle censorship. We can't rely on the opinions of a few to censor the many in any fair or equitable way, look at Twitter/Reddit/YouTube...

</comment><comment><USER29> Personally this ventures into the same area of "baker refuses cake for gay wedding". Facebook does not want to profit from what they see is a "bad event". But do they have a right to refuse service on such bases ? (Of course there are legal differences such as protected class vs unprotected class. But either ways the moral principle is the same.)

I personally would side with Facebook on this one.

</comment><comment><USER30> I guess Facebook has done some calculation about the potential fines/time sitting in congressional hearings in the aftermath of this versus revenue.

I think it is strange to criticise this move as suppressing free speech. If you value free speech you wouldn't be using facebook, a for-profit venture controlled by a few people with their own agenda.

</comment><comment><USER31> Fake news. Facebook communiqué actually reads "theories like physical distancing is ineffective" is now considered "misinformation". [https://about.fb.com/news/2020/04/covid-19-misinfo- update/](https://about.fb.com/news/2020/04/covid-19-misinfo-update/) Facebook goes too far. Communications company should not be forming its own opinions on heartbreaking policies necessary during an emergency that academy is still working to fully understand. If economy is asking people who didn't have 19b cash on hand to make sacrifices then nouveau riche sysadmins should not be denying them voice to express feelings online to friends and family too.

</comment><comment><USER32> Facebook is performing an editorial function on the information they distribute by removing content that is not illegal. They're a publisher, it's as clear as day. By stepping into this role they should forfeit any exemption from liability[0] for the content that they publish. I'm sure that they pay a bunch of lobbyists to distract lawmakers from this fact, but they won't be able to escape it forever.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act)

</comment><comment><USER33> I think the anti-quarantine protests are motivated by the most idiotic non- goals and were started by the Proud Boys before they were boosted by Fox News and the administration which are desperate to reopen the economy at the cost of any level of blood sacrifice on the altar of the DOW.

That said, allowing Zuckerberg to simply silence protest movements on a whim is insane and will bite all of us incredibly hard in the future. He should not have this kind of power.

</comment><comment><USER34> I'm curious what would currently be the statistic for the level of death I cause as a consequence of choosing to socialize? Surely we should have some idea by now?

I just think it be an interesting metric, if I decide to go get a hair cut, did I also just decide for 2 person to die?

</comment><comment><USER35> Would not believe I'd ever say that but, kudos to you, Facebook.

</comment><comment><USER36> Maybe I am too dumb or naive but for me, all these cases of censorship/deplatforming etc come down to answering one simple question? Is this post/tweet legal? Yes? Carry on.

</comment><comment><USER37> It's like this pandemic is giving a biological counter argument to concepts of ethics that assume a human being is an isolated unit.

</comment><comment><USER38> I disagree with all these reopen protests, but I wonder if suppressing them will have the desired effect.

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

This action will "prove" to some people that the tech industry has a liberal bias. I don't know that there's a good counter action to these protests, though.

<comment> rm_-rf_slash The propaganda* play for the American right these days is to be absolutely shameless, so any action to circumvent or suppress the protests will inevitably be blown up as the last straw obliterating America-as-we-know-it now and forevermore. In this light, the reaction to the reaction of the protests should be disregarded as a matter of government and corporate policy, because the organizers of the protests are acting in bad faith to simply discredit democratically elected Democratic governorships.

*Propaganda is not meant to be used as a derogatory term in this context; it is a tool, like a gun that can shoot deer for food or humans for conquest.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Facebook should remove the groups promoting them too.

</comment><comment><USER40> We _need_ an internet bill of rights. Something. Corporations with 100M, 200M, 1B, 2B+ reach need to be governed

</comment><comment><USER41> Facebook censoring in favor of Trump. strange days

</comment><comment><USER42> good

<comment><USER43> Please don't post unsubstantive comments here.

<comment><USER42> Do I seriously need to substantiate why anti-vax is bad?

<comment><USER43> Please no.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> First they came for the lockdown protesters ...

</comment><comment><USER45> This religion of 'lockdown' is righteousness is pretty indicative of normal human behaviour now.

If you actually read the 'lockdown' scriptures it does state the 'lockdown' will end, it also talks about how the devil of herd immunity will eventually live amongst us.

The exact time of rapture of ending the 'lockdown' is not stated in the scriptures but it's not totally unreasonable to think it's now.

</comment><comment><USER46> I'm overly simplifying, but I don't understand the fuss.

The incubation is ~14 days. So if _everyone_ can act together, stay at home for 2-3 weeks, then it'll all be over and we can get on with our lives, right?

For those who don't want to follow (the deviants): force them to sign agreement, "If COVID-19 happens to me, that's solely my problem." and let them do whatever freedom they want, as long as they're not near non-deviants.

This is similar with smokers. In many countries, smoking is still allowed in designated areas: closed room where all smokers smoke. You think smoking is okay? Fine, do it with the rest of you, but don't inflict damage to non- smokers.

Sorry for the rant, but I'm perplexed by the selfishness. You want it your way? Go ahead, but don't risk others.

<comment><USER13> No, no group of ordinary humans can all act together at the same time, with discipline. Occasionally this works in the military or something, but they're heavily trained.

Plus, the problem with "deviants" as you put it, is that if they don't "conform", they can infect a lot of other non-deviants.

The problem is a complex one, for sure.</comment></comment>


Ripgrep is faster (2016) - <AUTHOR> https://blog.burntsushi.net/ripgrep/ <comment><USER2> Not sure if this is coincidence or even if this was already mentioned on HG, but Ripgrep had a release yesterday with a few new features.

[https://github.com/BurntSushi/ripgrep/releases/tag/0.10.0](https://github.com/BurntSushi/ripgrep/releases/tag/0.10.0)

<comment><USER3> Fantastic, I use RipGrep every day and just noticed I was on 0.4.0. I wish they had a PPA or an easier way for me to have it update automatically...

<comment><USER4> If you don't mind the wait to compile rustc from source once (only for tools written in rust, of course), linuxbrew is a pretty neat way of keeping tools that aren't directly on your distro's repos up-to-date. Nix is another option.

<comment><USER3> Oh that's very interesting, thank you! Do you know if Nix works well with Ubuntu? I'd love to use it but I didn't think it would play well with apt.

<comment> yjftsjthsd-h It stands separate from apt, yes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> related [https://blog.burntsushi.net/transducers/](https://blog.burntsushi.net/transducers/)

</comment><comment><USER6> Interestingly enough a friend of mine kept trying to get me to use ag, since he always saw me doing relatively long "find" commands. A discussion about perfomance, ease of use, &c. later and I wrote an ag clone in shell, called "the copper searcher." Performance is similar between the two, I think I got most of the major features implemented.

Also note that if you still have UUCP infrastructure, the name "cu" will collide with an already installed program.

[https://github.com/jasom/the-copper-searcher](https://github.com/jasom/the- copper-searcher)

<comment><USER7> Neat! That's definitely better than some of the other shell clones I've seen, in that it makes an attempt to filter out files based on .gitignore. But it looks like it still gets some .gitignore stuff wrong. It's hard to handle .gitignore correctly in a simple way.

In some simple tests on my Linux checkout, it is about an order of magnitude slower than ripgrep though. It looks like a good chunk of time is spent in gitignore filtering?

I don't think it has multi-line search, which is something I've learned that ag users happen to love, which is why it's in the most recent release of ripgrep. :-)

<comment><USER6> Yeah, this was just a 1 afternoon project, and the .gitignore syntax is more complicated than I first thought.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> See also: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12564442](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12564442)

</comment><comment><USER9> This is a truly fantastic product. I didn't think ag could be improved but somehow ripgrep does it. Well done.

</comment><comment><USER10> Searching through my 'projects' directory, piping all output to wc so my terminal doesn't become a factor, it is about 16 times faster than ack; 26 times when using the gitignore filtering. It is using ~7 times more CPU to do so.

<comment><USER11> Is there a reason that you prefer wc over /dev/null?

<comment><USER12> to check the outputs are roughly the same?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Since practically everything I work on is in a git repository, I use git grep a lot. I haven't found it wanting in speed.

Ripgrep does have some neat advanced features though...

<comment><USER14> One reason I still use git grep is this: I have some minified .js files in the repository, which I don't want to be included in grep results. So I mark the files as binary in gitattributes, then git grep just says "Binary file foo matches".

<comment><USER7> For ripgrep, you can achieve this via a custom ignore file, e.g., `echo '*.min.js' > .ignore`.

Another approach I've seen people take is to put `-M300` in your ripgrep config file, and then any super long lines are automatically omitted from output.

<comment><USER15> I've seen the few posts deciding to use .ignore as the file name but I hope this won't be a mistake in choosing the right name without enough discussion. Even for users it's hard to figure what the file is for.

I consider .grepignore to be more comprehensible.

<comment><USER7> You can also use .rgignore.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Child of the 90s | Internet Explorer Ad [video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkM6RJf15cg&feature=player_embedded&hd=1 <comment><USER2> So they've just admitted they've been asleep since the 90s? :P</comment>


Vue.js v2.5 released - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/vuejs/vue/releases/tag/v2.5.0 <comment><USER2> Great work. Recently when I was chosing SPA framework for the new project after using Angular 1 on 3 of them I chose Vue. Such a simple (but powerful) and lovely tool with great community.</comment>