Court strikes down FCC's net neutrality rules - <AUTHOR> http://gigaom.com/2014/01/14/breaking-court-strikes-down-fccs-net-neutrality-rules/ <comment><USER3> Surely the best thing here is for broadband providers to be reclassified as "common carriers"? That would be a fitting end to Verizon's campaign.

The FCC is free to make this choice (right?[1]), and it means they can regulate broadband companies the same way as they do phone companies now - <USER2> will have some penalty (which is why they've avoided doing it up to now), but hopefully they will have the guts to fight back.

(note, I'm in the UK, so this doesn't affect my home internet speed, although it could affect any of you 'mericans trying to read my rather obscure blog.)

[1] I don't actually know, so by all means correct me.

<comment><USER4> I think the gist of it is that the FCC exceeded it's authority in deeming ISPs Common Carriers. Legislation from congress and signed by the executive will be needed.

<comment><USER3> But the article implies that the only reason the regulations are invalid is that they _didn 't_ designate them CCs. At least, that's how I read it.

<comment><USER4> I'm trying to find it. but my point is, the FCC did not have the authority to designate them as Common Carriers. as Common Carrier status is defined by the Communications Act of 1930 something and Telecommunications act of 1996.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I can see it now "All Amazon hosted websites have been blacked out from Time Warner Cable while we enter contract negotiations. Thanks for your patience, here's a free Video on Demand for the inconvenience"

</comment><comment><USER6> Folks, today's ruling should come as no surprise. Congress never gave the FCC the authority to impose Net neutrality regulations on the Internet. That means the FCC's regulations were illegal. The same court already slapped down the FCC once, in 2010, remember: [http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20001825-38.html](http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20001825-38.html)

Legislation granting regulatory authority to the FCC came up for a vote in Congress, and it came close to passage: it was reported favorably out of a Senate committee but was defeated in a House floor vote in 2006: [http://news.cnet.com/2100-1028_3-6081882.html](http://news.cnet.com/2100-1028_3-6081882.html)

Even if you adore the principle of Net neutrality, it's reasonable to demand that federal regulatory agencies stick to what Congress authorized them to do. Otherwise you have illegal regulations and bureaucratic turf-grabbing that will not treat the Internet well. Remember Hollywood's successful efforts to lobby the FCC to impose "broadcast flags" on computers by bureaucratic fiat? A federal appeals court correctly struck it down as exceeding the agency's legal authority, as I wrote here in 2005: [http://news.cnet.com/2100-1030_3-5697719.html](http://news.cnet.com/2100-1030_3-5697719.html)

If Net neutrality violations become an actual problem, there's no shortage of publicity-hungry politicians in Congress (hi, Ed Markey!) who will hold hearings and push legislation forward. Obama will happily sign it. Until then, other government debacles including NSA domestic surveillance and Obamacare should make us wary of federal agencies exceeding their legal authority -- especially after Congress considered and rejected a law that would have given it to them in the first place.

<comment><USER7> > If Net neutrality violations become an actual problem,

Net neutrality violations had become an actual problem (and source of case-by- case FCC issues) before the FCC set out its open internet principles, much less issued the Open Internet Order.

> there's no shortage of publicity-hungry politicians in Congress (hi, Ed > Markey!) who will hold hearings and push legislation forward.

There's more money-hungry politicians that are in bed with the entrenched interests that oppose neutrality that will act to prevent any net neutrality action.

> Obama will happily sign it.

Which would be significant, if it would ever get through Congress. Which it won't, particularly the House.

<comment><USER6> There were some scattered and quickly resolved problems, and Comcast certainly acted foolishly (and arguably dishonestly) in the case of BitTorrent throttling. But there was no evidence of widespread problems, and the Comcast- BitTorrent issue was resolved _six years_ ago without the FCC playing referee: [http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9904689-7.html](http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9904689-7.html)

The reality is that Net neutrality became politicized long ago. It was embraced by pro-regulation left-leaning groups, who were in part funded by Silicon Valley companies who seeking a competitive advantage through the political process. And yes, AT&T and Comcast and other providers played defense by funding advocacy groups on the other side. You may remember that I was the first to disclose some of this dodgy stuff, back in 2008: [http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10016960-38.html](http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10016960-38.html)

Once that politicization happened, rational thought in DC ended and it became something that a certain subset of politicians said "WE MUST HAVE," no matter what the law actually allows, which is a dangerous precedent. So welcome to today's state of affairs. On HN, however, I'd hope that we can be a bit more rational about this.

PS: If you think that a bunch of Tea Party conservatives in the House are going to defend AT&T, Comcast, VZ, etc. if they start blocking web sites, etc., you're badly mistaken. Also remember antitrust laws still apply even if the FCC vanishes tomorrow.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I like the idea of net neutrality conceptually, but the ulterior motives of its proponents bugs me. It strikes me as just a way for the Youtubes and Netflixes of the world to get a bigger piece of the pie for themselves.

Consider the basic streaming transaction: consumer tunes in to watch an episode of their favorite show on some streaming service. Several companies are involved in the transaction: the streaming service, the broadband provider, and the content company that made the show. But the consumer doesn't really care about any of that, he's willing to pay $X for the experience of watching that episode.

How that $X is split up amongst the companies in play is the subject of a lot of legal wrangling. Each party has an incentive to try and turn the contributions of the other parties into a commodity. The streaming service and the broadband provider have an interest in weaker copyright protections, so the content company has less leverage. The streaming service and the content company have an interest in net neutrality, because that prevents broadband companies from differentiating their services from each other, and forces them to compete only as "dumb pipes."

It's not clear what the "proper" division of that $X should be. Arguably the content creation is the least fungible from the consumer's point of view. If they want to watch "House" that's what they want, not some substitute. The broadband provision is arguably the most technically complicated and the one that involves the greatest capital expenditure. Distribution is, in my opinion, relatively simple. Computing power and commercial bandwidth are commodities thanks to AWS and the like. So all that differentiates Netflix from Hulu from Youtube is the software. The software isn't easy per se, but it's easier than making a blockbuster movie or building a fiber network. That's why streaming sites are a dime a dozen but it takes the likes of Amazon or Netflix to even attempt to compete with NBC, etc, in developing AAA content.

That's almost certainly why Netflix is getting into the content business, and why Youtube has always been in the content business (through user generated content). That's what's hardest to turn into a commodity.

<comment><USER9> _I like the idea of net neutrality conceptually, but the ulterior motives of its proponents bugs me._

The ulterior motives of the opponents of net neutrality bother me much more. I can't help but imagine a world where companies like Comcast have complete control over the internet. They pick the winners, whether it's the next Google, Facebook, or Netflix. With, of course, Comcast receiving a hefty percentage for allowing said winner to succeed if they don't have complete control over the winners outright.

<comment><USER8> Companies like Comcast _are the internet._ Without their massive capital investment in building networks, there is nothing but a bunch of software running on computers that can't talk to each other. Why _shouldn 't_ they get to control it however they want?

If the Googles and Facebooks of the world don't want to abide by the terms set by the Comcasts of the world, they should build their own networks. If there are regulatory barriers to doing that, _those_ should be the target of regulatory reform.

<comment><USER7> > Companies like Comcast are the internet. Without their massive capital > investment in building networks, there is nothing but a bunch of software > running on computers that can't talk to each other. Why shouldn't they get > to control it however they want?

Because its not a freely competitive market. They didn't acquire the infrastructure and access -- particularly the last mile access -- by freely negotiating with property owners, nor, even if they had, is there unlimited capacity for new competitors to do so. Incumbent major broadband providers all got the basic access essential to provide infrastructure as CATV and telephone providers, as locally or regionally regulated monopolies, and there is pretty much no way for direct competition with fixed broadband providers on equal footing.

Fixed broadband providers aren't an ideal market for the same reason "road providers" or "sewer service providers" aren't.

> If the Googles and Facebooks of the world don't want to abide by the terms > set by the Comcasts of the world, they should build their own networks.

Google's been working very hard on that for many years, because they knew that their preferred regulatory framework wasn't something that they could count on.

OTOH, I don't see why the Comcasts and AT&Ts of the world now ought to be free to capture all the profit from business done over the internet any more than the AT&Ts of the telephone age were allowed to do so for all business done over the telephone.

<comment><USER8> Clearly that's part of the answer, but I don't think that's the whole answer. While the existing broadband providers certainly did benefit from growing out of locally or regionally regulated monopolies, they haven't been that for quite some time, and much of their capital investment in infrastructure has happened after deregulation. Indeed, I wouldn't hesitate to say that the vast majority of investment in telecoms networks has happened since deregulation of the industry in 1996. Is a blanket neutrality order legitimate for companies whose networks are say 15% regulated monopoly and 85% private?

<comment><USER7> > Clearly that's part of the answer, but I don't think that's the whole > answer. While the existing broadband providers certainly did benefit from > growing out of locally or regionally regulated monopolies, they haven't been > that for quite some time, and much of their capital investment in > infrastructure has happened after deregulation.

The monopoly condition and the public position they had with it is how they acquired a lot of the permanent _property rights_ (easements, etc.) necessary for the infrastructure. That advantage doesn't _ever_ go away, even if the regulated monopoly status does.

And it doesn't change the fact that wireline broadband, because of the physical access requirements, is inherently not a kind of service for which a real competitive free market is possible, for the same reason that it isn't with road networks or sewer systems or electric power delivery.

<comment><USER8> Sure the advantage of those property rights doesn't go away, but what's the value of that advantage as a proportion of the total private investment into these networks?

<comment><USER7> > Sure the advantage of those property rights doesn't go away, but what's the > value of that advantage as a proportion of the total private investment into > these networks?

The value is a substantial barrier to entry to competition -- why even Google Fiber, backed by the vast stockpiles of cash at Google, is often seen as a risky proposition against the entrenched providers and why you see very few providers of actual connections (as opposed to resellers) to those who have access developed as CATV or telephone monopolies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> at-fates-hands The problem I have with NN is the completely arbitrary way companies abide by it.

For instance Google was all about NN when they were sued by AT&T after they set up Google Voice. Then, when they got into the broadband game, all the things they were for with NN, instantly went out the window.

It appears companies are usually for something until they're against it. The FCC isn't much help either, since they really don't have any muscle to enforce the NN existing rules anyways.

<comment><USER10> That fickle corporate stance on NN is exactly why we should support it at the policy level so everyone has to follow fair, consistent rules that maintain the integrity of the internet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is horrible. Being a developer, I make money off building fast web based applications. It sucks because the fast part is now out of my control. I can write the best code ever and it will run slow unless I pay for provider preference. This will cost small companies dearly and rewards large ones unfairly. Why must our courts and political system line the pockets of the already rich? Now is the time to aid and promote innovation not stunt and slow it.

<comment><USER8> You make money building web based applications that rely entirely on someone else's very expensive communications networks. Their networks have value without your applications, but your applications have no value without their networks. Why shouldn't they be able to dictate whatever terms they want? Why should the government intervene to artificially give you more leverage?

<comment><USER12> Actually, their networks have no value without access to applications.

There was a time when these online companies had to pay other companies to develop applications for their networks. Now they get them for free and want to charge the companies on top of that.

Maybe Facebook's new business model could be charging $$ for "access to their pipes" from ISPs.

<comment><USER13> Maybe that should be FB's model. Maybe they could negotiate that with the ISPs. Or maybe not.

Why should the US gov't be involved in this business negotiation between two companies?

<comment><USER14> The gov't should be involved, when those negotiations could potentially form cartels to the detriment of the majority of the population.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> If companies like Comcast offer telephone service over their cable lines, will this not place them in the realm of being a 'common carrier'?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I am a NN proponent but think this is good because I don't believe the FCC could effectively enforce NN. At best, FCC enforcement would be a waste of money. At worst, there would be negative unintended consequences.

</comment><comment><USER16> What just happened? Common sense probably got stuck in the slow lane.</comment>


In effect, Seattle is decriminalizing the use of hard drugs - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/23/opinion/sunday/opioid-crisis-drug-seattle.html <comment><USER2> The reporters designation of "figured out" seems to stem more from the fact that the solution fits his own view than any actual real evidence. There is mention of the difficulties such lax policies has brought to the city, but they are waved away as being "growing pains" toward a new utopia.

I can't say, living here, that I feel that the problem is solved. I view the needles outside my apartment as evidence to the contrary - though I suppose I'm an ignoramus for thinking that.

Simply strolling through Pioneer Square or most parts of International District paints a significantly different picture. One can dine at a Chinese place on Jackson and look out their window and see junkies peddling stolen goods at the bus stop. The non-enforcement of so-called "petty crime" used to fund drug addictions is egregious and continues to undermine the already little sense of community there is in this city of transients.

What I'm trying to say is that while I appreciate the difference in approach from the traditional one, I do believe that there needs to be an honest discussion about the limits of rehabilitation. More research on the subject, as it relates to Seattle, shows that there are many, many, people who take advantage of these lax policies to abuse the system, hurting others who actually need help.

<comment><USER3> At least part of the cause of the visible squalor we see in Seattle is that the tough-on-crime crowd has consistently opposed safe injection, harm reduction, trash pickup, housing-first, and other evidence-based policies in favor of expensive, inhumane, and pointless measures like sweeps and incarceration. Any measure the city government takes that is not overtly cruel gets slammed as coddling the homeless or "attracting" homeless to the city, despite the fact that the data show this trope to be a fiction.

<comment><USER4> I'm anti-incarceration for moral reasons, but it's not clear to me that there is a definitive consensus that incarceration does not work. See: [https://www.nber.org/digest/jan02/w8489.html](https://www.nber.org/digest/jan02/w8489.html)

> "Annual expenditures of approximately $10 billion on drug incarceration > almost pay for themselves through reductions in health care costs and lost > productivity attributable to illegal drug use, even ignoring any crime > reductions associated with such incarceration."

(The above is from a study conducted by a prominent U Chicago economist and another economist who is now at Princeton.)

It's really very complicated. One of the macro trends over the last few decades is a massive increase in crime from the late 1960s to the mid 1990s, then a decrease since then. Incarceration started increasing in the 1970s and 1980s as a response to that increase in crime. When crime started coming down in the 1990s, incarceration started coming down about ten years behind that in the 2000s.

Nobody really knows why crime started dropping in the 1990s. Some people think that the reduction is attributable to the banning of leaded gasoline. Maybe. But I don't think studied have ruled out the notion that the reduction is attributable to putting a large number of people in prison. See: [https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/089533004773563485](https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/089533004773563485)

> Crime fell sharply and unexpectedly in the 1990s. Four factors appear to > explain the drop in crime: increased incarceration, more police, the decline > of crack and legalized abortion.

It's not an area where you can point to a definitive consensus, and everyone interprets the data to fit their own political views.

<comment><USER5> Freakonomics makes a case the drop in crime is directly correlated with the passing of Roe VS Wade and the legalization of abortion. This led to the 18 year later drop in unwanted male children now adults. Very interesting read on a very explosive topic :)

<comment><USER6> His argument has been widely debunked, and subsequent followup found that Leavitt had a huge data error that way overstated his conclusion.

I personally find the lead/crime argument to be much more convincing

<comment><USER5> It is a good chapter to read to see their methodology even if you don't agree with the results. For example, comparing stricter/easier gun laws and prison times in different cities and not finding a correlation to the drop in violence since it was across the board.

<comment><USER6> Oh I've read it and am familiar with their argument, I just disagree. I don't think analyzing gun laws on a city by city basis makes a lot of sense, they're small, in high demand apparently, and easily smuggled from a more permissive locale.

The abortion argument is just a pathway to IQ/some people are genetically more predisposed to being dumb & violent, etc. It's just a step on the way there. I hardly think I have to spell out what's the next step on the road after that. Open white supremacists like Steve Sailer vocally support the abortion argument, for instance

<comment><USER7> " a pathway to IQ/some people are genetically " How did you come ot that conclusion? Much simpler option is on the table: parents mostly abort kkids when they know they don;t want them or can;t take care of them. Kids that are wanted, are much more likely to be properly brought up and not become criminals.

<comment><USER8> > Kids that are wanted, are much more likely to be properly brought up and not > become criminals.

Adopted children (in the US) are much more prone to various failures, like becoming criminals, than are the biological children of their adoptive parents.

It seems unlikely that this is due to the adopted children being unwanted.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I am just astounded that this is being spun in such a positive light. It absolutely has had a negative impact on public safety here. They're offered public services, and they refuse them, because many of our "tiny villages" have no-drug-use policies, which they will not abide by.

My city has one of the worst problems with repeat violent drug addicts in the nation (perhaps aside from the Bay) and yet we refuse to jail those who attack members of the public.

Just a few weeks ago we released a known violent repeat offender who four days later tossed a hot coffee on an infant.

Up in Ballard we released a guy who then chased people down with a pitchfork. Another is intent on assaulting the new Park Couriers who's job it is to keep people from open-using heroin in our public parks.

There's a guy down at an I-5 onramp in downtown who keeps trying to throw small women off the overpass. He keeps failing at doing so, and the cops say "Can't do anything, he hasn't actually thrown somebody off". I guess we'll just wait until he succeeds.

Oh well. I guess we'll just keep pointing these people towards social services, which they'll refuse _again_ , lock them up for some token amount of time, and wait for them to harm the public again.

<comment><USER10> Do you have any statistics to back that up (violence rate)? I don't feel like anecdotes make for good conversation here.

<comment><USER11> Yeah I mean, without statistics his anecdotes are meaningless. It's a common thing to complain here in Seattle, but having lived in the Midwest for most of my life I know what true violence looks like and feels like. I don't hear guns every night like I did in KC. There aren't 600 murders a year like in Chicago. I'm not saying Seattle is perfect but I've never felt safer.

And I live in the Central District, which is one of the more violent neighborhoods.

<comment><USER12> It wasn't this bad in the 90s or 80s, when crime was higher everywhere else. Relatively speaking, Seattle is worse off than it was before, which is a bit sad for the non transplants.

<comment><USER13> I dunno, the common refrain I hear from native Seattleites is that many places -- like Fremont, Ballard, and West Seattle, were truly awful in the 80s & 90s. Usually just at the mention of where I live, which is one of those neighborhoods.

Compared to Orlando and Salt Lake City, Seattle feels about on par to me with regards to safety and the homeless problem (adjusted for the much higher population & density). Which is useless information because it is an anecdote, but the best way to bring data into a conversation is a lot of useless competing anecdotes.

<comment><USER12> I lived in all three of those places in the early 90s (as a UW student and with my aunt near Alaska Junction in West Seattle). No, at least then, they weren't as bad, or bad at all.

Ballard? I'm not even sure where it being dangerous would come from, maybe getting run down by a bad Norwegian driver? Checkout Cops in Ballard: [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hGlDVmBLibg](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hGlDVmBLibg)

(Yes, that is Bill Nye)

<comment><USER14> I was mugged multiple time in the u-district in the 90s. The ave in general is far less sketchy than it used to be.

Ballard is much worse. It's gone from an enclave of retired scandy fishermen to hip neighborhood with a thriving walkable main drag. Because much of the street parking is still free the homeless living out of barely functional vans and rvs can live without hassle and attempt to panhandle on the drag. I imagine that at least some of those vehicles are also essentially drug emporiums further concentrating the homeless population that is hooked. ... Still not as sketchy as the u-district in the 90s though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I fully support legalizing all drugs, but don't understand why the latest wave of criminal justice reform tolerates property crimes. Crimes like smash and grabs, purse snatching, bike thefts, vandalism, littering, and shoplifting clearly have defined victims and lower the quality of life for everyone.

It's perfectly possible to be a heroin addict and an upstanding citizen at the same time. The same cannot be said of a bike thief. The vast majority of even hardcore homeless drug addicts do not engage in malicious property crimes. It's only a small fraction, that also tends to be the most violent and socially pathological.

Vigorous enforcement of property crime improves the life for everyone in the city. Doubly so for the otherwise law-abiding drug users, who most often bear the worse brunt of the anti-social property criminals. The best way to sell drug policy reform to law and order conservatives is to redirect those resources to non-victimless crimes. Not just throw your hands up in the air and give up on enforcing any laws whatsoever.

<comment><USER16> I would need quote on the 'vast majority' claim. You can't leave a bike for 10 minutes in downtown Seattle for a reason, homeless heroin addicts gets their drug and resource to procure those drug _somewhere_.

<comment><USER17> I have left my bike unlocked, and even my automobile unlocked with its keys in it, many time and never been burgled. (Once in Boston my bike accessories were stolen off my bike.)

Even if every bike is stolen by an addict, that doesn't mean most addicts are doing the stealing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> ... this is probably news to people actually living in Seattle. (Edit: the title was originally, "Seattle Has Figured Out How to End the War on Drugs")

A place where meth heads attack people with pitchforks in the street a few days after being released from prison on a suspended sentence.

[https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/man- accused-...](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/man-accused-of- trying-to-attack-strangers-with-pitchfork-outside-ballard-post-office/)

Not to mention our random piles of used syringes, which are often found in parks where kids play.

[https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/more- than-3...](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/more- than-32000-syringes-collected-in-pilot-needle-program/)

Here's a syringe pile after cleaning up a homeless camp north of Seattle:

[https://2qibqm39xjt6q46gf1rwo2g1-wpengine.netdna- ssl.com/wp-...](https://2qibqm39xjt6q46gf1rwo2g1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp- content/uploads/2017/10/9061386_web1_M-Needles-1-EDH-171024.jpg)

I'm all for decriminalization, but Seattle's current approach is to decriminalize not only drugs, but a host of other _actual_ crimes, like public intoxication, public camping, shop lifting, harassment, etc.

<comment><USER19> When people say things like this, I do have to wonder if they've ever lived in a city before. Seattle's crime rate, like most American cities, has been steadily declining since the 1980s.

There is just a certain amount of crime and drug use that will always exist in the big city. No amount of 'tough on crime' policing will make it go away.

<comment><USER20> When people write responses like this I wonder if they've ever been to New York City. We don't really have comparable problems.

For me visiting LA, SF or Seattle is jaw dropping. I totally reject this idea that these situations are just inevitable.

<comment><USER21> That's just objectively wrong. NYC has a higher homeless population both in sheer volume and per 100,000 people. So what is NYC doing to stop the growth of their homeless population beyond making it out of sight and out of mind?

<comment><USER22> If their homeless population is far less dangerous and destructive to the lives of all the other citizens that live there, then they're doing _something_ right, even if their homeless population is somewhat bigger per capita.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> This article is disingenuous at best. I don't support the war on drugs, but Seattle's handling of the situation isn't close to a model for other cities. As someone who lived here all my life, it's been a complete disaster. I'm frankly really disappointed in the NYTimes for publishing this garbage.

He doesn't go into the negatives of what the policies in Seattle has done to the city until so far later in the article. The local officials are very lax on drug use, homelessness.

We have entire tent cities. Petty crime is pretty high. The police won't bother to respond if you report a car break in, for example. There's trash littered on practically any street that has tents. Some of these folks are addicts and some aren't but to say Seattle has solved this problem - you mean we just ignore laws and allow anyone to do whatever they want. Repeat criminal who was arrested last week? Here, we'll keep you for an hour maybe and you'll definitely be out by tomorrow.

I'm not advocating jailing all drug use so private prisons get rich, but Seattle's extreme leftist take on pretending like the problem hasn't been a disaster for the city is just absurd.

<comment><USER22> Sounds just like SF, and it's a large part of the reason I want to leave the west coast entirely and go somewhere with more sane policies.

<comment><USER21> If you think the west coast has insane policies, then you should really try living elsewhere for a bit of perspective.

I've lived in WA, CA, VA and TX. No state has sane policies and the more I've moved, the more I've realized this. WA still ranks at the top of my list for states to live in.

<comment><USER22> Noted! Though I've lived in NYC before, and I think it has, at a glance, pretty sane policies for a giant diverse city (though I could be totally wrong!). It felt a lot safer there than it does in SF on a day-to-day basis. That's where I was planning on going.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> > "You've got a guy shooting heroin on the street, and the cop is supposed to > say, 'You O.K.?'" grumbled one law enforcement officer in Seattle. (In fact, > an officer would typically confiscate the heroin, admonish the user and move > on.) Some residents worry that when the city ignores its own laws on the > books and tolerates people openly abusing narcotics, it takes a step toward > incivility that will eventually result in chaos and crime. There's also a > legitimate argument that the threat of prison is sometimes necessary to > motivate users to participate in treatment programs.

What non-drug user would want to live in a town where someone shooting heroin in public is not removed from the street? I know I wouldn't.

I'm not saying lock em up and throw away the key but you can't just move on and pretend nothing happened. If you're going to provide treatment in lieu of jail time then it needs to mandatory.

<comment><USER25> What does confiscating an addict's heroin accomplish? As far as I can tell, all you've done is make a desperate addict far more desperate than they were a moment ago. The situation is _only_ made worse.

<comment><USER26> One could say it incentivizes them to keep it at home, out of view of minors.

<comment><USER27> Hiding the world from our children instead of letting them see how awful the adults have made it is dishonest, at best.

I prefer to teach kids how to find compassion for people in such situations.

<comment><USER28> Do you have kids? If you let them near active drug users as an object lesson, you need CPS called on you.

<comment><USER29> are you sure you aren't letting your kids near "active drug users" when you take them to family gatherings?

<comment><USER28> Active as in currently shooting up.

<comment><USER30> I think he was alluding to non-injected drug use, like drinking beer or smoking weed.

Of course by the time injecting street drugs into your veins seems like your least-bad option, you're in a pretty desperate place and maybe not someone that kids should be around while you're using.

<comment><USER29> I thought the post I was replying to was implying that people on drugs are inherently dangerous to be around, so all I was really trying to suggest is that there are a lot of people who appear "respectable" but are hiding a serious drug habit.

it seems that sempron64 meant people who are literally in the act of shooting up. I guess I can understand not wanting a child to see that, although I question whether that's really as bad as we are supposed to think. it can certainly be unsettling to see for the first time, but all it ever suggests to me is that the person has a truly miserable life. I honestly doubt that it's as bad as pervasive images of people drinking, smoking, partying and having a good time. the latter seems a lot more likely to lead an impressionable mind astray.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> As a resident, Seattle's drug policy seems okay. I think the goal of harm reduction, trust building, and getting people back on track is a laudable goal. People need a pathway back, not to keep being kicked down.

But we need higher standards about the anti-social behaviors that are comorbid to drug use. The problem isn't that people are on narcotics. It's at least _possible_ to be a functional member of society while on opiates, and I don't think someone should be wrung through the legal system for having the wrong things in their blood for a bit.

The problem is tent cities burning trash under the overpass. Lines of disheveled camper vans near the shopping centers draining their sewage into open buckets on the street (thank god they're kind enough to use a bucket) Panhandlers harassing residents at such scale that all but the most resilient citizens grimace at the thought of walking through their city center. Some of these people seem not to have drug problems at all.

I'm okay with low standards about drug policy enforcement, so long as it's coupled with high standards about behavior in the public space.

It's the second half that Seattle has yet to solve.

<comment><USER17> Seattle needs more public dumpsters and sewage receptacles for non- landowners/land-renters.

When London was covered in rivers of shit in the 19th Century because there was no sanitation infrastructure, was that because the citizens were anti- social criminals? Or was is a societal problem that needed a funded solution?

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> So same as Portugal has been doing for decades - decriminalise small use and treat it as a public health problem instead of making average citizens into criminals.

Portugal has a lot of bad things to it, but having no war on drugs has made it into one of the most peaceful countries on earth. And marijuana usage is pretty low, Last I checked. Why? Probably because it's not a special thing.

I've always pondered why they only did it there, and I've been routinely disappointed to move to the Uk and understand how horrible the drug problem is here. People take ketamine and OD in toilets here.

<comment><USER33> Washington State is one of the heaviest users of legal marijuana: [https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nation-and- world/sewage-t...](https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nation-and-world/sewage- testing-in-washington-confirms-rise-in-marijuana-use-1691682/)

I doubt we will ever reach Portugal's low levels of use, but people can lead happy & productive lives while having chemical dependencies.

The UK's war on drugs and party culture surrounding ket and others is kinda sad to watch :c

<comment><USER34> Portugal's use spiked up in the same way for a few years before ramping down. Most places who legalize experience the same sort of spike then a reduction.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Interesting take on the situation - one key difference is I don't feel any less safe now than 10 years ago walking around. I DO see more "open" use, and people walking around obviously on something, especially by the homeless (which makes sense even if they're not using at a higher level). I don't see the social services much though. IMO they could use more visibility. The prevailing opinion seems like we do "nothing".

I'd like to see the stats on mortality and quality of life to those that get treatment though. It can't be worse than locking nonviolent people up.

<comment><USER35> The article mentions how it's difficult to reallocate the money saved on the court/prison system to the public health needs. Imagine what could be done if the same amount of money going towards imprisoning someone was instead spent on social services. Instead its easier for our politicians to stay "rah-rah" on punitive action.

<comment><USER17> Imagine if we funded schools so kids could learn useful skills, and raised a progressive income tax so the working poor could keep more of what they earn!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> > In effect, Seattle is decriminalizing the use of hard drugs. It is relying > less on the criminal justice toolbox to deal with hard drugs and more on the > public health toolbox.

America's puritanical urges result in more self-harm than anything else. So much of the way our nation is structured is based on some ancient idea that you have to live clean and work hard in order to get to heaven. That is combined with a sense of justified sadism: if we catch someone not living up to these ideals, it is appropriate to punish them, and appropriate to take _pleasure_ in punishing them.

The War on Drugs was never about public health. It was about 1. controlling minorities, and 2. moral superiority. So there's absolutely no surprise that a health-based approach is showing better results than a punishment-based approach.

<comment><USER37> If you think there is more drug-related crime and public heroin injections in "puritan" US cities like Seattle vs European cities like Frankfurt or Amsterdam... you must not travel very much.

<comment><USER38> What are the Pioneer Square and "3rd and pike" of Frankfurt or Amsterdam?

<comment><USER39> Anecdotally, I observed daytime public intravenous drug use within my first 3 hours on the ground in Frankfurt a few years ago. I don't know exactly where, but it was within walking radius of the main train station. I think it was in/adjacent to some kind of red-light district.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> "Still, it shocks many Americans to see no criminal penalty for using drugs illegally"

It only shocks Boomers. Their only answer to 'crime' was to keep making laws harsher until all the jail cells were full. Then to build more jail cells.

There's no need to have criminal penalties for drug use in the first place. What we want less of isn't drug use, it's the anti-social behaviors and health issues that often stem from drug use. Look at the other comments here - no one is upset with the mere ingestion of substances, they are complaining about the behaviors they see on the streets. Behaviors that impact the rest of use negatively. And we all know that a lot of that behavior has nothing to do with drug use in the first place. But it's a lot harder to deal with the behavior issue because then you're dealing with things like mental health issues and large-scale economic issues, on top of drug abuse.

It's so much easier to just use drugs as a scapegoat and start locking people up. Like the Boomers did! But we know that doing so is monumentally stupid and ineffective so we need a different way. Props to Seattle for trying a different way, but just as we've seen here in SF, these half-assed measures do as much to encourage anti-social behavior as they do to mitigate it. I think these West Coast cities being besieged by the nice-weather homelessness epidemic (and associated drug use) are going to have to come up with something a little tougher than what they've found the political will for so far. But we also have to acknowledge that we can't, won't and never should return to the idiotic War on Drugs.

</comment><comment><USER40> They're living in tents surrounded by rats, garbage, raw sewage and chasing away residents and business. Are these cities gaining taxpayers and businesses, or losing them? How happy are the residents of these cities with these conditions who pay for it all? You're very compassionate allowing people to decay on the streets. Congrats on your "win." What you won, I don't know. I see more misery than ever before. At least they can get their drugs without consequence now. I'm sure they're happy for that while they waste away in front of our eyes. At least you can say you were acting in a compassionate way, even while the results are completely contrary. Brownie points for you.

</comment><comment><USER41> Whoa. Using Seattle as a _positive_ story in the war on drugs seems...highly questionable. The city has been essentially destroyed by junkie infestation, enabled by (possibly well-meaning) people.

<comment><USER42> Seattle is far from "destroyed." There are obviously issues, sure. But this smells like hyperbolic political rhetoric to me and I don't appreciate it.

<comment><USER42> All this sort of hyperbole does is breed hate for other human beings. Not what we need.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Yea the ubiquitous property crime, tents on public land/parks, needles on streets/greenspaces/tossed on our lawn, ... Seattle has DEFINITELY figured it out. Is this article satire? Because it seems totally disconnected from reality on the ground in Seattle. This was a beautiful city that is being ruined by progressive policy/selective law enforcement, and it is riding on the coattails of a strong local economy. Right now we are on the fast track to becoming just as trashed up as SF.

</comment><comment><USER33> As much as the Seattle Chamber of Commerce and the local Sinclair affiliates might scream that Seattle is wrecked, people and businesses are still moving here, our economy is growing, and massive redevelopment is occuring.

One other place to pay attention to is Shelton, WA, they have a very interesting communal approach to homelessness and providing services, which has built a strong community that wooed some of my friends to buy and retire in Shelton.

<comment><USER23> People move here and the economy is growing because of tech. Do any of these employers support the city of Seattle's policies on allowing people to openly shoot up in the streets?

<comment><USER33> Its significantly safer than San Diego & Irvine IMO, both of which still criminalize homelessness and have had Hepatitis outbreaks due to these ineffective policies.

Google, Apple, Expedia and Facebook are each building and hiring thousands here in Seattle, our homeless are significantly less aggressive than those I encounter in California.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Wow, Seattle has turned worse over the last few years. At some parts downtown its nearly as bad as SF. I don't think Seattle has figured out anything...

</comment><comment><USER45> I think the ultimate source of Seattle's wishy-washy attitude toward serious crime is summed up nicely by an excerpt from something written by Ilhan Omar:

> The desire to commit violence is not inherent to people — it is the > consequence of systematic alienation; people seek violent solutions when the > process established for enacting change is inaccessible to them. Fueled by > disaffection turned to malice, if the guilty were willing to kill and be > killed fighting perceived injustice, imagine the consequence of them > hearing, "I believe you can be rehabilitated. I want you to become part of > my community, and together we will thrive." We use this form of distributive > justice for patients with chemical dependencies; treatment and societal > reintegration. The most effective penance is making these men ambassadors of > reform.

Basically, criminals are protestors against the inequity of society. This is a very old idea. Dostoevsky talks about it in Crime and Punishment.

My sense is that, no, people committing crimes are not "protestors" and treating them as such simply doesn't work. Tough love works. Punishment works.

I just hope that, when the pendulum swings back on this nonsense, it doesn't swing back too far the other way. I think it probably will, though.

</comment><comment><USER46> I'm not a statistical expert. Can someone who is comment on how the population selection exclusions described below may or may not effect the results?

> This evaluation included 318 adults who were suspected of recent violations > of the uniform controlled substances act (VUCSA) and/or prostitution > offenses and were deemed eligible for LEAD by arresting officers. > Individuals were ineligible for participation if any of the following > exclusion criteria applied: a) the amount of drugs involved exceeded 3 g > (all drug classes were eligible); b) the suspected drug activity involved > delivery or possession with intent to deliver and there was reason to > believe the suspect was dealing for profit above a subsistence income; c) > the individual did not appear amenable to diversion; d) the individual > appeared to exploit minors or others in a drug dealing enterprise; e) the > individual was suspected of promoting prostitution; f) the individual had a > disqualifying criminal history (i.e.,conviction for murder 1 or 2, arson 1 > or 2, robbery 1, assault 1,kidnapping, Violation of the Uniform Firearms Act > 1, sex offense, or attempt of any of these crimes); g) within the past 10 > years, the individual was convicted on a domestic violence offense, robbery > 2,assault 2 or 3, burglary 1 or 2, or Violation of the Uniform Firearms > Act2;or h) the individual was already involved in King County Drug Diversion > Court or Mental Health Court.

Source: [https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/6f124f_f4eed992eaff402f88ddb4...](https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/6f124f_f4eed992eaff402f88ddb4a649a9f5e6.pdf)

From a layman's perspective, my question is would the exclusions shown above favor inclusion of people less likely of recidivism?

</comment><comment><USER47> I currently live in pioneer square, close to one of the homeless shelters. Here are some of the things I have seen in the last 1.5 years:

1\. People openly shitting on the sidewalk.

2\. Ambulances carrying away a junkie that overdosed and died in a doorwell

3\. Having to push a sleeping person out of the way of the doorwell just to leave my apartment

4\. random screaming, for hours almost every night

5\. my girlfriend gets constantly harrassed

6\. I puked in the alley our moving truck was in while moving in because there was so much human feces.

7\. A naked person crabwalking down a hill

8\. someone ripped a metal garbage can off of its stand, grabbed a vodka bottle that was inside it and threw it at a passing car, breaking their window

9\. mass vandalism and theft of rental bicycles.

10\. someone throwing those rental bicycles into the street

11\. one homeless person attempted to steal a backpack from another homeless person having a panic attack or overdose WHILE A COP WAS HELPING THEM.

12\. bike theft in broad daylight on 1st avenue

13\. drug deals and needles. I have a picture of an abandoned backpack with dozens of needles sprawled around it

14\. someone got shot at the 7/11 at night

15\. a month later, there was broken glass from a bullet hole at the cherry street cafe.

16\. someone using their gun as a pillow

17\. tent camping, where i have to walk into the street to get around them.

18\. people wandering around in the streets aimlessly, almost getting hit by cars.

19\. ive been harrased in restaurants by homeless people that come in and want my food.

20\. shopping carts full of trash, parked on the sidewalk every day.

Seattle decriminilizing drugs is one thing. But decriminilizing these kinds of petty crimes has turned pioneer square into something shameful and dangerous.

In my opinion, the city should not decriminilize drugs until AFTER the facilities (rehab and involuntary mental health institutions) are in place.

The non-drug related crimes should not be tolerated either way, and what Dan Satterberg prosecutes/charges with regards to repeat offenders is criminal in itself. His personal agenda is putting the public at risk and he should resign immediately.

</comment><comment><USER48> Since people are objecting to "figured out", we replaced the title with a more neutral sentence from the article body.

</comment><comment><USER49> I live in Portland, OR and have been to Seattle many times. This article is disingenuous -- homelessness and hard drug use are blights on these two rapidly growing cities.

I'm deeply critical of our criminal justice system and feel that we need a complete revamping of who and why we criminalize. Instead of stop and frisk like tacits that disproportionately affect minorities we need to refocus our police and penitentiary efforts on bringing these folks into a facility specifically designed to wean them off drugs and rehabilitate.

</comment><comment><USER50> lol the passed out addicts I pass every day, the piles of needles, the shit, the broken car windows, and the constant sound of either police or ambulance sirens would beg to differ.

</comment><comment><USER30> Optics aside, it seems like the obvious solution is to give people a free supply of safe drugs and a safe place to use them.

Drug users would be better off because their supply would be safe and they wouldn't need to resort to crime to pay for it. Current supervised consumption sites have also been extremely successful at preventing overdose deaths and somewhat successful at directing users who want treatment to the available resources.

The public would be better off because of the same crime reduction, as well as the reduction of violence and disorder stemming from black markets for illegal drugs. Public use would become so much more of a hassle than the legal alternative that it would likely disappear.

The government would be better off because acquiring currently-illegal drugs legally is super cheap (most of them literally grow on trees, or at least plants), and is almost certainly vastly cheaper than the current prohibition strategy.

The obvious problems:

\- No one is going to want a consumption site anywhere near their neighborhood. \- Some number of people who would otherwise quit might continue to use if it were cheap and easy. \- Something along the lines of "I'd love to sit around all day watching TV and drinking beer but I have bills to pay and I don't want my taxes paying for some low-life to get high."

</comment><comment><USER51> Seattle should consider instituting Outpatient Commitment [1] if they haven't already... it could be a good middle ground between throwing addicts in jail and letting them walk free with no obligations.

Drug addiction is a health problem, not a criminal one, but decriminalizing only works in conjunction with a strong mental health care system; judging by the comments here, it sounds like Seattle might be lacking in that area (and they're probably not the only city with this problem).

Deinstitutionalization [2] was a good idea in theory, but the execution seems to have been botched.

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

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

</comment><comment><USER52> Anecdotally, Seattle PD has been more aggressive about going after dealers in the last few months. This has led to more turf wars between gangs and a spike in gun violence in parts of the city as they fight to fill the power vacuum. Not great, but it does indicate that the police have put a dent in the distribution network.

</comment><comment><USER53> There is a lot going on in these comments. I feels like I've stepped back into /r/seattle (where redditors of Seattle seem to just hate all homeless people).

There is a lot going on here. First, there are a lot of homeless. Housing is sky rocketing and many people cannot afford to live anywhere close to where they can find work. The tech community there basically waves there hands and just says, "You can't afford to live here as a barista, well then you just gotta do the 1~2 hour bus/car commute in order to make me coffee. Sucks to be you."

Many of the other issues people are listing, aren't about drugs. They are about the homeless.

Second, people are talking about the other petty crime that goes with drugs: people stealing to get money for drugs. Violent crime and theft certainly don't need to be normalized. Chicago's recent DA's office has been criticized of not being hard enough on kids who commit crimes; which leads to more things like carjackings and even more violent stuff (knowing they might not face charges). That's a different issue -- although tangentially related and can't be ignored.

Portugal is a great example of a country where they try real treatment and help for people struggling with addiction. It's a better example of what happens with these policies long term. From what I've read and heard, it's mostly positive.

I personally knew people in my home town who stood in line at 5am on Mondays to get their methadone for the week. Treatment programs/rehab are for the rich -- often costing $2k ~ $5k out of pocket. Movie stars go to treatment. There need to be more treatment options that are affordable for those most in need of them. Drug treaming in America is just as shameful as the rest of our totally broken health care system.

[https://fightthefuture.org/article/returning-to-america- and-...](https://fightthefuture.org/article/returning-to-america-and-the- unaffordable-care-act/)

</comment><comment><USER54> San Francisco beat them to it. People openly shoot up heroin and and smoke meth and nothing happens. I see the same people often right in front of BART escalators selling drugs. It's created a situation where cops claim crime is going down because the numbers are going down, but that's because they just ignore the problem and don't report what's going on. California legalized hard drugs with Prop 57 and Prop 47 allows people to sell $1000 a day and it's just a citation. So now there are multiple blocks where tweakers and junkies are selling stole luggage from breaking into rental cars and robbing tourists... Welcome to hell. Cops only give speeding tickets and enforce laws against normal folks. San Francisco is a miserable place for normal folks.

</comment><comment><USER55> The war on drug users -very profitable for private jailers - certainly failed society. A real 'war on drugs' would mean serious jailtime and fines for kingpins up the supply ladder. Until that becomes palatable, it makes little sense to ruin the lives of their victims.

A recent story in WaPo suggests that ball may be rolling. Author interviewed here:

[https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?stor...](https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=753114950)

</comment><comment><USER56> Gloucester, MA has been doing this for at least 4 years.

[https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/jmaxj7/this-new- england-t...](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/jmaxj7/this-new-england-town- has-a-groundbreaking-new-way-to-deal-with-opioid-overdose-506)

</comment><comment><USER57> Selective enforcement of the law, is not in effect decriminalizing.

</comment><comment><USER58> One has to wonder if the softening of the public stance on drug use is leading to more drug users which are leading to more homelessness.

</comment><comment><USER59> [http://archive.is/xMFni](http://archive.is/xMFni)

</comment><comment><USER60> A trick for getting by the paywall is to click the "stop" button on the browser before the page fully loads.

</comment><comment><USER61> Was Bunny Colvin ahead of his time?

</comment><comment><USER62> [https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/08/23/opin...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/08/23/opinion/sunday/opioid- crisis-drug-seattle.amp.html)

This link above might bypass the paywall.

</comment><comment><USER63> Haven't been here a while and the first 2 links I clicked are walled. Seems like shilling sites to the front-page of HN might be a decent business.

</comment><comment><USER64> TLDR: by letting mentally disturbed addicts roam the streets with impunity, shunning social services, assaulting toddlers[0].

0\. [https://mynorthwest.com/1458667/seattle-offender-coffee- todd...](https://mynorthwest.com/1458667/seattle-offender-coffee-toddler- calderon/)

<comment><USER65> "Some of them, I'm sure, are good people."

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> "Increasingly there is global recognition that drugs are better addressed as a health challenge than as a law enforcement issue."

That's pretty rad.

</comment><comment><USER67> Sure, since this "rule of law" thing is going so well for the city /s

</comment><comment><USER68> Seattle is a poster child city for what NOT to do. Your politicians need to take their experiments someplace else. I was horrified at how terrible that city has become since I last was there.

Now, if i go there, you are allowing these drugged out zombies to steal from me and harass me? I don't understand, I really do not.

</comment><comment><USER69> Hmm, a headline with an extreme claim that seems completely unbelievable to anyone in the Pacific Northwest? I'm sure this is a legitimate article headline and not just clickbait, so I'm going to move my mouse cursor right on up there, expecting a rewarding, enlightening, and satisfying use of my time.

</comment><comment><USER70> > "You've got a guy shooting heroin on the street, and the cop is supposed to > say, 'You O.K.?'" grumbled one law enforcement officer in Seattle.

As progressive as some are here, the NIMBYism (see other locals that this opinion piece has riled up in the thread) and bad apples on the police force spoiling the whole bunch are just as bad as anywhere else.

Another anecdote to add to the quote: walking up 12th Ave (Cap Hill) midday on a Sunday, some friends and I passed by a dude sleeping or passed out on the sidewalk and two oncoming walking cops simultaneously. One looked down and asked, "rough night?" and laughed with his partner.

In case it's not clear, this wasn't a friendly offer of assistance, this was a drive by insult (they didn't break stride at all) that made it clear that if it weren't for progressive laws about occupying public space they'd be violently removing the guy from the sidewalk.

<comment><USER70> For folks down this far, the prevailing hive mind in this thread is why when someone asks what I do for work here I try to distance myself from the rest of you as far as I can.

<comment><USER71> I fully agree with you. This insane attitude of "my ill-gotten capital is worth more than your existence" is pathetic and sad.

<comment><USER70> Thanks man.

What's especially insane about it is that most of the folks commenting and voting are members of the working class.

Sure, they might have ill-gotten capital in the form of a deed (ignoring the likelihood that there's a lien on that deed) on a tiny parcel of stolen/colonized land or vested stock in the monopolist they work for, but that's a pittance in the scheme of things. They still need to sell their labor in order to meet their needs for food, shelter, community participation, etc.

We need to find a way to reach these folks. Because this thread is evidence that they think they're significantly different from the people without housing they see on the street here every day.

<comment><USER72> In the USSR, not working while being able was a crime that, although rarely enforced, carried huge social stigma; and, if you were an "undesirable" on the level of the subset of the drug addicted homeless in Seattle, neither the police nor the class-conscious workers would treat you like a human being. You'd be in forced treatment or jail (after being beat up, possibly) in a blink. An attempted clear delineation of the working class and the underclass (based on the class consciousness where the "parasites" group isn't only composed of the rich), is one of the few good things about "real leftism"... I wish the American leftists picked it up. In the USSR you could have observed a lot of different people in the same exact circumstances (or as close as the government could get them to be - standard apartments, jobs, education, ...) making completely different life choices, to really appreciate that. There were much fewer oppression/inequality/... excuses, but the result was much the same.

There's no need to have empathy towards the underclass silenced by tech money, or whatever. I never had it to start with and never will; and I feel like lots of the people you are trying to "reach" are like that to a large degree, it's just not a fashionable thing to articulate clearly these days. I personally feel completely fine voting for Sanders and other economic progressives, supporting free healthcare, public education, low-income housing, etc. while simultaneously having negative empathy towards habitual criminals and underclass in general. These are not mutually exclusive, as far as I'm concerned they are mutually reinforcing.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


A Google Tablet: Why the Android Community Needs It - <AUTHOR> http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/A-Google-Tablet-10-Reasons-Why-the-Android-Community-Needs-It-570865/

<comment><USER2> Android doesn't need a Google tablet, it needs a _great_ tablet, regardless of who makes it. And I don't see it happening anytime soon.

Android tablets aren't terrible. They're fast, usable, and some of them have real advantages over iPads. But they miss the point of the iPad market: _making computing fun_. In the hands of regular people, Android tablets feel heavy, clunky, techy, okay-I-guess. If they were significantly cheaper, people might not care, and buy the most affordable movie/game thing for the kids. But they're the same price, and often more.

And of course, that's aside from the mess that is the ecosystem. I don't think apps are a big deal to regular people, but games are, and so are books, movies and music. These things exist on Android, but both the selection and the experience can't compare to iTunes (which in my mind, should be a relatively low bar).

No one wants them to put out a really good tablet more than me. But the tablet market is incredibly different from the phone market, and neither Google nor its hardware partners seem to be chasing the right things.

<comment><USER3> I disagree here: There is nothing heavy, clunky or techy about Samsung's Galaxy Tab series. The devices are slim, light, durable and they look stunning. Android 4.0 also makes much more sense as a tablet operating system than iOS. IMHO of course.

The reason they do no sell any of these things is simply that consumers need a good reason why they should not buy the default that everyone else is buying.

The iPad has the mindshare of both consumers and developers, and making a tablet that is thinner than the ipad doesn't convince anyone to switch. Well, price does.

<comment><USER2> Disclaimer: I've not held every Android tablet in my hands, so my opinion is based on general impressions of many non-Apple tablets. And I'm only talking about the bigger tablets; in the 7" space, Androids compete more with e-readers than the iPad.

I just checked, and I had no idea that the 10" Tabs beat the iPad on weight. If it wasn't for the fact that I prefer 4:3, I'd be strongly tempted. And credit where it's deserved: Android 3+ is much better at tailoring the environment to a tablet rather than being a modified smartphone OS.

Nonetheless, I can't really picture my mom using a Tab. That may be an unfair assumption, but that's part of my point: the Android ecosystem is not creating the right impression with its target market of people who are sick of their computing experience being computer-y. (And of course, the price issue is also huge for a luxury item like a tablet.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Not mentioned is the critical issue of pricing. Every manufacturer can and has made an expensive tablet. There are a boatload that are more expensive than Apple's offerings.

The widely held belief is that Amazon's $200 effort is sold a few dollars below cost. It is also fairly cheesy hardware and construction.

If Google make a cheap tablet it is also going to be a mediocre tablet. The pundits all write as though what will be produced with be both cheap and good quality/featured. I'll bet a cheap/mediocre device would actually end up benefiting Amazon (better "ecosystem" for the same price) and Apple (may as well spend $100 or so more and get quality).

It would be more interesting if Google had a range of 3 tablets in price and quality/functionality since the conversation then becomes which Google tablet to buy.

</comment><comment><USER5> IMO, the issue is not the tablets themselves but the apps.

The thing Google should focus on, is promoting good apps, they're are currently doing some promoting (e.g. staff picks, top developer), but a developer's choice when it comes to this type of promoting is limited to hope. What they need is something like the Apple's approval system, but not to the extreme of "the app is either approved or denied". The developer can pay a fee to get his app reviewed (UX, performance, ...etc) and when "approved", it gets a symbol (check mark, star, whatever) and put on a category of "promoted" apps. This will probably encourage more developers to put more effort, and more users to trust more the quality of promoted apps.

</comment><comment><USER6> Kindle Fire <3</comment>


Ask HN: Was Silicon Valley created out of luck or out of work? - <AUTHOR>

I've been spending some time talking to some leaders in my area.  They are a political and economic force in my area - highly regarded and esteemed by millions in my area.
Their main argument that Silicon Valley came to existence was because of a lot of luck and money from the government.  There is no difference in the people that work there from the people that work where they live.
What do you guys think created SV?  Did it come out of a lucky government grant or did it come out of the hard work of the people that lived there?
In my personal view, while Silicon Valley did get some federal funds early on, the vast majority of it's creation was from it's people.  People who did everything they could to actually try and make the world a better place vs just finding another job.  While it does get obsessed with odd stuff (like optimizing for ad clicks), for the most part, the entire place eventually finds its way to change the world for the better. <comment><USER2> There is a good documentary about how SV came about called, "A Secret History of Silicon Valley", its available online to watch. (<http://youtu.be/ZTC_RxWN_xo>)

In my opinion it is a combination of the people are here along with the location, weather and honestly Stanford.

I also think there is a feedback loop. As more people come to SV it makes it a more attractive place which in turn brings more people.</comment>


Google Stadia could sidestep latency issues by predicting button presses - <AUTHOR> https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/351864/Google_Stadia_could_sidestep_latency_issues_by_predicting_button_presses.php <comment><AUTHOR> >Bakar explained Stadia will utilize something called "negative latency" to sidestep any potential lag between player and server.

>Bakar uses the term to describe a predicted latency buffer that will result in lag mitigation measures such as rapidly increasing frames per second to reduce latency between player input and display, or perhaps even predicting which button a player will hit next.

>"Ultimately, we think in a year or two we'll have games that are running faster and feel more responsive in the cloud than they do locally," Bakar told Edge, "regardless of how powerful the local machine is."</comment>


RIP HTTP - <AUTHOR> http://http.rip/ <comment><USER2> I agree, encrypting a regular web page seems overkill in many cases. Plain HTTP along with a method for signing should be sufficient enough.

</comment><comment><USER3> can someone explain the complexity issue for setting up HTTPS for a large company/service? I setup nginx/letsEncrypt fairly quickly last night, it was my first time messing with nginx + the node applications its running.

<comment><USER4> Not all https are created equal. I am no expert but I understand that you need to tweak and twist your setup to not merely serve your site securely, but also ensure that the latest protocols, cyphers, libraries, etc are used; which means a deeper understanding of your web server software and OS is required.</comment></comment>


James Randi: The King of Debunking - <AUTHOR> http://www.sfweekly.com/2009-08-26/news/the-demystifying-adventures-of-the-amazing-randi/1

<comment><USER2> Here's the print version in a single page - <http://www.sfweekly.com/content/printVersion/1644188>

Solid intro to Randi. If you're not familiar with him, it's well worth learning more - even watching some of the videos (many on YouTube) where people vie for the prize.

If it's your kind of thing, I also recommend www.ratbags.com/rsoles for all things skeptical with a slightly Aussie bent.

</comment><comment><USER3> > _He has intestinal cancer and may not have long to live._

That's sad. James Randi is just simply incredible. All the best to him.

<comment><USER4> We should pray for him ....

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> >[Randi] decided he would make it clear at the end of every show that he was simply using illusions. But he was disturbed when audience members would insist he had paranormal powers — ironically ignoring the only bit of truth he'd spat out all night. People seemed to _want_ to believe in the supernatural.

I think that says and explains a lot.

</comment><comment><USER6> The problem with Randi and people like Michael Shermer is that they are overly skeptical. I find these people to be pseudoskeptics similar to the other ones with false beliefs the pseudoscientists. Both of them spit out a bit of truth, but a lot of garbage, so I don't care about neither groups. The pseudoskeptics want to believe their own nonsense as much as the pseudoscientists believe theirs. That being said, there's a lot more pseudoscientists than pseudoskeptics... i think.</comment>