How do dat:// sites interact with servers? - <AUTHOR> https://pfrazee.hashbase.io/blog/dat-and-servers <comment><USER2> _" Cross-origin resource sharing (CORS) is a policy that prevents a webpage from connecting to a server, unless that server has given that webpage permission to connect."_

CORS only applies to requests for restricted resources like fonts or XHR requests that aren't simple GETs and POSTs.

 _" So, while this is typically not possible: foo.com/index.html ---GET---> bar.com/pic.jpg"_

Typically this is possible. Images, stylesheets, scripts, iframes, and videos aren't subject to CORS.

 _" You can solve it by routing the request through your host server: foo.com/index.html ---GET---> foo.com ---GET---> bar.com/pic.jpg_

Not necessary, the client's browser can get bar.com/pic.jpg just fine all by itself.

 _" Pinning tools like Hashbase and Homebase help keep dat:// sites online"_

If you publish a dat archive, how do you notify Hashbase to pin it? Can you do it through dat?

To keep my dat alive with Hashbase, do I have to set up an account, provide and confirm an email address, link a credit card, etc.?

Are centralized servers, financial institutions and surveillance all required components of the anonymous, decentralized, peer-to-peer web?

<comment><AUTHOR> > Typically this is possible. Images aren't subject to CORS.

You're right, that was a misleading example. I changed it to data.json to be more clear.

> If you publish a dat archive, how do you notify Hashbase to pin it? Can you > do it through dat? Does it require setting up an account on Hashbase, > providing an email address, linking a credit card, etc.?

The "Pinning" system is very similar to Git remotes. You can pin using any endpoint that complies with [https://www.datprotocol.com/deps/0003-http- pinning-service-a...](https://www.datprotocol.com/deps/0003-http-pinning- service-api/). So, similar to a git remote, you do need some kind of authentication with the pinning service - unless somebody writes one that's open for anybody to push to.

The UX flow will be similar to a git remote as well, you use an HTTPS to tell the server to sync the dat. So, it's an explicit user action.

We've got two nodejs implementations of the pinning service API you can self- deploy, [https://github.com/beakerbrowser/hashbase](https://github.com/beakerbrowser/hashbase) and [https://github.com/beakerbrowser/homebase](https://github.com/beakerbrowser/homebase), and then we run a Hashbase instance at hashbase.io

<comment><USER2> >> Typically this is possible. Images aren't subject to CORS.

> You're right, that was a misleading example. I changed it to data.json to be > more clear.

CORS doesn't preflight GET, POST or HEAD methods unless they have custom headers or content-type other than application/x-www-form-urlencoded, multipart/form-data or text/plain.

So a simple GET bar.com/data.json works just fine in today's browsers.

[https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/HTTP/CORS](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CORS)

<comment><AUTHOR> I'd be happy to be corrected on this, but here's what I understand:

While fetch doesn't preflight for GET, it does require an Access-Control- Allow-Origin header. You can specify `no-cors` in the mode to circumvent this, but then you cant access the response body ([https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/API/Request/mod...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/API/Request/mode))

<comment><USER2> Here's an example using your own site.

Open the console in an empty Chrome window and paste this:

      fetch('https://pfrazee.hashbase.io/feed.xml')
        .then(response => response.text())
        .then(str => console.log(str))

You'll get your RSS feed, no CORS tricks required.

<comment><AUTHOR> My site has the Access-Control-Allow-Origin:* header set. Try the same thing on the Beaker site in the devtools for [https://example.com](https://example.com).

        fetch('https://beakerbrowser.com/dat.json')
          .then(response => response.text())
          .then(str => console.log(str))

It should fail

<comment><USER3> It is failing for me because of the content security policy, which is a different thing.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's the case on HN. Example.com doesnt have CSPs setup so it's CORS that causes the issue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> >For each new origin that the site contacts, a permission prompt will be presented

I don't think this is an adequate approach to security. When the browser presents me with a prompt to load data from a third party site, I don't know what data is being loaded, what it's being used for, or whether this prompt is expected (as part of the regular functioning of the application) or unexpected (indicating that the application has been compromised, and I should navigate away from it).

In general, I've noticed that users react in one of two ways to these sorts of prompts. Naive users will blanket allow -- allowing all sites to access all of the capabilities of their browsers, regardless of the reason or necessity of that access. More sophisticated users will blanket deny. If it's not immediately apparent why a site needs the permission that it requests, that request will get denied, even if it's a valid requirement. Very very few users will think about why a site is requesting the permissions that it is requesting and consider those requests on a case by case basis.

</comment><comment><USER5> I like the ideas of dat and IPFS, but I can't quite understand the difference.

What I can understand, is, they use new protocols and this is an issue in the Web today. I think the only way they can succeed would be with some laws or misstakes by big corps that would drive customers away from them.

What I also liked was remoteStorage [0] it is a bit like localStorage, but the data is managed independendly from the application itself.

[0] [https://remotestorage.io/](https://remotestorage.io/)

<comment><USER6> There's a lot of similarities, as they are both peer-to-peer and decentralized.

I've mostly done Dat. I want to do a bit more IPFS.

Dat feels a bit more like git for files - you can create a local file archive using the command line tools, and it's a separate step to sync it to the peer- to-peer network. There's a global discovery service for advertising archive keys, but it doesn't work at the level of single files. It's very lightweight.

IPFS supports many of the same operations, but you're mostly interacting with a local gateway server which is continuously connected to the network. I believe IPFS tries to content hash every single file so they are de-duplicated globally.

<comment><USER5> Does anyone has build-in realtime features?

<comment><USER7> Hashes and append only logs are all not very good for realtime data because of the extra overhead that has to be calculated, but CRDTs are.

CRDTs naturally fit with P2P/decentralized topologies, and we've generalized them in [https://github.com/amark/gun](https://github.com/amark/gun) which is the most popular (8K+ stars) open source (MIT/Zlib/Apache2) realtime decentralized database.

It is running in production on P2P alternatives to Reddit and other apps, that have pushed over half a terabyte in a day.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's not incorrect to say that hashes and signatures add some overhead, but the question is whether the overhead is significant enough to matter for the usecase. Probably not.

Dat is realtime. You are notified about updates as soon as they are distributed. In Beaker, the files-archive API has a `watch()` method to do this. If you're accessing a dat files-archive, you're participating in the syncing swarm and so you'll receive those updates automatically.

You'll want to use a UDP socket if you're streaming a high volume of data with low latency requirements, for instance for a multiplayer FPS. But Dat has been used to stream live video, so it's probably real-time enough for most Web use- cases.

Small aside: Comparing Dat to CRDTs is apples to oranges. It's like comparing Javascript to B-Trees; they're not quite the same kind of technology. In fact, the new version of Dat uses CRDTs in order to allow multiple users to write to a files-archive.

<comment><USER7> When we met just a month or so ago you didn't tell me you were adding CRDTs!!! This is very exciting news. Dominic had mentioned a specific type of CRDT he had added (but wasn't generalized).

Append only logs have overhead that would make it a poor choice for most realtime applications, like GPS tracking, yes FPS games, google Docs, website creators, and many more. Basically any use case where data mutates.

In 2010 I used and built all my own custom event source system, I was the hugest proponent of this / append only logs. It was so futuristic. But 4 years in I hit all sorts of scaling problems and had to redesign everything from scratch and that is when I found CRDTs. On all accounts they are superior, in a mathematical or logical manner, because they are a superset to DAGs, immutable/append only logs, and many other popular data structures. Not apples and oranges.

<comment><USER6> I built a little side multiuser wiki side project that's actually using two levels of CRDTs... hyperdb (underneath hyperdrive) and then automerge on top of that. Sort of hard to explain the full design in a short entry, but you can play with it here:

[https://dat-tiddlywiki.glitch.me](https://dat-tiddlywiki.glitch.me)

The UX definitely needs some improvement, but it's just a personal project so far.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> Sol- Does the dat:// scheme have any history or did the developers of this Beaker browser invent it? Just curious since I haven't seen the protocol before.

<comment><USER8> It's been around for a year or so. I was wondering when it'd make it to HN. It's very nicely done but unfortunately the only implementations are in javascript.

<comment><AUTHOR> Rust implementation is in the works with grant funding, [https://github.com/datrs](https://github.com/datrs)

<comment><USER8> I'm not sure Rust is an especially great language for interop purposes or that the productivity will be high enough to keep up with the JavaScript implementation.

If you want to make a library with a C compatible API I'd be tempted to explore SubstrateVM. It can export C symbols to the generated standalone .so / .dll files, maybe you can even reuse some of the JS code, or failing that, a Java/Kotlin implementation would be compiled down to native code _or_ be usable from other scripting languages like Ruby.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Really neat to see beaker broswer support native P2P with progressive enhancements like github.com/beakerbrowser/hashbase providing the cute URL's we all like.

I'm sure hashbase.io will be blocked really quick, so it's important that the core P2P address system stay in the forefront. Transports also need to find many ways to communicate over https, shadowsocks, tor, DNS, and others.

</comment><comment><USER10> Doesn't answer your original question but I moved to syncthing from dat. It just works out of the box, no manual setup, and a very active community around it. Also opensource and in production for years with rave reviews, and being used in plenty of big scale production projects.

</comment><comment><USER11> I never understood how Beaker browser can act as a server listening on a port. It sounds like you always need relays on the internet because your router and ISP is gonna block all ports unless requested not to.

[https://www.scuttlebutt.nz/stories/design-challenge-avoid- ce...](https://www.scuttlebutt.nz/stories/design-challenge-avoid- centralization-and-singletons.html)

<comment><USER6> Firewalls are a pain.

UDP hole punching (using the UTP protocol) and the discovery network works a lot of the time.

Much of the people publishing public content for access by Beaker are using hashbase.io to "pin" the content and to act as a public peer, and those ports aren't behind a firewall, so the data can be directly replicated easily.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Articles like these would benefit from a link summarizing what that technology is about...

At least add to the title on HN something about what a dat:// link is :)

</comment><comment><USER13> I still wish these guys all the best, but if you want to start doing 3rd party like this then everything will eventually devolve like it did for the normal web. We do need a new web and way of moving information, but once you start directly connecting to servers they need to know who you are.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't hold this binary view that a "decentralized Web" has to avoid certain technologies. I believe we should aim to use peer-to-peer systems where it's impactful and practical, and in the rare case you do need a third-party server, there are things you can do to limit your dependence and make them easy to reconfigure.

That's our approach with Beaker. We use peer-to-peer systems as much as possible, and then plug in servers as minimally as possible.

<comment><USER13> I upvoted you and wish you all the best, but the core problem I see with this is that it makes it hard to make policy around.

If I'm making a new system or setting policy for a government or other high- security minded client (like a political campaign, military contractor, activist group, or private intelligence corp) I need off the shelf stuff with zero known attack surface OR I need to individual vet every single offering within that protocol suite. This is why you can email members that work for The Government of Ontario, but they won't click on links to non-whitelisted places. The attack surface when clicking a link is fucking huuuuuge (pdf 0days anyone?), while the attack surface for loading an email is much smaller.

There are a ton of interesting web-replacements that hackers are playing around with right now, but the one that wins for the next web is the one that lets stupid people do whatever they want without worrying. In my opinion, 3rd party means worrying, and in an ideal world it would go away.

The irony of this whole thing is that I'm actively arguing against my own long-term interests. A structural change of the kind I advocate for would dramatically reduce the profitability of being in either data science or cybersecurity; both fields I have a foot in. But I don't care.

Securing the flow of information between people is too important to humanity's long term survival.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah that's an interesting perspective. There are a lot of security issues that come into play when we start toying with how the Web platform works, and I'm somewhat curious whether all Websites should have a sort of "uninstalled" versus "installed" mode, where the uninstalled mode is basically able to do nothing. Then users have to go through an "install" flow to enable the riskier APIs.

I think one other area that the Web hasn't tapped into enough is using protocol/scheme identifiers to introduce strong guarantees to URLs. You can compose schemes with a '+', so I think if you wanted an "on click guarantee" that a site is going to have certain security properties, you might try something like:

http+safe://.../ dat+safe://.../

And then the site would load in a "safe mode" which, like the "uninstalled" mode, is extremely limited in what it can do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> dat://pfrazee.hashbase.io/blog/dat-and-servers

</comment><comment><USER15> I had to read the title 10 times before I realized it wasn't someone asking: "how do dat?"</comment>


iPhone 4S Teardown - <AUTHOR> http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone-4S-Teardown/6610/1

<comment><USER2> For those who don't watch the markets, check out triquant (NASDAQ:TQNT) <http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=TQNT>

The rally seems to stem from the fact that iPhone 4S uses some triquant chips

<comment><USER3> Haven't all iPhones used TriQuant amplifiers?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I hope they teardown camera assembly also and give some details on new Apple designed optics.

<comment><USER5> I'm hoping for a review from a real photographer's site.

<comment><USER6> Sorry, I missed the up arrow and voted you down by mistake. I'd love to see such a review as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> So, How much memory is inside?

I didn't see anything on the memory specs on the teardown :S

<comment><USER8> I believe Gruber said it still has 512MB.

<comment><USER9> Gruber is basing that on something mentioned by id when they were talking about the 4S, and mentioned the 512MB mark.

<comment><USER10> It was actually Epic that said 512mb. The guys that created Infinity Blade. Not a big deal but figured it's something worth pointing out for people looking for more information.

<comment><USER9> Oops, you're right. That's what I meant :P</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Sup: Simple Ansible-like deployment tool for multiple SSH hosts - <AUTHOR> https://pressly.github.io/sup/ <comment><USER2> Not to be confused with "sup" the email indexing software.

[https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/sup](https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/sup)

</comment><comment><USER3> Very similar to what I wrote about a year ago.

[https://github.com/Nessphoro/DeliveryTruck](https://github.com/Nessphoro/DeliveryTruck)

</comment><comment><USER4> So how does it compare to Ansible?

<comment><USER5> Or more important - why use it over Ansible? Ansible has some warts, but it also has 1000s of plays you can reuse for free.

<comment><AUTHOR> Speed. Zero learning curve. DYI rather then searching for thousands of playbooks. Sup is meant for developers and plays very well with Docker.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Neat.

So does it have SUPDUP support? ;)

<comment><USER7> I presume the linked article is the Sup Doc.

<comment><USER6> ??? Um, what does that have to do with SUPDUP?</comment></comment></comment>


Black economic gains reversed in Great Recession - <AUTHOR> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Black-economic-gains-reversed-apf-625380746.html

<comment><USER2> Misleading statistic alert: Super rich people happen to be white.

Come on folks, something usable in a statistic that doesn't just make us groan.

<comment><AUTHOR> Learn the difference between median and average. It will change your life. :-)

<comment><USER2> Yup. The concept of the median and percentiles is flabbergasting to people who've not heard of averages other than the mean.

<comment><USER3> Er, um...he was suggesting you learn the difference, but I think you simply did not read the article carefully enough. The statistics are not misleading, as the article properly uses the median, not the mean.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Lets not turn a class issue into a racial issue, while the stats are true, that $1 of white household wealth falls to very few white families (primarily the Goldmans, Sachs, Morgans, Bushes, etc). In 2008 the US decided that those that pay tax (those who work) should bail out those who do not (those who are rich).

Why not have a trickle up effect where the gov't lets people stay in their homes, and tells the banks to eat it, and folds them up because they didn't meet their capital requirements.

Why should we let real people go bankrupt and bail out fictional entities. If there is money for JP Morgan, AIG and GS there is money for the people mentioned in the article. Open up the Fed Discount Window to real people and close it to the banksters.

<comment><USER5> I prefer a different trickle up effect. Instead of letting irresponsible home buyers remain in their homes, why not redistribute those homes to responsible renters who wanted to buy but couldn't afford at bubble prices?

This helps the same number of people, but avoids the moral hazard that your scheme creates.

<comment><USER2> The moral hazard of a bank bailout, protecting people against being shot in the street for losing all of someone savings, the lying on loan applications encouraged by bank officers, the promises of low fixed rate permanent loans/re-fi that never materialized, the shoddily done foreclosure apps, the false bundling of securities?

Sounds like "letting judges adjust the principle on mortgages" is step one to avoiding that moral hazard. Hopefully we don't have people feeling strongly enough about moral hazard that they shoot the guys who sold the "safe" investments in Mortgage backed securities.</comment></comment></comment>


A Non-Conformist's Guide to Success in a Conformist World (2014) - <AUTHOR> http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2014/07/a_non-conformis.html <comment><USER2> This guy sounds less like a non-conformist and more like a _really_ self- centred sociopath. I don't necessarily say that in a derogatory way though, and most of his advice, if pragmatic, sounds unsurprising. I think it boils down to "don't be a tool to other people's faces".

I mean wow, this quote: "Treat your family fairly, but remember that relatives - especially older relatives - are the lords of empty threats. Despite all their criticism, they probably love you too much to do more than nag you." One would think he's doing a hostile takeover of a company!

<comment><USER3> I've come to exactly that conclusion about my family. I love them but frankly their concern for me translates into very little benefit for anyone. Also their criticisms were largely born of themselves and served primarily to limit me.

<comment><USER4> Same, but I'll take it one step further.

I have never had an actual _conversation_ with my own mother (single parent home) who is now in her 70s. Every attempt at a discussion has always ended up without her actually trying to listen and heaping on (berating) criticism that is either coming from her own shortcomings/fears (and she's a very fearful person) or she'll interrupt me and heap on criticism based on what she thinks I'm going to say. At least that's how it's been since I was too big for her to continue to beat me.

There hasn't been a shred of concern for my own interests and goals and in my 30s I don't expect that to change from her. She's been trying to break up my older brother's marriage for near 20 years (after successfully driving his previous partner away and a few of mine). She wasn't invited to my brother's wedding and if I ever meet someone that I care about again, she will not get to meet them. Ever.

If I were more cynical, I would say that every time our goals aren't lock-step with her goals for us, she makes a concerted effort for us to fail, but I imagine that she really thinks she has the best of intentions. She is just crazy.

So sure, love your family, but that doesn't mean your family is good for you. If your family isn't good for you, limit their ability to do damage in your life. If you can't do that, cut them off.

<comment><USER5> To you and other people in similar situations:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/raisedbynarcissists](https://www.reddit.com/r/raisedbynarcissists)

a community of (and for) people dealing with similar problems.

(Not diagnosing your mother, but, let's say, a lot of actions look familiar)

<comment><USER6> Also check out this less well known disorder (did not become official because of unrelated political reasons): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadistic_personality_disorder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadistic_personality_disorder)

My mother isn't entirely like busterarm's, but I recognize plenty of similarities, maybe mine has more self-discipline.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> What exactly makes you a non-conformist?

        - Do you wear your pants on your chest and shirts on your legs?
        - Do you actively proclaim that pedophilia is perfectly acceptable?

In my opinion, non-conformist is just another label, which sounds awfully conformist when you think about it.

Some people conform for stupid reasons (e.g. a need to feel accepted), but sometimes you find a group of like-minded individuals with similar interests. What then? Do you conform or not? What if you earnestly have the same interests?

Simple solution: How about just do/like whatever you like, and don't try to make everyone think you're a special snowflake? Because the majority of people in the world frankly don't give a shit.

You like 70's music? You like trashy horror flicks? You like furry art? Good for you. Continue to like it and stop trying to cast it as a radical act.

<comment><USER3> "How about just do/like whatever you like, and don't try to make everyone think you're a special snowflake"

So... be a non-conformist? A non-conformist maintains a notion of themselves as such not because they're trying to be a special snow-flake. They need a concept with which to analyze their problems. It's actually _really_ hard to just do what you like and get away with it. Like you said, "the majority of people in the world frankly don't give a shit." No one out there is trying to figure out how to reward you for something they don't understand. Even if it's insanely valuable. There will always be rewards for simply adapting yourself to an existing concept. Anyone not doing that pays a significant penalty for which the conformist world is entirely ignorant. They won't care and they won't help you deal with it. Hence, non-conformists converge-on but don't necessarily conform-to this stereotype. The one in the corner complaining about the conformists.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> The most conformist tendency I've noticed on the planet is this: that every single person on it considers himself a nonconformist.

Most of us just congratulate ourselves on our nonconformist privately though, not publically, like this guy.

<comment><USER9> :) True. Apple and Obama you could say are the gold standard.

<comment><USER3> Apple actually tends to inspire conformity and not to practice it.

<comment><USER10> Apple inspires conformity to their own non-conformism :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Ironic that every author pic on that site seems to show at least a dress shirt, and commonly a suit. (I'm sure it looks nice, but such clothing undeniably is used to signal conformity, and these authors conform to a dress code.)

Then, "Most workplaces are not democracies. This is very good news..." advising: "make yourself invaluable to key superiors, who will in turn protect and promote you" and "Spend the first year of any job convincing your employer he was right to hire you..."

(He's right, workplaces are unusually totalitarian: top-down dominance structures. Hence advice to pleasure your boss.)

These right-wing "libertarians" are conformists. To recruit, they clumsily imitate social justice movements (like anarchism) where people actually do challenge the status quo. Their arguments against democracy rely on misconceptions like "US is a democracy"; or "democracy=voting", instead of say consensus.

<comment><USER12> Yes, I saw the stock photo with the suit/tie. But then the text does mention shorts/pumps. So I imagine that the stock photo is an example of conforming in small details.

Quote from item 12: _" Modern societies are huge, anonymous, and forgetful."_. Perhaps not so much in the future?

Item 15 was lovely. I'm off out now on a nice autumn day in the UK to find some awesomeness. There is Rugby, and the trees are turning colour.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> tl;dr: choose your battles; work hard; kiss ass. Doesn't feel very non- conformist to me. However i do like his appreciation of the role of luck, although even that was cursory. All a bit self-congratulatory, and not much to surprise.

<comment><USER14> > _tl;dr: choose your battles; work hard; kiss ass. Doesn 't feel very non- > conformist to me._

It's the Horatio Alger school of non-conformism...

<comment><USER15> That gave me a chuckle. I see a little Machiavelli and some Sun Tzu in there too though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> How exactly is this guy a non-conformist more than anyone else? Not liking sport at school?

<comment><USER17> If you read his blog regularly, you'll realize he is an advocate of a variety controversial ideas: open borders, natalism, the educational signalling theory, the idea that how you raise your children (within normal non-abusive bounds) is irrelevant.

<comment> vezzy-fnord _natalism_

I was under the impression the opposite was the controversial idea.

<comment><USER17> I'm not aware of very many "serious people" advocating having as many kids as possible on the grounds that children are fun.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The importance of non-conformity is basically zero.

If you enjoy something, does it matter how many or how few feel the same?

Sure, it's nice when you have shared interests with others, but it's doesn't matter if they're not. Your interests do not have to define who you are, do not have to define how you interact with others. Preconceived notions of worth based on popularity will only cloud your view of what's enjoyable to you.

<comment><USER14> > _If you enjoy something, does it matter how many or how few feel the same?_

It can be a sign of how original your thoughts are and whether you were just conditioned to enjoy that something, plus whether there's a huge universe of other things there (even more enjoyful and/or benefitional) that you were not told about as you just go with the flow of other people/fashion/etc.

<comment><USER18> "It can be a sign of how original your thoughts are"

I'm not trying to be intentionally difficult, but what does it matter how original an idea is, why measure it in that way? Is the idea satisfying, that's more interesting.

<comment><USER14> Original as in "yours", not as in "unique".

And it's important if you believe that living your life as a non-questioning- anything person that automatically follows what everybody else does and doesn't explore other avenues is not the optimal way to live it.

If you don't believe that, then it doesn't matter how original an idea is. Heck, in that case, as long as you're OK with it, then doesn't even matter if you're living in some religious sect, conditioned by some BS-artist leader to do whatever he wants.

Originallity is something for us people who believe that finding the "real you" etc is worth it to worry about. If this sounds circular it's because it is. Ultimately lifestyle choices come to a value judgement not dependent upon other things.

<comment><USER18> "Originallity is something for us people who believe that finding the "real you" etc is worth it to worry about."

Worth worrying about? Nothing is worth worrying about.

I think we both agree that it's good to have an open mind, but we disagree on the importance of originality. I don't care if an idea is mine or yours or anyone else's, I don't care if it's the first time anyone has thought about it or whether it has been thought of a million times before, the only question for me is is the idea satisfying, is it an idea I enjoy.

There's a difference between a compelling idea and the source of that idea. If I've come up with compelling ideas before I don't see that as 'me' or part of me. Genius can come from anywhere and from anyone, it's not a measure of your worth as a human being. The best you can do to encourage it is to be open to it, to prepare yourself for ideas that are new to you.

<comment><USER14> > _Worth worrying about? Nothing is worth worrying about._

If we start from that premise, death, life being meaningless etc, maybe. But in that case replying to my comment is not worth it either, and me replying to yours even more so.

So clearly we either take this conversation as people who think there is stuff worth worrying about, or we don't have it at all, and go either have fun or kill ourselves.

> _the only question for me is is the idea satisfying, is it an idea I enjoy._

Would you be OK to be confined for the rest on your life in a hospital bed, being fed a drug that would make you enjoy your every moment tremendously? From your perspective you'd be totally happy. You might not enjoy some part of the idea now, but you'd totally enjoy it when given that drug. Would you go with that?

If not, then you agree with me that enjoyment is not the be all end all in life, so whether an idea is "satisfying" is not "the only question".

> _There 's a difference between a compelling idea and the source of that > idea. If I've come up with compelling ideas before I don't see that as 'me' > or part of me. Genius can come from anywhere and from anyone, it's not a > measure of your worth as a human being._

Again, I'm not talking about original as in "unique"/genius or whatever, but in original as in "autentic" (yours).

The distinction between taking your own decisions or merely and with little resistance and pause following fashion or what your father told you or what the official at the church of scientology or the cool kid at school told you to do...

<comment><USER18> "If we start from that premise, death, life being meaningless etc, maybe."

I believe life is what you make it, the value you get from it is directly related to what you put into it. So in some sense, life can be meaningless if you choose to make it so, and life can be meaningful if you choose to make it so. Some people don't like that view, which is fine, variety is the spice of life.

"But in that case replying to my comment is not worth it either, and me replying to yours even more so."

I'm not debating with you because I'm worried, I'm debating because it's fun.

"So clearly we either take this conversation as people who think there is stuff worth worrying about, or we don't have it at all, and go either have fun or kill ourselves."

So the alternatives to worry are to either have fun or kill yourself? I think you're a little confused about what self-reflection is, self-reflection and worry are not the same thing. For example, it's possible to self-reflect and laugh at the absurdity of your own views, it's possible to self-reflect without passing strong judgement, etc... .

"Would you be OK to be confined for the rest on your life in a hospital bed, being fed a drug that would make you enjoy your every moment tremendously? From your perspective you'd be totally happy. You might not enjoy some part of the idea now, but you'd totally enjoy it when given that drug. Would you go with that?

If not, then you agree with me that enjoyment is not the be all end all in life, so whether an idea is "satisfying" is not "the only question"."

I find it interesting that you mix satisfaction with falsehood. However, if you change the question to... Would you want to live a life where you regularly encountered moments that were genuinely satisfying/fascinating, then the answer would be yes, I would want that, I believe that'd be fun.

"Again, I'm not talking about original as in "unique"/genius or whatever, but in original as in "autentic" (yours).

The distinction between taking your own decisions or merely and with little resistance and pause following fashion or what your father told you or what the official at the church of scientology or the cool kid at school told you to do..."

Let me put it to you like this, can an idea that started from someone else be just as good for you as one that started from you?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Americans believe in myths about their non-conformist culture. Fact is that all cultures are highly conformist. And Americans are highly conformist in their highly consumerist culture that expresses non-conformity as a key aspect of the culture as a way to stimulate thought and creative destruction. However, at the same time there are huge barriers to taking full advantage of the non-conformist culture which is mainly money. To get money you have to conform, and to get more money you have to conform even more... while at the same time being individualistic and non-conformist in your thinking.

<comment><USER20> Conformist lets you hit 6 figures easily. Going beyond, non-conformists have the advantage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I couldn't tell if this was real or satire until the last sentence. I mean, it reads like not very subtle satire - like a 14 year old snowflake on tumblr wrote it. But people in the comments there and here are taking it seriously. And it's really not that much of a stretch to believe someone in Academia would actually think this way and publish it.

<comment><USER22> The word that comes to mind is "self-congratulatory".

</comment></comment><comment> zero-rated Anyone who wants a _serious_ non-conformist guide should absolutely, definitely read Disciplined Minds[1] by Jeff Schmidt. What an important book.

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0742516857/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0742516857/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1443389466&sr=8-1&pi=SL75_QL70&keywords=disciplined+minds)

</comment><comment><USER23> I quite dislike when people think of themselves this much.

I'm a non-conformist / I'm a conformist / I'm an introvert/ I'm an extrovert / I'm a xyz / I'm an xzy...

No one fucking cares. There's self-reflection, and then there's self-absorbed blowing your own trumpet. The latter is decidedly repulsive. Coming from an Asian culture, I notice that Americans are particularly inclined to be this self-absorbed, wonder why.</comment>


Firing Snapchat's CEO: Why the Silicon Valley frat won't let that happen - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2014/05/31/the-case-for-firing-snapchats-ceo-why-the-silicon-valley-frat-will-never-let-that-happen/

<comment><USER2> Who cares about a company with no clear path to revenue?</comment>


Ask HN: Is Apple not hashing passwords? - <AUTHOR>

Image: http://i.imgur.com/uSlW2.png
After the recent iCloud debacle, I methodically went about setting passwords of everything I care about to use very secure passwords, i.e. very long strings composed of random alphanumeric and non-alphanumeric chars. When it came time to change my AppleID password I noticed forgot.apple.com had max length set to 32 in the password form, after removing with web inspector and submitting I was presented with this http://i.imgur.com/uSlW2.png
When a website imposes a maximum length on passwords what other reasonable conclusions can be drawn other than the passwords are not hashed before being persisted? For example a SHA512 is always 128 chars long regardless of input, so why is there a need to put a limit on the maximum amount of chars in a password? Just set the column length to 128 and be done with it. <comment><USER2> One of the most popular password hashing algorithms, bcrypt, enforces a maximum password length: it's algorithm is unable to use extra bits of input and has to throw them out. That said (as you specifically mention SHA512, an algorithm that might be used in a password hash but is not appropriate by itself anyway), a SHA512 is actually 64 bytes long: by an argument as simple as pigeon hole principal, you can then demonstrate that passwords longer than 64 bytes are totally useless (as there will almost certainly be a second password, shorter than 64 bytes, which will be equivalent after being run through the hash); for SHA256, which you will see in use more often, that limit would be 32 bytes. Please do not make such negative assumptions or state such strong implementation assertions based on such little knowledge of hashes. :(

<comment><AUTHOR> What's with the asshole response? Why so condescending? Did you have a bad day? I'm sorry about that. Yes, SHA512's output is 512 bits (the clue is in the name), but paste this into your shell `ruby -rdigest/sha2 -e "puts Digest::SHA512.hexdigest('foo').length"`. You'll see 128. I'm talking about the length of the string in characters and that's quite obvious. Feel free to bog yourself in semantics and pedantry. Also none of your comment proves anything, and you make more assumptions than I do. Is anything you said a sane reason to go to the trouble of precluding a user from choosing a password > 32 chars?

<comment><USER3> I'm sorry, what? saurik's response was concise, to the point, technically sound, and backed up with relevant details. Why in the world would you attack someone taking the time to answer your question?

Maybe you didn't quite understand saurik's response. There was nothing asshole about it. S/He conveyed three basic points:

      1) There are well-regarded hashing algorithm that impose a limit on the input (bcrypt)
      2) In any case, the length-limit does not imply that passwords are stored in clear text
      3) An argument for why the length-limit might actually be a good thing (protecting the user from a false sense of security)

Now, I happen to absolutely agree on points #1 and #2, but disagree with #3.

It is not true that passwords longer than the hash output are 'totally useless'. To find an arbitrary input which produces a specific hash requires 2^(bit-1) guesses on average. 'Attacking the hash' is simply not possible for a 256-bit hash. The only possible attack vector is to 'attack the password'. Therefore passwords longer than 32 chars are still useful.

A 12-character truly random password taken from the full character set would take the #2 super-computer on the planet approximately 8000 days to crack in 2011. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKNW5AUo- dM&t=43m50s](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKNW5AUo-dM&t=43m50s)

Add a couple more characters and you're into 'galactic years' to measure how long it would take. So clearly we don't need anywhere near 32 chars if the alphabet is large and symbols are picked at RANDOM.

But if you want any hope of being able to REMEMBER the password, then a better option may be trying to get equivalent entropy using a long pass-phrase; it could possibly require more than 32 characters to make it long and fun enough to be memorable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> But isn't that just the length of the password prior to hashing/comparison? If so I agree password length is redundant, but that doesn't mean they're not hashing. At least I HOPE IT DOESN'T.

<comment><USER5> I agree with you. Even though they are checking the length, it does not necessarily mean that they are not hashing. On a side note, who will actually type in a 32 character password and remember it ? I know thats not the point of this post but still.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> AppleID is a single sign-on used across a wide variety of systems (iTunes, iCloud, AppleCare, the Apple Online Store, the Mac App Store, developer.apple.com, bugreport.apple.com, Apple's CA services for code signing and push notification services, to name just the ones that come immediately to mind) developed by different groups, at different times, using different technologies, over a period of many years. Even ignoring hashes and authentication protocols entirely, the set of fully-functional AppleID passwords is still the intersection of the sets of valid passwords for all supported clients of all these systems.

In other words, you're most likely looking at the feature of iForgot that prevents you from selecting a password that one of the other systems isn't prepared to handle, or at least _might not_ have been prepared to handle _reliably_ last time requirements were frozen for a major system-wide upgrade of the (internal) AppleID protocol.

</comment><comment><USER7> tl;dr Probably unhashed or project manager.

There is a very unlikely security scenario, where the hash of the password actually forms a dictionary word (or combination of dictionary words).

I did say it was very unlikely (astronomically so). And this only mitigates against this if the login form restricts your password to 32 chars.

I'll vote with "inept project manager" or unhashed password. Not sure which worries me more.

I would love to be an optimist, but the internet keeps proving me wrong.

</comment><comment><USER8> If anything, this proves they are hashing to something like MD5 because the max length on the password column is 32. They're likely using some sort of ORM/declarative model that you define validation rules on. It makes sense to set the max length of your password column to the hashes length. It just happens that their forms using the same validation rules as their models/database.

</comment><comment><USER9> Nah... It's probably because of a project manager...

</comment><comment><USER10> What? This doesn't make any sense at all. They just check the length restriction server-side _before_ hashing it.

<comment><USER11> Why do they need to check the length of a password before hashing when the resulting password hash will be a fixed length regardless of the length of the original password?

<comment><USER12> I can imagine a thought process along the lines of: "Most people don't use password managers, so it's asking for trouble to allow extremely long passwords. 32 should be plenty, even for the security conscious minority."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Clickable: <http://i.imgur.com/uSlW2.png>

</comment><comment><USER14> That's what the spec said.</comment>


Blekko Partners Up With Search Engine DuckDuckGo - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/23/blekko-duckduckgo/ <comment><USER2> Very interesting mashup. I like how they've decided to share features with each other instead of just one incorporating those of the other.</comment>


The 4 types if MUD players - <AUTHOR> http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm

<comment><USER2> If you find this interesting, you will love his book "Designing Virtual Worlds". The first chapter covers the types of players in much greater detail. Its a fantastic book and I enjoyed reading it. Richard Bartle does a great job of explaining his points and backing everything up with references, so even if you don't agree with some of his observations, you can see why he thinks so and perhaps learn from it. Definitely a must read if you're developing a MUD or MMO game, but a good read even if you're not. </advertisement>

<comment><USER3> I second that. As I recall, it's a very enjoyable 700-page brain dump by someone who's really into his subject. The writing has a personal voice; there are lots of asides, dry wit, and typos that suggest restrained editing. The discussion is intelligent and often theoretical (and Bartle is not scared to use mathematical metaphors), but the tone is not academic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'd be interested what the results of a Bartle Test poll would be on HN.

I'm an ESKA, which has always left me in that odd group of players who has never been satisfied by the core mechanics any MMOG. Most MMOGs cater to As, with a bit of S and K. The Es seem to be mostly ignored, perhaps because they'll never be satisfied by your standard World of Warcraft-copycat grindfest.

<comment><USER5> EASK here...

There have been a few MMOGs that would have appealed to us E___'ers, SWG in its original form was basically a E___'ers wet dream, especially if they'd continued to expand the number of planets over time, rather than focusing on poor theme parks.

Neocron has a fair bit of E___ appeal too, as does Ryzom. Anarchy Online also has positive features for us (and was the first MMOG I paid a lot of attention to, so it's the one I keep going back to...), but lacks a lot of the deep crafting system that a lot of us E___ers desire.

There's a common thread to those games, they're all pretty much 'sandbox' MMOGs, games where you're not pushed into a specific chain of events, nor pushed into PvP as a necessity (god, I hate the vocal K___'ers, they insist on ruining every MMOG they touch).

<comment><USER4> I've never really found "E" games based around developer-crafted content to be very interesting, because it's simply not sustainable. At best you get a universe that keeps you interested for a few weeks and at worst you just get thousands of copy-pasted fetch quests.

Anarchy Online and Earth and Beyond were mildly interesting, but that's about it.

I don't think PvP-as-a-necessity is inherently bad in a sandbox exploration game. If anything, it's good: other players will _always_ be more interesting to compete against, whether by direct combat, economic competition, or diplomacy, than AI NPCs. IMO the only way to get a sustainable game that consistently produces interesting content is to rely on the players.

In my experience the primary aversion to PvP comes from games that weren't designed from the ground up to be about PvP, but had it forced into the system in a way that was simply not enjoyable or interesting.

EVE Online was "so close, yet so far" to this ideal, in that it got a lot of things very right but designed the economy too much around grind and spent the past few years focusing too heavily on strategic combat with capital ships instead of individual players.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I love the wording "acquiring some weapon and applying it enthusiastically to the persona of another player in the game world."

</comment><comment><USER7> Wow, this takes me back... I remember reading this ten years ago or so. Still basically holds true for modern MMOs, I think, and they often do a better job of accommodating the different types of players than the old MUDs did as a result.

</comment><comment><USER8> I used to play a text-based MUD called Creeping Death.</comment>


Show HN: Notegraphy, write and publish with style - <AUTHOR>

Dear fellow hackers,
Before submitting this, I wanted the app I've been working on posted on the App Store. Notegraphy it's a simple tool that help you to produce beautiful texts for sharing as you want.
We've made it with rails, AWS and HTML5/CSS3 and JS, also Boostrap. You can use it with a browser or the native iPhone/iPad app.
I'm posting this just to get your valuable feedback. Everything is welcome and, remember this is aimed for all kind of people, not just hackers!
https://notegraphy.com <comment><USER2> Looks gorgeous, well designed and well made. The intro video and the marketing look amazing. The capabilities (seeing your stats, sharing to multiple social networks, etc) all look great, leave nothing to be desired. You guys did an amazing job.

The only problem is that I'm not entirely sure what I would need to use this for? The only use-case I could imagine would be posting a nice looking "Happy Anniversary" or something to my girlfriend, but I don't need all of the fancy features for that. Or an account even.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thing is, this is aimed to create nice writtings. Long or short, make them pretty, so you can share them. They can be happy aniversary or a song, or a blog post, or a resumeé.

We have more collections coming.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Clickable [https://notegraphy.com](https://notegraphy.com)

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm getting a blank screen in Firefox.

<comment><AUTHOR> Weird, we all see it in Firefox. Tell me if your problem persist after reloads.

<comment><USER3> I'm using Firefox 23 at the moment if it matters.

<comment><AUTHOR> We have the same version, 23.0.1. Are you using anykind of adblock or similar?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Mormons' $100B fortune is not about the money, stupid - <AUTHOR> https://religionnews.com/2020/01/20/the-100-billion-mormon-fortune-is-not-about-the-money-stupid/ <comment><USER2>
        The idea that this much money is "a rainy day fund"
        is a bit fatuous, in my opinion. In my mind, a rainy day
        fund is one that might be enough money to cover the
        finances of the church for a year or two in the case of a
        massive financial downturn or even a full-on depression.
        Let's say it's for five years, even.

\- The Article, January 2020

Aged like milk...in less than half a year.</comment>


Show HN: Launch "led-projector killer" app - <AUTHOR> Hello HN!
Let me invite you to my new project SecondStream (http://garaninapps.com/secondstream)
It's new way to communicate with local(!)  audience and show additional and detailed content to mobile devices.
For example show slides or desktop to student's devices in classroom by few clicks.
Ultra-low latency. No audio. Works without Internet.
No mobile app needed. Viewer just scan QR code for view video stream.
// in some cases it's  "led-projector killer" app.
Any feedback is welcome! <comment><AUTHOR> I think it's may be helpful for education purpose</comment>


Gen – AI Programming Language - <AUTHOR> https://probcomp.github.io/Gen/ <comment><AUTHOR> In an effort to democratize and advance the field of artificial intelligence, MIT researchers have announced a new programming language designed for computer vision, robotics, statistics and morel.

Gen aims to take away the complexity of equations or having to manually write code and enable researchers of all skill levels to create models and algorithms for AI.

</comment><comment><USER2> Sounds usefull for creating an AI which can feed climatemodels with various kinds of data. Im not a scientist, but this would be the way i would handle the different sorts of data for modeling. Knowlegde for all,nice! Thank you guys.</comment>


Left to Their Own Devices, Pricing Algorithms Resort to Collusion - <AUTHOR> https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/robots/a26309827/left-to-their-own-devices-pricing-algorithms-resort-to-collusion/ <comment><USER2> So if they don't communicate with each other, what makes it collusion? How is collusion defined here, and what are the algorithms actually doing?

Surely it takes more than just "not getting into a price war" to call it collusion.

</comment><comment><USER3> But if the sellers don't communicate about prices, then it's not illegal collusion, right?

</comment><comment><USER4> Nash equilibrium rediscovered?

<comment><USER5> Don't tell the folks in compliance that. They won't be happy until margins are negative and no one has a job--including themselves.</comment></comment>


PHP solves problems. Oh, and you can program with it too - <AUTHOR> http://nikic.github.io/2012/06/29/PHP-solves-problems-Oh-and-you-can-program-with-it-too.html <comment><USER2> PHP has fixed or semi-fixed a lot of its main complaints, and you can write maintainable code with it if you have discipline.

I'd go as far as to say its ecosystem (with Facebook working on it), documentation, and library coverage surpass any other backend web language.

The real problem with PHP isn't going to be fixed, though. That's the schizophrenic language design.

So, yes, you can get stuff done in PHP. It's a solid language to build a prototype, although, again, Python and Node are just as good, if not better.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, who cares? You can solve problems and program in other languages, too.</comment>


Cadillac Bets on Virtual Dealerships - <AUTHOR> http://www.wsj.com/article_email/cadillac-bets-on-virtual-dealerships-1465172482-lMyQjAxMTE2MzAwNjIwOTYyWj <comment><USER2> Ford tried to do the "No inventory" dealerships in the late 80's and it was a spectacular failure. While buying a vehicle isn't the same as Amazon's same day delivery, do you really want to be the person who just told someone who dropped 80K+ on a vehicle that they won't be able to get it until it's driven off the line?

Cadillac has an image and an innovation problem. Have you driven a Cadillac recently? The entertainment system is buggy if you have an iphone -- you'll be driving down the road listening to something on the satellite radio and it'll just switch over to your iPhone...even though there's nothing playing on your iPhone. Disable everything's microphone access...and it's still randomly connecting to your iPhone. GM's blaming Apple...Apple's blaming GM...who cares, just fix the damn thing. You're paying a premium for features that should just seem "standard" if you're buying a luxury vehicle (Heated/Cooled seats are a 3K upcharge, you can get them standard on the Kia Forte EX). Unfortunately, the In-Car Entertainment has been the same for the last three years.

I realize that GM is trying to innovate and do things outside the box, but, I really think that they should step outside the comfortable world of badge engineering and try to create something that is out of the box...and unique to the brand.

<comment><USER3> The infotainment even caused them to be a featured brand in Consumer Report's "least reliable" cars.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Cadillac is in a strange position. The classic Cadillac joke is that a survey of the customer base came back with ages between 65 and "deceased". Cadillac used to be the luxury brand, at the top of the General Motors Ladder of Success devised by Alfred P. Sloane (Chevy < Buick < Pontiac < Oldsmobile < Cadillac) but now they're kind of a joke. Luxury and status have been taken over by other brands. Cadillacs are the car of second-tier sales reps.

Cadillac tried to become cool. This resulted in such strange beasts as a V-16 1000 horsepower sedan. Unclear who would buy that. They came out with the Cadillac Escalade, which, like the Hummer 2, was really a Chevy Suburban underneath. They have an automatic driving project, which is a good fit for their customer base. But they're just not selling many cars.

<comment><USER5> The story goes, GM made the fantastic decision that the executives in charge of each division had to drive their own cars. So Chevy, Buick, Pontiac, and Oldsmobile wound up making something very much like a Cadillac. This created brand confusion, and Cadillac lost its status. (although i can't remember the source of this story, so it might just be a fairy tale from the 80's)

Also, i thought the 1k hp was an aftermarket thing. (although 640 is still kind of insane.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Cadillac needs to make better cars. I visited the GM building in Detroit a few years ago where they have a number of new Cadillacs on display. I sat in a few an was surprised how cheap they felt, like a nice Chevy.

I thought maybe it was just one model but all of them from the lowest price point on up felt cheap to some degree.

<comment><USER3> Just how many years ago was that?

<comment><USER6> 3 so admittedly they could have improved.

<comment><USER3> Well, the car that was "The Cadillac" then was still the second generation CTS, which is a 2008 car. While I love the looks (layout and whatnot) of the interior in it, it certainly is plasticky a lot (but also very leatherly), and the quality is hit-or-miss. Since then the ATS came out, and the new CTS, not to mention CT6. All of them supposedly have much better quality of interior, but they have touch-only central panel, which is a huge red flag for me...</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Just do it - <AUTHOR> http://stevenkovar.com/entrepreneurship/just-do-it/ <comment><USER2> That's a pretty silly point.

"Just do it"? "Don't bother to analyze things"? Yeah, that really sounds like a recipe for success.

The author even contradicts himself within the article:

 _Take whatever action you feel needs to be done to grow your business. Do whatever you feel you should do to make your relationship work the best you can._

+

 _What is the right thing to do is usually difficult to commit to because it doesn't feel comfortable. It tests your willpower and how much you can trust your own judgment._

So you're supposed to do what _feels_ right... even when it _doesn't feel_ right?

I'm not trying to put down the importance of gut feeling and intuition, but jumping into everything without thinking is not, imho, the way to business success. There is such a thing as too much analysis - and there is such a thing as too little analysis.

<comment><USER3> I didn't read the article, but the first quote you gave says "feel needs to be done" and the second says "feel comfortable". So, from your excerpts, it appears he's saying something to the effect of "do what needs to be done, even if it feels uncomfortable".

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'd says he's got a fair point overall.

There's so much advice and analysis posted here that one wouldn't get any work done if one tries to digest all of it.

It's often better to just go and try something, as experience is the best teacher.

<comment><USER5> The video he posted is particularly germane to HN. Here we get dozens of posts a day telling us how we should do things. Mainly, I'm convinced, by people who haven't done things themselves. Cultivating taste would help a lot of people here.

But even if they have done things, having done something doesn't necessarily give you knowledge to pass on to others. Ask any guy who's _really_ _really_ good with women how he does it. The answer will probably be "just be yourself" (Unless the answer is "Ferrari".)

Point being, you may not know what you know. Even if you're successful you may not know what has made you successful. So "just shut up and do it" isn't horrible advice.

<comment><USER6> _"Mainly, I'm convinced, by people who haven't done things themselves_ "

I assure you that some of us have :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Yeah, the problem isn't so much in analysis. It's that you think you've got all the right info for analysis while in reality, without a working prototype -- or something -- you don't have the info.

Without the info, no matter how much you analyze, you still will be behind those who actually got the info -- by launching early and not wasting time on improper analysis for example. Or hacking into a secret database of marketing leads.

Sometimes there is a time for analysis and sometimes there is time to get out there and gather information. A lot of people try to substitute former for the latter because it feels more secure but it doesn't work.

</comment><comment><USER8> Thanks for so many comments guys. Really proves to me how great a community HN really is, especially seeing someone link my post up.

That said, let's get to discussion. The purpose of the post was for my own benefit, but I felt like many people are in the same condition I am, so it was worth telling myself out loud, if you will. I have a tendency to have so many things on my mind that I get bogged down with potential scenarios, both good and bad, and let them overwhelm my actual productivity, and I suspect many people do as well.

Also, the post is assuming a particular level of expertise in your chosen project, profession, or challenge. That said, it still stands true to newbies --maybe even more so. When you are new, experience provides entrenched knowledge which is much better than what you get out of reading an article. Just as well, when you are (finally) an expert, you have a general feel for what is right and what is wrong, and the mistakes you make have lower margins of effect. So yes, it IS important to rule data and details into your decision making, but just like my experience in freelancing, I've found that most people are actually capable of working QUICKLY and at unparalleled QUALITY if they put down their email and just dig in to the work until it's done. What takes most designers in my niche two days takes me 1-3 hours, and it pays off massively for me. Similarly, people are exceptionally capable of digesting data QUICKLY and EFFECTIVELY and can make sound decisions in haste. Of course, some should take some more time to weigh, but in general, I think people discredit themselves on their potential rapidity.

What I was hoping to accomplish was that were are all very dynamic and capable of beyond what we think we are, both in quality and in speed, and this is most important in influencing changes with your life, or your project, or your business. Everything changes, and those who are able to get through the decision making process and get to action, through more iterations of decisions, have a tendency to succeed more.

Hopefully that clarifies a few points of confusion. If not, feel free to ask more specifically what you wanted to know. :)

</comment><comment><USER9> What bothers me about posts like this, and some of the reaction, is that it boils things down to absolutes. While it's true that there are decisions that should be made quickly and on gut instinct, it's also true that there are decisions which require careful thought and planning. Being a good problem solver is about weighing consequences, planning, and taking action accordingly. Sometimes planning takes 5 seconds, sometimes it takes 5 years. It is true that getting real feedback quickly is invaluable. And with software, we can often take the "ready, fire, aim" approach because change is usually cheap and easy.

</comment><comment><USER10> Or do something (but that is not such a catchy headline). In most situations it is often better to keep momentum, keep going, than overthink. Take some action, a decision, if it's wrong take another. Don't get into analysis paralysis. There are studies showing that you really use your emotions when doing Decision making and people that have head/brain trauma in the frontal brain have harder to make 'any' kind of decision.

</comment><comment><USER11> It's easy to see other people's mistakes.

I take his point that it's possible to overthink things and never get started. I tend to have that problem in fact. But I've also seen work-work-work types expend _way_ more effort than me on certain kinds of things.

It's all very well to get started an then learn from your mistakes, but:

\- sometimes it's not obvious you've made a mistake once you're deep into the details

\- once you've invested a lot of time in a solution it's hard to convince yourself to bin it. (this is an especial problem in non-startups, because you have to convince your boss, too)

\- sometimes your back-brain just needs enough time to elapse for it to solve/understand the problem/subject. After the amount of work required to get it to pay attention, extra effort on the problem is a waste of time.

</comment><comment><USER12> I like to call this the difference between "Ready, Aim, Fire" and "Ready, Fire, Aim".

In the past, I would never "fire" before "aiming". I knew all too well that the cleanup would take longer than the up-front planning would have.

Today, I'm not so sure. Just getting _something_ done provides feedback you didn't have before. That feedback could drastically change your plans.

How do you know when to Aim before Firing or Fire before Aiming? Use your best personal judgment. If Firing before Aiming doesn't get you killed, it's often the better alternative.

<comment><USER13> Nice, that reminds me of "tracer bullets" - special ammunition that gives off a lot of light so you can see exactly where it's landing and adjust your aim quickly: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracer_ammunition>

<comment><USER14> Hunt/Thomas use "tracer bullets" as a term for prototyping in The Pragmatic Programmer. It's not an uncommon analogy.

<comment><USER13> Ah, I should have known I had seen it somewhere before, thanks (memory like a sieve).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It could also be summed up as "shit or get off the pot."

The same situation arises in every aspect of human existence - there are people who read muscle magazines all day long but never got the the gym, and people who read 100 real estate books and never buy an investment property.

Ira's point is good, but seems tangential. It assumes you've done something, and it's a plea not to quit just because you aren't the best... yet. I swear I've heard it before, in some maxim like "our taste always exceeds our art," but I can't find a source.

</comment><comment><USER16> This post being first on HN this afternoon has triggered some kind of recursive irony loop I can't get out of. Turning machine off for rest of day ...

</comment><comment><USER15> There's also a limit to how much you can learn from reading, or from analysis - some lessons are only learned in doing the work.

Thoreau makes this point in Walden - "To my astonishment I was informed on leaving college that I had studied navigation! - why, if I had taken one turn down the harbor I should have known more about it."

</comment><comment><USER17> All he says here is: "Just do what feels right."

Great companies and great software are built by great (and careful) thinkers - not people who make off-the-cuff decisions based on their emotions.

I think this post gives bad advice.

<comment><USER18> You're partly right, he's partly right. You're right in that planning carefully and executing properly are important. He's right in that you do not know what to plan for if you do not test the waters.

I think the best approach is to get started, discover how things work, then plan carefully on how to proceed based on what input you get.

<comment><USER19> Getting started and so forth, as you suggest, is a good idea. But unless I have some way to know whether I am currently planning too much or executing too soon, I don't know whether to follow his advice or not.

If I knew that generally potential entrepreneurs are too timid, than leaping ahead would be great, if trivial, advice. But that's not clear at all. We can't know how many people are merely thinking about starting companies but held back by timidity, because thoughts and planning are largely invisible. There are certainly plenty of companies that get founded by headstrong entrepreneurs that end in ruin.

Maybe I'd find the article useful if the advice were restricted to low-risk startups (and a web startup is a good example of that). For something like a hardware startup, I think "just do it" is close to the worst advice you could receive. (Maybe "don't worry about manufacturing " would be worse.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> As a venture becomes more successful, the number of stakeholders grows, and the ability to "just do it" declines.

</comment><comment><USER21> Don't miss the embedded video, "Ira Glass on Storytelling #3".

I'm _so_ in that "taste > skill" phase!

</comment><comment><USER22> edison's invention inspires thousands of academic thesis -- the reverse is not true.

</comment><comment><USER23> Slogans are good but not enough - Just do it. Catch the moment. Today. Less is more, and so on. There is a wisdom in language itself, in slang, proverbs, jargon, folklore, but it is not enough to do business. Practice - the process of creation of an experience is the second side of the coin. And, of course, thousand miles long way begins with first step.

btw, my favourite chinese proverb is "The man without smile shouldn't open a shop."</comment>


Ever-growing cars: why they keep on getting wider - <AUTHOR> https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/features/investigation-why-are-cars-becoming-so-wide <comment><USER2> As a parent with 2 young kids the massive size of car seats forced us into a larger vehicle.

<comment><USER3> Why are carseats so big? It can't all be safety. Do you think it gives a luxurious appearance and parents tend to buy them more?

<comment><USER4> Most prams I see these days are much larger than the simple, light-weight folding models many people had when I was a child in the 80s. They're basically monster-truck-prams.

I think the perceived comfort, safety, and luxury is a big drawcard in both cases.

<comment><USER5> An American who lived in Europe started a business importing luxury prams into the US:

[https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/20/bugaboo- luxury-...](https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/20/bugaboo-luxury-pram- baby-buggy-stroller-parenting)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The sad thing is an original Isigonis style 1980s mini estate gives more chance to put a full size dog in the back, with the rear seats up, than the current massive Mini Clubman estate that's cramped for a Yorkie with the back doors closed. It really is comical seeing original Mini and new next to each other -- the new one is not, by any stretch, "mini".

I keep thinking my retirement project should be an EV 1980 mini estate with upmarket seats and instruments -- as that's honestly what I want to buy in an EV. Something starting that light should have lots of range and performance scope...

<comment><USER7> Yea... is it just me or are cars just plain ugly these days (yuck).

[https://www.motortrend.com/cars/land-rover/range-rover- evoqu...](https://www.motortrend.com/cars/land-rover/range-rover- evoque/2017/2017-range-rover-evoque-convertible-first-test-review/)

[https://www.diariomotor.com/2010/05/09/el-morris-mini- minor-...](https://www.diariomotor.com/2010/05/09/el-morris-mini-minor- original-frente-al-mini-countryman-david-y-goliat/)

Draconian safety laws for manufacturers mean less visibility with narrow windows on the front, barely back window (backup cams required), and huge a-pillars.

So apparently we get safer cars but can see anything infront of us.

[https://www.wardsauto.com/news-analysis/new-pillars- enhance-...](https://www.wardsauto.com/news-analysis/new-pillars-enhance- safety-impede-visibility)

Video of child not being seen by new car (he is unharmed though) [https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=9p7iH_1570391082](https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=9p7iH_1570391082)

<comment><USER8> So many cars built within the last ten or so years look like the same boring identical bar of soap on wheels. Minus trivial details like the headlight cluster and grille, you really can't tell most 4 door sedan brands abart unless you look closely. I wish the Cybertruck succeeds, not because I need one (I don't) but because finally someone out there is trying to get a little creative with styling again!

<comment><USER7> I actually go an opposite approach. I am buying old cars - the market is great here in the US.

I got a 47k mileage 1991 Mazda Miata for 4500$! And the girlfriend loves how cool it is and shifting stick. You should try to snag something from the 90s before people realize how nice they are.

Modern cars are spy machines needing constant software updates and nonsense features like "push button start" which is probably just a ploy to no longer have to make complicated ignition switches.

<comment><USER9> that's nice and all. But if you collide with one of these new spy machines, you'll figure out why it's not the greatest idea to prefer old cars when you can afford newer cars. Safety is not something it's worth being a luddite for. I agree with you, even as a software engineer, I find it disgusting the amount of computing power my Honda has for that matter. However, if I run off the road, I would rather be in my current Honda than in my previous Honda (pre 2000).

I think the 2010-2012 strike a sweet spot for what you're saying. Reasonable safety, not a lot of software.

<comment><USER7> True, it is dangerous to drive a cool sports car. But its light and it handles well - its even modular with a huge aftermarket meaning I was able to easily spend an extra 1k and get both upgraded brakes and rotors installed.

Besides, if my girlfriend and I want to take a risk an enjoy a nice car I don't like the government telling me otherwise.

You're right about that date range, probably the best without software that thinks its better than you. Its going to be bad when cars have full electronic steering with no mechanics - you will essentially be holding an xbox controller and have no idea about your cars alignment lol

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I am always amazed when you see an old Mercedes S class on the road. This used to be a generously sized car and now it looks like an average compact.

<comment><USER11> The difference being that the new one can survive a straight t-bone at 50-70km/h and everyone walks out unhurt, while that's not necessarily the case with the old one. Just look at the size of the door sills and the actual depth of the doors - there's at least twice the depth of doors from a 1980s S class for instance, a lot more crumpling to work with.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> What about the perverse regulations that punitively tax and restrict the production of smaller cars, because they use more fuel per unit weight?

<comment><USER13> Do you have a source for these regulations?

<comment><USER12> US CAFE standards are well-known to have resulted in the switch from station wagons to minivans and SUVs, resulting in a great overall increase in emissions than what would have otherwise occurred.

The new (2020/2021) European regulations allow approximately 1 g/km of extra CO2 emissions per kg of extra curb weight for passenger cars. [1]

It's actually less emissions per _unit_ mass, so I was wrong on that fact, but the point of perverse incentives to make cars bigger to be allowed more emissions still stands (I think?)

Also, diesel vehicles are basically banned in most places _unless_ they're coal-rollers - even though they have way less CO2 emissions than their gasoline counterparts.

In my opinion, if the North American and European governments had truly wanted to reduce absolute levels of emissions, instead of just following existing technology and trying to take the credit for it (like they do for NOx emissions, and probably will for electric cars), and making complex rules that favour certain manufacturers at the expense of others, then they'd have just have made a Kei car category. [2]

[1] [https://ww2.frost.com/frost-perspectives/european- emission-r...](https://ww2.frost.com/frost-perspectives/european-emission- regulations-will-stringent-emission-regulations-choke-automotive-industry-or- will-oems-find-their-way-out/)

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I was in San Francisco last week, and the car rental agency "upgraded" me from the compact I had requested to a full size SUV.

Fortunately we weren't staying in the city, but that thing was definitely no fun headed up Hwy 1...

I regularly drive ambulances and fire trucks, so I'm used to "aggressively" driving large vehicles, but that was a whole new level of stressful. California either needs wider roads, or to mandate narrower cars (it seems to have worked well enough for emissions...)

<comment><USER15> I had a similar experience in London recently. I wanted a small car because, well, it's London. They "upgraded" me to a big SUV thing.

<comment><USER16> It's their fleet. They have an awful lot of crossovers and SUVs (presumably because that's what is popular with our market) but they continue to misrepresent their fleet in their booking engines (it's been years now).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> A recent trip to Europe and the cars, trucks, highways, roads, etc.. everything feels smaller. Parking garages are the worst, so narrow you can barely see if you're going to scrape a wall or car. You really have to use the force.

<comment><USER18> I'm glad to hear this perspective and know it's not just me. I live in Europe and parking in a garage here always raises my heart rate. I don't think I'd make it without parking sensors. Some people I know just slam their car in there in one quick swoop. I don't know how they do it. Even driving past parked cars makes me feel like not hitting side mirrors is just an act of faith.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I wonder how much of this is due to safety, and if size expansion is due to safety, whether it's a matter of trying to be in a bigger car than the other guy. Is there an ideal car size or will cars grow forever?

<comment><USER20> I dont think it makes sense that wider cars are an attempt to be bigger than the other guy.

Height, yes absolutely, but wider cars are safer because they have more room to crumple and space for airbags and reinforcement in the sides. The thickness of car doors today vs cars from 20 years ago is pretty drastic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I was going to bring up the Mazda MX-5 as an example of a car that shrunk in its latest generation, only to find out that the current model is the widest by a whole centimetre.

<comment><USER22> I used to barely fit in the NA but I can't squeeze into any of the later models without amputating my legs. I'm not sure how they did it because otherwise I'd be first in line to buy another.

<comment><USER23> I removed the driver-side door grab/armrest in my NA. Gives me about 3" extra room. Perhaps that's possible on newer models?

I popped off a couple plastic panels, unscrewed the bolts, and it came right off. Then I attached a loop of cloth with a washer so I could close the door.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The layout of these cars also plays an important role. Sedans have been getting bigger because the internal space is wasted in every possible way and manufacturers have been struggling to sell the smaller ones given how useless they are. That market segment has been completely dominated by the new generation of small hatchbacks like the Honda Fit/Scion XD/Toyota Yaris etc.

</comment><comment><USER24> My RV is 102 inches wide not including the mirrors. Apparently that's the max allowed federally by the US although technically in some states it may not be on smaller roads and might be the old standard of 96" though never heard of that being enforced. Most Semis and box trucks are 102" wide.

I believe the max allowed length is 65 feet, my RV is 32ft plus I tow a jeep, probably close to 50ft total. Height is under 13 ft.

Interstate driving is no problem it gets pretty interesting driving around in the city, but surprising where you can fit it. Both the width and height cause the most issues.

Normal cars and trucks still have room to grow within the federal limits, I don't believe any are 102" wide, full size dual rear wheel pickups are only 96" and the Ford Raptor is 86" and a Lambo is 80".

Driving my RV feels like driving a room down the road, there is about 3 feet between me and passenger.

</comment><comment><USER25> I once got stuck behind a Lamborghini on a mountain road, it was too wide to get past any other cars.

<comment><USER10> I used to have a Lotus Elise. With cars that low you don't see much if there is just some grass growing along the road. Makes it really hard to pass other cars or go fast with no visibility.

<comment><USER26> Yeah, but then you take a corner at 4 times the recommended speed, and it's all worth it...

Got a chance to take an Elise around some good roads. What a blast.

<comment><USER27> Nah, those cars are too competent. Taking a corner at 4x the recommended speed in an e-Golf, or Crown Vic, is a blast.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> There is some interesting related research being done by the DLR (German Space Agency). They have developed a low-weight chassis for small light-weight vehicles (the european L7e vehicle class, i.e. up to 450kg (1000lbs) without battery) that achieves good crash test results: [https://www.spotlightmetal.com/dlr-tests-ultra-light- commute...](https://www.spotlightmetal.com/dlr-tests-ultra-light-commuter- car-a-765541/)

Just switching to electric cars will not save the planets resources. We have to use less resources by using smaller, lighter vehicles instead of heavy SUVs.

<comment><USER29> Doesn't matter what kind of black magic you put into a tiny car, a big heavy SUV will destroy it in an impact and barely take a scratch. People buy big SUVs because they "feel safer", and they're going to keep doing that without some intervention. If I were a national regulator I would pass a law adding a pollution rating and a 3rd party danger rating to the vehicle registration plate.

<comment><USER6> It's an irrational "feel safer" though. Despite no legislated requirement for mixed size impact tests, enough have been done to see that tiny cars do surprisingly well. Whether the microscopic Smart Car against an max size old Volvo estate, or super mini against a Range Rover. They are categorically _NOT_ destroyed in an impact with the SUV barely taking a scratch.

I mostly agree with the rest though. :) My solution would be to copy the Scandinavians with a yearly car tax derived from a combination of weight over say 500kg and emissions.

<comment><USER29> This is a myth. There have been massive improvements in safety design and some tiny cars do surprisingly well in some tests against old cars of any size - but modern SUVs are much safer than a modern tiny car, and improvements to the strength of the safety cage in large vehicles have offset the improvements in smaller vehicles. Relative vehicle weight is still the biggest predictor of occupant injury, and the types of impacts that kill occupants (small overlap and side impacts) favour higher ride heights. There is no trick engineering that can protect the occupant of a tiny car from a 2 ton SUV going through the side window. You can see this in the data for average death rates ([https://www.iihs.org/ratings/driver-death-rates-by-make- and-...](https://www.iihs.org/ratings/driver-death-rates-by-make-and-model)) - the death rate per million registered vehicle years for mini cars is more than double the rate of SUVs.

Some work has been done to study this, you can find some links to papers here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crash_incompatibility](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crash_incompatibility) [https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/6698/are-big- ca...](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/6698/are-big-cars-and- suvs-safer-than-small-cars-or-do-they-just-feel-safer)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I reckon small cars pose less risk to others. Pedestrians and cyclists can easily see over them. Stopping distances are probably better. Ending up on the hood/bonnet of a small vehicle rather than under a large one with it's very high front end (often with an attached bullbar) is almost certainly preferable. Finally, consider that large vehicles likely do much more damage to other vehicles in a crash.

All in all I find ownership of a large vehicle to be a fair proxy for an inconsiderate personality (bear in mind, I don't live in the US where large vehicles seem to be the defacto choice).

</comment><comment><USER31> Center consoles used to be seen only on large trucks. Now most cars have them. That's width not used by the occupants. Even the Tesla Model 3 has a huge center console, despite not having a driveshaft to hide.

<comment><USER32> Most modern cars are also unibody, so the center console interior design element isn't entirely without merit.

The axial bulge that would normally be concealed by a center console acts as structural support in vehicles without driveshafts. Furthermore, if it exists, the cavity will also serve as exhaust midpipe routing to the rear for improved underbody aero performance. Some manufacturers also offer an AWD variant of a chassis primarily sold as FWD--e.g. Acura TL, Mazda3--so design reuse is another path to consider.

The Model 3 doesn't appear to fit this generalization, but a center console still makes sense. It's a 5-passenger vehicle by design, so rear seating arrangement will drive width constraint. You can't put a 6th seat in the front-center position for obvious safety reasons, while leaving it empty would miss the mark when compared to competing luxury vehicles around the same price point (something about how America loves cupholders comes to mind), so filling it in with a sleek and generous center console strikes me as the natural direction to steer towards; it's cheap, serves a functional purpose, fills a void and flows with the overall interior aesthetic. Besides, a closed luxury cabin whose volumetric efficiency approaches 100% is a luxury vehicle that simply won't appeal to the masses.

For a good idea of just how inconvenient not having a decent center console can be, look no further than the ND Miata. Anecdotally, mine is a weekend solo/track toy so not a deal breaker, but it's one of those things that can be easily taken for granted until you don't have one anymore: fitting a pair of sunglasses in the laughably small center compartment is like working a puzzle piece, the large rear-center storage compartment can't be conveniently accessed while seated unless you're a human pretzel, some smartphones won't fit in the cubby hole designed to hold one, and retaining non-bottled drinks with a passenger seated is a spill accident just waiting to happen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Cars keep getting heavier too. With electric cars and energy use it would be good if there was a weight limit. It is normally safer in a collision if you sit in a heavier car. But this length and weight race make cars heavier.

I guess one factor is car test where they measure trunk capacity in liters/ back seat leg room. Cars with more space usually get better reviews.

For global warming we need ultra light cars which are energy efficient or no cars at all bikes.

</comment><comment><USER34> the article doesn't make sense

the Golf was essentially replaced by Polo nowadays. people are getting richer so obviously the well known models are also getting bigger and fancier than they were in past and if you want comparable model with the one from past you must go one class lower

same thing applies with phones and display size/specs, it's the easiest way to show customer the progress by offering him bigger display, sadly with smartphones you don't really have small options anymore like with cars where you just choose appropriate model

</comment><comment><USER35> People are getting bigger! I know a few people who are on the heavy side and bought SUVs for this reason.

</comment><comment><USER36> tldr: regulations and people are getting fatter.

<comment><USER37> This! sometimes I think it would be nice if they produced a low cost small car like the 1960s mini. with today's productivity they could build a simple version for quite cost effective. But, regulations mean it's completely impossible and so the cost of cars and their size keeps going up.

<comment><USER38> My personal perspective is that if I'm allowed to sign myself up for danger on two wheels - a motorcycle - and danger on four lackluster wheels - an older car - then I should also be allowed to sign myself up for danger on four satisfying wheels - a new but small and light car. Cutting-edge impact protection be damned; make me sign a waiver if you must.

<comment><USER39> I've come to realize that laws aren't generally about fairness. They're about whole-systems thinking. Lots of rules seem unfair if you're an individual in a system.

The popcorn kernel that doesn't pop may feel slighted, but that doesn't mean my popper is broken, or the kernel is.

Allowing car companies to make new cars which are less safe would cause more injuries and deaths. We allow older cars and motorcycles for political and economic reasons. Banning them would be even worse.

<comment><USER38> Here's a political and economic reason: modern cars, new and used, are painfully expensive for large portions of our society. Most of these price increases come from modern requirements for impact protection and other safety provisions. Allowing companies to pump out <$10k econoboxes would be a boon to low-income individuals.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Wider center of gravity. Less incidence of rollover.

<comment><USER41> The roads aren't getting any wider. I'm having trouble finding numbers, but I would be surprised to learn if the occurrence of lane departure accidents has gone down or stayed the same since cars have begun to get wider.

<comment><USER42> I have a VW Atlas. It's the biggest car I have ever had. It's volume is great for road trips with multiple kids and a dog in a cage.

I too worried about lane departures (even though of course I think I'm a better than average driver;). It has automatic lane assist which warns me if I'm on the lane line without putting on my blinker. I'm pleasantly surprised how infrequently it needs to remind me!

However more importantly I think it's safety features of lane assist, adaptive cruise control, front and rear assist (emergency breaking), and blind spot sensing with haptic feedback are fantastic! If every can had these, I'm certain driving would be safer even without autonomous driving.

<comment><USER26> The Atlas is on the short list for my wife's next vehicle. Nice to hear some good impressions!

<comment><USER42> Other than its mileage efficiency, I love it! But that is a true critique of all Vehicles in its size and I knew it going into it. If we didn't have a dog or require 3rd row, I'd get a Tiguan.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Is this really a modern trend, or just cherry picked data? This article needs a more thorough statistical analysis of car width through time.

I'm hesitant to take it at face value because, for example, to my knowledge the classic American land barges of the 60s and 70s (many of which are quite beautiful in an aggressive, almost obnoxious way) were quite wide - a 1969 Dodge charger is just a couple inches narrower than a 1990 Ford F150/Bronco, for example.

<comment><USER44> The Toyota Tacoma is a US-only car and is well-known in truck circles for starting out as a "compact" pickup and becoming midsize. Per Google, the 2000 model was 67" wide, the 2020 is 75". An 8" increase is in line with what the article describes.

I don't think compact pickups exist today.

<comment><USER39> Not in America: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax)

<comment><USER45> The vehicles mentioned (sprinter vans, and Ford Transit) are classified as light trucks, but most people would call them commercial vans or panel vans. Pickup trucks were never commonly imported from Europe, and most of the Japanese makes moved assembly to the US. While the 80s was really the peak of compact pickups, they were still some made into the 2010s, although a 2011 Ranger is a lot bigger than a Ranger from the 80s. I don't think the 2019 Ranger comes in a regular cab either.</comment></comment></comment></comment>