U.S. will suspend all travel from Europe for 30 days - sahin-boydas https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-make-prime-time-address-coronavirus-wednesday-night-n1155941 <comment><AUTHOR> Regardless of the ability of people to travel to the UK or Canada and get here (which people have done for a long time with other nations we don't take kindly to) it's absolutely going to reduce the number of people who will travel across the pond. Which is the goal, reduce infection rates.

My concern is how economies are going to respond to the US being cut off from Continental ports for a month, which as far as I can tell hasn't happened since U boats were in open waters.

Can anyone comment on supply chains that rely on Europe to source goods? I know medical grade steel comes from over there, but I don't know what else.

Edit: apparently the president misspoke.

<comment><USER2> >Which is the goal, reduce infection rates.

Based on the localized infection cases I see across the US and have been watching as well as the characteristics of the virus (life outside host/on surfaces, in air, the degree of asymptomatic transference, etc.), it's _well_ beyond containment IMHO.

Travel isn't going to do too much to reduce infection rates alone. We need significant cultural changes to reduce infection rates, but I don't see that happening for a variety of reasons. This country isn't about proactive action and is all about reactionary action though, so we're just waiting for that reactionary threshold. Some preventative measures have been pushed but they're no where near aggressive enough at this point.

It will be interesting how this is handled in our modern cultural, current political and work culture, etc. I suspect it's going to be fairly nasty but certainly hope not. I've been advising my parents to stock up and minimize any outside interactions for awhile.

<comment><USER3> My 2 cents.

All reductions in (non-essential) travel are good in a pandemic. That doesn't mean it's sufficient, but it's something positive.

I think we would all like to see stronger social distancing rules domestically (in the US), but here the US has a problem as it granted the President broad discretionary powers to suspend international travel but not domestic gatherings, which can't be banned via executive order and even if congress were to pass a law banning such gatherings, there would be first amendment implications as well as federalism issues.

It's not easy to pass a law giving the President this type of power and I suspect many in congress already rue passing the laws that gave the president power to suspend international travel. That's one of the prices of living in a federal government with separation of powers and a bill of rights guaranteeing right to assembly rather than in a place like China.

For example, the CDC has issued social distancing guidelines but they are only guidelines not laws: Santa Clara county has said "no thank you we'll follow our own guidelines" instead, when the CDC asked to ban meetings of more than 250 but Santa Clara banned meetings of more than 1000, and just refused to change their target to the CDC recommendation.

So the US simply lacks the tools that would allow the President to go on the air and announce "I'm declaring that the MLB season needs to be delayed and Disneyland must close." He can try to exert pressure, or rather have the CDC exert pressure, but these types of declarations are not going to happen in America.

<comment><USER4> OP's point wasn't "this is only going to have very limited effect", to which your reply "better than nothing" would be appropriate.

Their point is that there's absolutely no effect of banning travel between two areas with similar prevalence, based on rather simple logic.

Take two bags with mostly white and a similar number of red balls in them. Then, twenty times, grab one hand from each bag and empty it in the other. What's the expected change in number of red balls?

<comment><USER3> This is false. Any reduction in travel is going to have a positive effect. The best situation is for people to reduce their exposure to other people and to stay at home. If they do need to be exposed to others, the best is for them to be exposed to the same set of people all the time, and not to different sets of people.

<comment><USER5> This seems not fully worked out. Assuming total travel is constrained, selectively limiting travel to particular areas concentrates travel in the remaining areas, which increases the average number of contacts between travelers, which violates your "reducing exposure to other people is best" rule of thumb.

By your model, _some_ reductions in travel ought to have a negative effect. Is that a fair corollary?

<comment><USER6> There's no such thing as a fixed amount of travel, and constraining it on one way concentrates it in another. That makes no sense. Constraining travel will reduce travel, which will reduce interactions between people, which will reduce the spread of the virus. We know this empirically from previous outbreaks and countermeasures.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Important updates:

a) This does not apply to US citizens or their family members[1].

b) This does not apply to cargo[2].

It appears that the President misspoke regarding point 2.

[1] [https://www.dhs.gov/news/2020/03/11/homeland-security- acting...](https://www.dhs.gov/news/2020/03/11/homeland-security-acting- secretary-chad-f-wolf-s-statement-presidential-proclamation).

[2] [https://twitter.com/AnaSwanson/status/1237921160500830208](https://twitter.com/AnaSwanson/status/1237921160500830208)

<comment><USER8> Misspoke? It was a prepared statement read off a teleprompter. Please don't excuse it like a slip of the tongue.

<comment><USER9> Are you saying it is more accurate to call it a lie?

<comment><USER10> I imagine what he meant was that the administration is now backtracking on that statement.

<comment><USER8> Yes. I don't think it was a lie since it would needlessly create problems, but it was either the initial idea that was hastily revised after seeing the market reaction, or rank carelessness.

It's fun to joke about a politician's gaffes, and simple verbal slips are understandable - I noticed several in the speech but they were not substantive or significant. However, I think when drafting and reading a preapred statement on a topic of grave importance politicians have an obligation to say what they actually mean.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> An executive order is not in effect until published in the federal register. Whatever is published there is what actually matters.

As of now this executive order has not been published.

You can check here: [https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/search?conditions%...](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/search?conditions%5Bagencies%5D%5B%5D=executive- office-of-the- president&conditions%5Bpublication_date%5D%5Bgte%5D=03%2F11%2F2020)

<comment><USER11> I assume the following [1] will be filed in the Federal Register beginning with this paragraph that starts with:

      NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States

and then starting with the words

      by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America

[1]: [https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential- actions/proclamation...](https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential- actions/proclamation-suspension-entry-immigrants-nonimmigrants-certain- additional-persons-pose-risk-transmitting-2019-novel-coronavirus/)

<comment><USER11> Here is the full text that will likely be published in the Federal Register. Double-check when it has been published.

> by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United > States of America, including sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration > and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), and section 301 of title > 3, United States Code, hereby find that the unrestricted entry into the > United States of persons described in section 1 of this proclamation would, > except as provided for in section 2 of this proclamation, be detrimental to > the interests of the United States, and that their entry should be subject > to certain restrictions, limitations, and exceptions. I therefore hereby > proclaim the following:

> Section 1. Suspension and Limitation on Entry. The entry into the United > States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of all aliens who were physically > present within the Schengen Area during the 14-day period preceding their > entry or attempted entry into the United States is hereby suspended and > limited subject to section 2 of this proclamation.

> Sec. 2. Scope of Suspension and Limitation on Entry.

> (a) Section 1 of this proclamation shall not apply to:

> (i) any lawful permanent resident of the United States;

> (ii) any alien who is the spouse of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent > resident;

> (iii) any alien who is the parent or legal guardian of a U.S. citizen or > lawful permanent resident, provided that the U.S. citizen or lawful > permanent resident is unmarried and under the age of 21;

> (iv) any alien who is the sibling of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent > resident, provided that both are unmarried and under the age of 21;

> (v) any alien who is the child, foster child, or ward of a U.S. citizen or > lawful permanent resident, or who is a prospective adoptee seeking to enter > the United States pursuant to the IR-4 or IH-4 visa classifications;

> (vi) any alien traveling at the invitation of the United States Government > for a purpose related to containment or mitigation of the virus;

> (vii) any alien traveling as a nonimmigrant pursuant to a C-1, D, or C-1/D > nonimmigrant visa as a crewmember or any alien otherwise traveling to the > United States as air or sea crew;

> (viii) any alien

> (A) seeking entry into or transiting the United States pursuant to one of > the following visas: A-1, A-2, C-2, C-3 (as a foreign government official or > immediate family member of an official), E-1 (as an employee of TECRO or > TECO or the employee's immediate family members), G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, NATO-1 > through NATO-4, or NATO-6 (or seeking to enter as a nonimmigrant in one of > those NATO categories); or

> (B) whose travel falls within the scope of section 11 of the United Nations > Headquarters Agreement;

> (ix) any alien whose entry would not pose a significant risk of introducing, > transmitting, or spreading the virus, as determined by the Secretary of > Health and Human Services, through the CDC Director or his designee;

> (x) any alien whose entry would further important United States law > enforcement objectives, as determined by the Secretary of State, the > Secretary of Homeland Security, or their respective designees, based on a > recommendation of the Attorney General or his designee;

> (xi) any alien whose entry would be in the national interest, as determined > by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or their > designees; or

> (xii) members of the U.S. Armed Forces and spouses and children of members > of the U.S. Armed Forces.

> (b) Nothing in this proclamation shall be construed to affect any > individual's eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection > under the regulations issued pursuant to the legislation implementing the > Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment > or Punishment, consistent with the laws and regulations of the United > States.

> Sec. 3. Implementation and Enforcement. (a) The Secretary of State shall > implement this proclamation as it applies to visas pursuant to such > procedures as the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of > Homeland Security, may establish. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall > implement this proclamation as it applies to the entry of aliens pursuant to > such procedures as the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with > the Secretary of State, may establish.

> (b) Consistent with applicable law, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of > Transportation, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure that any > alien subject to this proclamation does not board an aircraft traveling to > the United States.

> (c) The Secretary of Homeland Security may establish standards and > procedures to ensure the application of this proclamation at and between all > United States ports of entry.

> (d) An alien who circumvents the application of this proclamation through > fraud, willful misrepresentation of a material fact, or illegal entry shall > be a priority for removal by the Department of Homeland Security.

> Sec. 4. Termination. This proclamation shall remain in effect until > terminated by the President. The Secretary of Health and Human Services > shall recommend that the President continue, modify, or terminate this > proclamation as described in section 5 of Proclamation 9984, as amended.

> Sec. 5. Effective Date. This proclamation is effective at 11:59 p.m. eastern > daylight time on March 13, 2020. This proclamation does not apply to persons > aboard a flight scheduled to arrive in the United States that departed prior > to 11:59 p.m. eastern daylight time on March 13, 2020.

> Sec. 6. Severability. It is the policy of the United States to enforce this > proclamation to the maximum extent possible to advance the national > security, public safety, and foreign policy interests of the United States. > Accordingly:

> (a) if any provision of this proclamation, or the application of any > provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the > remainder of this proclamation and the application of its provisions to any > other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby; and

> (b) if any provision of this proclamation, or the application of any > provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid because of > the lack of certain procedural requirements, the relevant executive branch > officials shall implement those procedural requirements to conform with > existing law and with any applicable court orders.

> Sec. 7. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this proclamation shall be > construed to impair or otherwise affect:

> (i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or > the head thereof; or

> (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget > relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

> (b) This proclamation shall be implemented consistent with applicable law > and subject to the availability of appropriations.

> (c) This proclamation is not intended to, and does not, create any right or > benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any > party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its > officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

> IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this eleventh day of March, > in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty, and of the Independence of the > United States of America the two hundred and forty-fourth.

> DONALD J. TRUMP

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I get that they excluded the UK for diplomatic reasons, but it's literally only a few days behind the rest of Europe in terms of infection count, which means this will have almost no effect.

I actually think banning travel from China months ago was a good call, but by analogous reasoning, the right time to ban travel from Europe (including the UK) was last week.

<comment><USER13> >I get that they excluded the UK for diplomatic reasons

No, Ireland is also exempt. In other words, the US is banning travel from the Schengen Zone.

<comment><USER14> Doesn't mean it's not still partly political, to be clear.

<comment><USER15> It's rational. UK epidemic is not yet out of control. If you look at the region breakdown in UK the cases are very well geographically distributed, the highest concentration as of yesterday is Hertfordshire with only 13 cases, or London with 100 cases if you consider that one administrative unit. Some epidemics in Schengen are highly focused on specific areas which means the growth rate can be expected to be higher. It makes sense to consider Schengen as one unit as it has open borders. It would make little sense to ban travel from individual countries in Schengen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Is there anywhere in the US where we are doing random testing of residents to determine what the real infection rate is here? From all I can see we're currently just adding up the number of people who have come in with symptoms and tested positive instead of getting a real handle on what percentage of the population is infected. The CDC website right now says that there are 938 total cases.[1] That's laughable. At this point I'd sooner believe 93,800 or 938,000 than 938. Oh wait: "Now that states are testing and reporting their own results, CDC's numbers are not representative of all testing being done nationwide." OK, so nobody's keeping up with the totals? Is that what I'm reading?

[1] [https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-in- us.html](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-in-us.html)

<comment><USER17> I would think we be able to estimate fairly correctly. I assume pretty much everyone who dies from it would end up in a hospital and counted. And since we know the death rate, we know for every 1 death there were x who have it and will/have recovered.

<comment><USER18> Except the death rate is determined by deaths/cases, which relies on counting the cases.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> NBA season suspended after an Utah Jazz player, Rudy Golbert, preliminarily tests positive.

This shortly following Golbert jokingly (ugh) rubbing all of the mics at an interview: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qxtxIVtOZE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qxtxIVtOZE)

<comment><USER20> That guy did a little joke which turned into shutting down the whole league. What the hell

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Meanwhile, the US Dept of State's Travel Advisories haven't really been recommending any restrictions on travel to Europe.

France is the 2nd most impacted country in Europe, and the DoS' last update was 11 months ago where their primary concern was terrorism.

[https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/...](https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/traveladvisories/france- travel-advisory.html)

Only Italy is currently at "Reconsider Travel" or "Do Not Travel" for the Northern regions.

<comment><USER22> At least they are consistent. Following at a far enough distance gives you 20/20 hindsight for those you follow, but only if you can internalize the lesson fast enough. Otherwise you just slo-mo replicate their same mistakes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is insane. I haven't been really scared of the pandemic yet, but if this is the response, now, I'm terrified.

Changing the number of infected people entering the community does nothing when we already have transmission happening _within the community_ at some fixed rate which is determined _by the community_.

"Flattening the curve" of an exponential function means changing the rate of growth, not the fucking constant offset.

It's basic math. Innocent people will die off this incompetence. I'm a little lost for words.

<comment><USER23> Who's going to die because they can't fly between the US and Europe?

<comment><USER24> People dying isn't the only consideration; public policy isn't made with the assumption "save human life at all costs", otherwise e.g. private cars (which kill 1-2 million people per year and injure tens of millions more) would be banned by now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> One thing though; which airline will fly _only_ american citizen back from europe? will they fill a plane with those customers only? I think my main concern is that most if not all major European airlines will cancel all flights, regardless if there are a couple of US citizen on the flights. Meaning it's probably still going to be somewhat problematic to get back (if not from London then of course)

<comment><USER26> I'm trying to find more information about this, as I'm a tourist visiting the US flying back on Sunday. Does anyone know how this will play out, will they keep flying FROM the US to Europe?

<comment><USER27> The levenshtein distance between tourist and terrorist is only 4, so my prognosis looks bleak.

But fun aside, I think you are still fine. To my knowledge no flights from the US seem to be cancelled so far. If they really do cancel flights, you could try to use another route trough another EU country. But I think that is still unlikely to be required. That might change though, but probably not until Sunday.

<comment><USER28> > The levenshtein distance between tourist and terrorist is only 4, so my > prognosis looks bleak.

The distance in speech is not that far off either, I've found. When I visited the US for the first time, the border agent asked me what I was there for. Tourism, I said. My English pronunciation not being clear enough, he said "excuse me? Can you say that again? TERRORISM?". After that I learned to just say "vacation".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> They had no screening for incoming travelers at airports just a couple of days ago - no health questions or temperature checks, nothing. And now a 30 day ban? This won't solve the problem, but it will vastly exacerbate the economic disruption.

<comment><USER29> It won't solve the problem, but it might be big enough a move that people realize now is the time to minimize contact as much as possible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Can we do better than link to the front page of a news site?

<comment><USER31> Here is the official proclamation: [https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential- actions/proclamation...](https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential- actions/proclamation-suspension-entry-immigrants-nonimmigrants-certain- additional-persons-pose-risk-transmitting-2019-novel-coronavirus/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> This awfully sounds like politically motivated than medically motivated.

Edit: Apparently it's limited to Schengen Zone: [https://www.dhs.gov/news/2020/03/11/homeland-security- acting...](https://www.dhs.gov/news/2020/03/11/homeland-security-acting- secretary-chad-f-wolf-s-statement-presidential-proclamation)

<comment><USER33> How so? This will undoubtedly push the world into recession, how does that help Trump?

<comment><USER34> Just because he can't anticipate the repercussions doesn't mean it wasn't politically motivated

<comment><USER35> Do you really think some moron bumbled his way into the most powerful office in the world? Have you stopped to think about how unlikely something like that is?

You may not agree with his style (I don't) or his personality (hate it) but the guy has to be minimally intelligent to make it as far as he has. At the very least he knows how to work a crowd and spot opportunity.

<comment><USER36> I think you're confusing different kinds of intelligence.

Just to lower the temperature, I'll use a non-political example. My grandfather, long since departed, was a master salesman. He sold all sorts of stuff door to door, including the highly dubious Kirby vacuum cleaners, before ending up in real estate. He was an incredibly good manipulator of people, but he was a very bad planner. He once famously sold the same piece of property to two different people, just for the thrill of the sale. (My grandmother had to sort it all out after.)

Being good at manipulation and bad at planning were deeply related in him and some other scoundrels I've met. Why? Because if you don't care at all about facts or repercussions, you can devote 100% of your attention to telling other people what they want to hear, what they'll believe. And it works the other way, too. If you're very good at talking your way out of problems, you never need to learn things like being disciplined or facing facts.

So yes, it is perfectly possible that some goof bumbled his way into the most powerful office in the world. My grandfather, thank goodness, was never very ambitious, so he had a pretty small blast radius. I shudder to think what harm he could have done if he had actually applied himself.

<comment><USER37> Thank you for the anecdote. It was well written and I think it's very applicable to the current topic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I just did some back-of-the-sleeve calculations on the incidence of Corona- infections in the US which make me wonder which continent is protected against which by this travel ban. My source of information is the video reporting by Dr. John Campbell [1] who thus far has been one of the more level-headed sources on the ongoing pandemic. Here goes:

The official number of cases in the US as reported by Campbell is 1084, with 33 dead. This number roughly tallied with what I see on the CDC site (they report 938 cases, 28 dead) [2].

The major of Seattle estimates there around 1100 infections in this city (source: Campbell's video), a number which could grow to about 70.000 in 6 weeks (source: Campbell's video, most likely based on the spread in Wuhan)

Seattle has a population of around 750.000 people, i.e. 0.146% of the population carries the infection.

The total population of the USA is around 328 million. 95% of the USA land mass consists of rural area with a total population of around 60 million (~20%), the other 80% of the population lives in metropolitan areas (source: Wikipedia).

If the infection rate of Seattle is used as a guide for the infection rate for the entire metropolitan population in the USA there are about 390.000 infected people in the country at the moment. While it is unlikely that this infection rate goes for the entire metropolitan population it is not out of the question given the high mobility of people in the USA. Even if actual the infection rate is a tenth of that in Seattle there are still around 38.000 infected people in the country.

Who is being protected against whom by this travel ban?

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzXQ6Bu9JVI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzXQ6Bu9JVI)

[2] [https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-in- us.html](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-in-us.html)

</comment><comment><USER39> [https://twitter.com/DHS_Wolf/status/1237915985476227078](https://twitter.com/DHS_Wolf/status/1237915985476227078)

Note that this technically covers "having been in Europe in the last 14 days", not merely "coming directly from Europe". Enforcement of the latter is much easier, of course, and I'm sure some people will manage to sneak through by lying or customs not asking.

Also note that it's the Schengen zone, thus excluding both UK and Ireland.

Finally, it only excludes foreign nationals. US citizens should be able to return, but there's nothing stopping them from being tested and/or quarantined on return.

</comment><comment><USER40> This is late, but still necessary. But still not enough. Travel _WITHIN_ the US must be restricted as well. Overly strict measures now can still help bend the curve -- the economy will recover.

</comment><comment><USER41> Seems like this is too little too late, cats already out of the bag in the US.

<comment><USER42> It's all about flattening the curve at this point.

You can do your best to identify those infected and have them self-quarantine, but if the gates are open and infected people are streaming into your country, you're not going to get far.

<comment><USER5> You're describing the opposite of flattening the curve. Closing the gates now does nothing.

I do not mean to be patronizing, but this is literally life or death and the math is very simple.

Today there are _k_ infected people. Tomorrow there will be _kn_ people.

If _n_ is unsustainable, any positive value for _k_ is equivalent. Arbitrarily large changes to _k_ today make an arbitrarily small contribution to the final doubling.

"Infected people streaming in" means _k_ becomes _k+c_. How much does reducing _c_ flatten the curve? How much does it increase the time span of the critical last few doublings?

It doesn't. That's only dependent on _n_.

Ok, we can't "flatten" the curve, but we can move the peak, right? How much does reducing _c_ move the peak?

Well, every day we prevent _k_ additional people from entering buys us one day. Remember, tomorrow that's _kn_. Act fast.

If we could, _this week alone_ , prevent a quantity of infected Europeans _equal to the infected population already within the US_ from entering, that buys us one single doubling period before the collapse of healthcare. Maybe a week if we got lucky.

I will guesstimate that that is not a realistic target in fact. The actual benefit scales proportionally.

And next week it's the same work for half the benefit.

What are you _talking about_.

<comment><USER43> What do you propose be done instead of a travel ban?

<comment><USER44> 1\. Restrictions on internal travel

2\. Isolation for those exposed or showing symptoms

3\. Paid time off work for people who can't do their jobs in isolation, to make sure people report exposure and symptoms

4\. Suspension of public gatherings

Some of these are being done voluntarily and/or by local governments, but that's very patchy.

<comment><USER43> I agree on all points, but are restrictions on internal travel much different from restrictions on external travel? Seems to depend on the definition of the boundaries, and I think it's hard to quantify the relative costs of external/internal travel restrictions. So I'm not sure what we lose by also restricting "external" travel other than another level of inconvenience.

<comment><USER44> For a country the size of the US? Yes, there is a MASSIVE difference between the two. The volume of movement by air between California and, say, Colorado is _massively_ larger than that between California and China, and one of those places currently has a COVID-19 outbreak and one does not.

The distinction between the two for the sake of definitions is also very clear - whether the restrictions apply to travel that does not cross the borders of the United States. The currently-announced restrictions do not.

The question isn't of restricting external traffic _in addition_ to internal traffic; we're _only_ limiting external traffic. We probably need to be doing a bit of both, though with less draconian limitations on internal traffic to accommodate economic realities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> All those panicking on the account of economic downturn need to remember that the US need not run faster than the bear, economically, it only needs to run faster than the other guy. Which it will. For starters, the US has 16% of population over the age of 65, compared to e.g. 21% in Germany, 22% in Italy and 20% in France. Population density is much lower here. There are 2.5x ICU beds per capita as well, and more diagnostic equipment, too. A lot fewer people use public transport. Strong containment measures were also taken _earlier_ in the infection cycle than e.g. in Italy.

I mean, sure there's some well publicized incompetence at CDC and FDA, that happens, but to say that the US is _more fucked_ than e.g. continental Europe is just not in alignment with reality.

Later this week the improved test kits should arrive en masse, and then we'll see how bad the situation is. Right now it's just pure conjecture and panic.

</comment><comment><USER46> I am beginning to strongly suspect that supply chain disruption caused by government decisions is going to cause way more damage to the world than this virus ever could have on its own. I think more people making these decisions could benefit from a good deep reading of Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations".

<comment><USER47> Don't underestimate how costly it is to society to have a bunch of people die. Not taking this seriously will kill a lot more people than taking it seriously.

<comment><USER24> The worst case of the virus is around 2% of people die, mostly elderly. The worst case of "taking it seriously" is an economic collapse in which a double- digit percentage of people die because global supply chains have fallen apart and there is no longer enough food to feed everybody.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Unfortunately, too little, too late, indeed. Too late for obvious reasons - handling a crisis in a reactive way and with a serious delay is levels of magnitude more difficult than to prevent one in the first place. Too little, because IMO travel restrictions should have been set up much earlier and, more importantly, much wider than China and Europe (i.e., Schengen Area - BTW, excluding UK is ridiculous: viruses don't care about politics, do they?). By the time people realized all seriousness of the situation, there have been 100s and even 1000s of known cases in countries like Japan and South Korea. As far as I know, travel from those areas has not been restricted at the time. I certainly understand that all that implies a huge global economic and mobility impact. However, I believe that people's health and well-being is incomparably much more important than any potential economic, lifestyle and other adverse effects from making such hard decisions. Having enough information, advice and warnings from health professionals and scientists at the time, _not limiting_ international travel (as the very major channel of this viral transmission) _early enough_ and _comprehensively enough_ is extremely irresponsible, whereas doing so would have been an act of true leadership.

</comment><comment><USER49> I see loads of people saying that we're beyond containment, and they're correct. However, it does slow infection rates to some degree. That allows us the time to try to learn more about how it behaves, how repeated cases impact people who aren't currently affected as much, and find ways to combat it. That's a positive.

</comment><comment><USER50> Does this mean with a round trip, you could be allowed to fly to Europe and be trapped there?

Edit: apparently not, looks like it just applies to foreign nationals [https://www.dhs.gov/news/2020/03/11/homeland-security- acting...](https://www.dhs.gov/news/2020/03/11/homeland-security-acting- secretary-chad-f-wolf-s-statement-presidential-proclamation)

<comment><USER51> In my experience, airports have been pretty good about checking for potential issues like that and warning passengers at check-in.

That experience doesn't include American airports though, so YMMV.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> I see in some places it says this includes cargo / shipping. Is that true?

<comment><USER53> Watched the broadcast live, yes it includes cargo shipments. Something tells me the markets are going to react badly to that one

<comment><USER36> Including cargo doesn't make much sense to me. Did they include a justification for this?

In contrast, the CDC's take is that "in general, because of poor survivability of these coronaviruses on surfaces, there is likely very low risk of spread from products or packaging that are shipped over a period of days or weeks at ambient temperatures." \-- [https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/faq.html](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/faq.html)

<comment><USER53> Broadcast didn't give any rationale, maybe they're concerned about the ship crews being carriers?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Joe Rogan has a guess on his podcast recently that is an expert. This virus spreads through air very easily. Huge numbers of the virus develop in the throat before symptoms appear. A person sitting at the front of the bus, can infect people many rows back.

The takeaway. Avoid all crowded places. Buses, Stores, Metro. And places that recirculate air, such as cruise ships, airplanes.

It will come like a wave, many many people will get infected at once, quickly. 1-3% will die. Eventually virus will run out of people not already immune to it, and the spread will subside.

</comment><comment><USER55> Too little, too late.

Most of Australia's external cases seem to be coming from the US (e.g. Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson), which indicates tens of thousands of undiagnosed incidences there (even accounting for selection bias).

Urgent social distancing seems to be the best approach to maintaining a functional health system now.

</comment><comment><USER56> Why is the U.K. not included? This is so weird; it's such a mess in the UK too.

<comment><USER57> Excluding the UK hints that this is, at least in part, politically motivated. In terms of risk the UK is no different to other European countries. We are certainly not immune to coronavirus, and there are currently no restrictions on travel between the UK and the continent.

<comment><USER58> There are many more flights terminating in the UK than any other European country. Plus, American students studying abroad in the UK have yet to return home.

<comment><USER57> These seem like arguments _for_ including the UK in the flight ban.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> Wouldn't that make UK the next hotspot? People will travel to and from UK to get to USA. Unless UK restricts travel from the rest of Europe.

<comment><USER60> Not that this ban makes a lot of sense, but not including the UK makes even less sense, considering they've already reported 400 cases (compared to the ~1,200 in the U.S.)

edit: to be fair, maybe the administration would've preferred to just ban travel from Italy. But I'm guessing it's not possible to restrict travel from just one member of the EU.

<comment><USER61> Also doesn't make considering that Heathrow is a major hub for Europeans to travel to Europe.

Only reasoning I can see is political - UK did Brexit. For limiting the spreading this seems like a weird exception.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> Closing the gate after the cows have already gotten out.

<comment><USER63> More like closing the gate so the coyotes don't keep attacking your cows.

<comment><USER64> Except there are already dozens of coyotes inside the fence.

<comment><USER65> If you had to fight 5 coyotes or 10, which would you choose?

<comment><USER64> There's every reason to believe the number of coyotes is similar on both sides of the fence.

<comment><USER66> Still not a reason to let more coyotes in.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> Containment has already failed. That's why COVID-19 was declared pandemic.

Governments, and their public health employees in particular, should be switching to management, mitigation, triage, and treatment now. The assumption is that everybody will get it. The goal now is to ensure that a person occupying an ICU beds will be treated and recovered by the time the next patient needs to be admitted into it.

Issuing more extensive travel bans now are driving in the rear-view mirror instead of keeping eyes on the road ahead. It's already _here_ , and spreading in the community.

First priority is viable testing. You can't manage what you can't detect.

Then it's like controlling a nuclear chain reaction with irregularly-shaped fuel in a randomly-configured reactor. You want to eventually consume all the dangerously radioactive fuel, but you don't want a runaway reaction and core meltdown either. So you stick control rods and moderator fluids and neutron reflectors in as needed to control the rate of the reaction, based on your monitoring, and just keep doing it until all the unreacted fuel is gone. And the whole time, people are dropping dead from the radiation. But then the reaction finally burns itself out, and you can breathe easy again, then reflect upon your failures to revise your plans for the next one.

The federal response has already failed. Now is the time for lots of smart people, who can adapt quickly, to implement ad hoc measures at the local level, based on local conditions, and draw on their public health emergency budgets, that hopefully weren't cut or raided already, and their preparedness efforts, that hopefully actually exist.

</comment><comment><USER68> Honest question, is the government allowed to prevent US citizens from returning to the US?

<comment><USER69> No, and they're not. It applies to foreign nationals (i.e. non citizens). They can, however, enforce a quarantine when citizen returns.

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> Kinda useless as people can fly to Mexico sneak in thru San Diego. I can't believe in 2020 we still don't have a simple and effective reusable respirator, which evaporates all aerosols and turns them into safe to breathe vapors. I also think the ban now is good, but 30 days will not be enough as things are exponentially getting worse. Even if we reach the infliction point, this is not gonna end in 30, 60, or even 90 days.

</comment><comment><USER71> The link should be changed to: [https://www.dhs.gov/news/2020/03/11/homeland- security-acting...](https://www.dhs.gov/news/2020/03/11/homeland-security- acting-secretary-chad-f-wolf-s-statement-presidential-proclamation)

..for official government info, and not a speech by an orange dude or news sites hungry for clicks.

</comment><comment><USER72> Official proclamation here [https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential- actions/proclamation...](https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential- actions/proclamation-suspension-entry-immigrants-nonimmigrants-certain- additional-persons-pose-risk-transmitting-2019-novel-coronavirus/)

</comment><comment><USER73> unpopular opinion: personally I'm not optimistic that any good lesson will come out of covid19 outbreak.

every recent viral outbreak seem to have generated more and more overreaction that will not only seriously bring in the economic crash that so many have been asking for but also generate resistance to actually serious future outbreaks.

</comment><comment><USER74> India has suspended all casual travel (based on type of visa) to India from all countries.

One of the latest positive cases was an individual who traveled from USA. He might now have spread it to a cab driver, his family and now their circles (school, offices) have possible exposure. :/

Given that he is one of the people who was not tested in the USA, and he has to be isolated here now, how many people like him might be spreading it far and wide in the USA? :(

</comment><comment><USER75> hey mods, the link should be changed to the white house proclamation, news sites are having some trouble with accuracy.

[https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential- actions/proclamation...](https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential- actions/proclamation-suspension-entry-immigrants-nonimmigrants-certain- additional-persons-pose-risk-transmitting-2019-novel-coronavirus/)

</comment><comment><USER76> This is insane. What are the chances of this happening for Asia? I'm currently in Asia and it would be unfortunate to not be able to return home.

<comment><USER77> We're okay for now. Im in SE asia and i think im in an okay place to wait things out if necessary.

I don't see them restricting the rest of asia specifically unless they close it ALL down.

<comment><USER78> I could see them closing the borders completely if things continue to progress.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER79> What's the endgame for the pandemic? Assume all governments act more-or-less correctly; people self quarantine, companies switch to remote work, etc. When does the world get back to normal? In two years after a vaccine is developed? This summer? Ever?

<comment><USER80> If it doesn't have the power to re-infect (which isn't known yet), then once herd immunity is achieved, things should return somewhat to normal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER81> The UK exemption is logical. The UK immigration systems are linked and accessible by the US. This is why the trusted-traveller program could be extended to cover the UK with an additional registration.

So the US immigration side knows all details of people connecting via the UK to the US so their pre-screening is effective. This includes how they got to the UK.

</comment><comment><USER82> From what I read in WSJ, it's not a ban on travel by anyone, only on Europeans (whatever that comes to be defined as). Anyone found any more clarification? In one case that might mean the cessation of flights altogether, in the other case some flights still might fly?

<comment><USER71> [https://www.dhs.gov/news/2020/03/11/homeland-security- acting...](https://www.dhs.gov/news/2020/03/11/homeland-security-acting- secretary-chad-f-wolf-s-statement-presidential-proclamation)

</comment></comment><comment><USER83> (In the USA) Is this going to accomplish anything?

The virus is already here and has been spreading out-of-control for quite a while now. The only reason the numbers are still so low here is the incredibly low number of tests being done.

<comment><USER84> It stops new vectors. At this point the world is not trying to stop it spreading anymore, but slowing the rate of spread to not overwhelm healthcare.

<comment><USER85> Is external travel a significant input of new vectors compared to internal travel?

<comment><USER84> It certainly helps, it's easier to control, and has a smaller impact on most people's lives so more easily accepted. It's not the most effective but other factors have to be considered, including social unrest. It seems a sensible decision IMO

<comment><USER86> >it certainly helps, it's easier to control, and has a smaller impact on most people's lives

it has quite a lot of significant costs, in particular on the airline industry and business travel which is smaller in number but pretty important. And given that community spread is going to be a far bigger issue this ban is nonsensical.

<comment><USER87> Seems like many companies are already curtailing or banning business travel (especially international), so this might not be _too_ much of a change.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER88> It was refreshing in Feb to visit a National Park without have 5 Chinese buses pull along side you.

<comment><USER89> Sorry I just had a good laugh at this. Pretty dark humor in these times... but that just sounds great.

</comment></comment><comment><USER90> Does anybody know how temporary work visas are handled? I'm on an L1-B and thankfully rebooked my flights 2 weeks ago when in a business trip to Germany (in anticipation of something like this).

Edit: I'm back in the US with my wife and kids, wasn't clear enough above.

</comment><comment><USER91> People from the UK who have holidays planned in the US would be better of with the UK being included in the ban, because they would then be able to get refunds for their flights etc.

</comment><comment><USER92> Why is none of this mentioned on travel.state.gov ?

Is none of this official yet?

</comment><comment><USER93> All travel to Europe's Schengen area according to Homeland's announcement.

You can still fly from the UK, Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia.

</comment><comment><USER94> This might hit those airlines the greatest, we might see some of them file for bankruptcy besides flybe

</comment><comment><USER95> How is this going to help? They can get in from Africa, Canada, Mexico, India? Ban them all later???

<comment><USER96> The ban is on those who have traveled to Europe in the past 14 days.

</comment></comment><comment><USER97> Unilateral amateurism is not how things should be done.

Look at Singapore for how things _should_ be done.

</comment><comment><USER98> My brother is stuck in Europe

<comment><USER99> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22552902](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22552902)

<comment><USER98> Thanks - though I think they added a 14 day period that he will need to self quarentine

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER100> I know people will try to come up with all sorts of edge cases to figure out how to get from Europe to the US, but the fact is if you lie about where you've been you will likely end up in federal prison. Don't try it, wait 30 days.

</comment><comment><USER50> Chances of Europe reciprocating?

<comment><USER101> Like a, "You can't fire me because I quit," situation?

<comment><USER50> This is an evil generation. I see it in their eyes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER102> How many stocks (and which) did the Trump-Kushner Crime family have time to short in prep for this?

</comment><comment><USER103> The UK exception seems weird. Is Trump really playing geopolitical / diplomacy games in this situation?

</comment><comment><USER21> From the NYT article:

"He [Trump] said he would instruct the Treasury Department to "defer tax payments without interest or penalties for certain individuals and businesses negatively impacted."

Why deferments for businesses? Don't they only pay tax on profits?

<comment><USER80> Probably is targeted more at small businesses who might have trouble getting all of their bookkeeping and records in order in time to file in a few weeks. If this somehow benefits large corporations, they will no doubt take full advantage of the situation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER104> I feel like there are some particular cultural attributes in the United States that make this useless at this point.

The United States has a very individualistic attitude. Sure, we can pause travel from Europe, but the current administration is very anti-europe. Can we pause travel in the US? I strongly doubt that we can effectively given the strong anti-expertise attitudes as well.

My guess is that the United States will become a more major hot spot for the virus than other locales. It will spread rapidly and the supply hoarding and sad state of our medical system will mean that in a few months, other nations will be rejecting flights from the US.

It's a prediction, a guess, but there are aspects of our culture that just makes it seem very likely. I'm not going to make any more predictions than the idea that we'll have more cases per capita than any other developed nation.

It's be interesting when I'm proven incorrect over time.

<comment><USER105> On the other hand, Americans have much larger and more comfortable homes than Europeans. Americans have big garages to stockpile supplies, which means less trips to the store. Very few people use public transportation regularly. Most people have private back yards. Many more meals are take-out or drive-thru. More Americans use e-commerce for shopping than Europeans.

In Europe by contrast, much more of life revolves around public spaces, like the park, cafes, the city square, and public transport. Americans tend to spend little time in restaurants, whereas Europeans relax and enjoy the meal, thus increasing their exposure time.

Think of the areas in the US that seen the worst outbreaks. Seattle, the Bay Area, New York, Boston. These are the metros, where the average resident is least likely to live a typical middle-American lifestyle. San Francisco in many ways is closer to Copenhagen than it is to Jacksonville.

Overall, social distancing is probably easier for Americans because our way of life already involves a good deal of social distance to begin with.

<comment><USER106> > Americans have big garages to stockpile supplies

No they don't. No one in NYC, Boston, San Francisco, Seattle, ... have big garages to stockpile supplies and most of the US lives in those big cities with apartments without garages.

In the suburbs they do but that's a minority of the population.

<comment><USER107> That is correct, but most people dont live in cities here. As of 2010, the top 10 cities had 24MM:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_populous_cities_i...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_populous_cities_in_the_United_States_by_decade#2010)

People in the suburbs do have big garages (think long island vs manhattan)

<comment><USER108> How does a garage help? Many people living in urban areas in Europe have a basement. And even those who don't shouldn't have issues storing 2 weeks worth of food in their houses or apartments. Fridge space is probably the only restriction for that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER109> Trying hard not to be political. But POTUS speech seems to make things lot worse than better along anything.

The efficacy of this travel ban is questionable (given all these exceptions such as one for UK. Can people coming from other parts just have a layover in UK and be get permission to enter the US?). But lets give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they did so in good faith.

It is what's not in the speech that was very very concerning. \- No mention of how / when / if people can get tested. \- No mention of any plan to handle the economic situation. What happens when businesses in Tourism and restaurants run out of their runway and have to layoff people? What happens to hourly workers who get sick? \- No assurance to encourage undocumented residents to go for testing if they experience symptoms. \- No mention of large public events. Many local governments and private organizations are doing so in an ad-hoc ways. A consistent voice would literally save lives here.

Their team seems to be singularly focused on 'winning the narrative' or 'spinning' properly than anything else... Well, I guess this is just my opinion.

<comment><USER108> > Can people coming from other parts just have a layover in UK and be get > permission to enter the US?

I believe anyone who's been to the Schengen Area in the past x days faces the ban. Excluding the UK and Ireland surely had political reasons (the UK now also has >400 cases) but it's hard to define Europe if you don't use either Schengen or EU (both of which the UK isn't a part of).

<comment><USER110> I wonder about British/Irish people.

Passports for EU citizens aren't stamped anywhere in the EU. I live in Denmark. Would the USA know if I flew to the UK, then the USA?

(I don't intend to do this.)

<comment><USER111> > Passports for EU citizens aren't stamped anywhere in the EU. I live in > Denmark. Would the USA know if I flew to the UK, then the USA?

This kind of question is a weird one to me. It's like "oh, marijuana prohibition hasn't worked so we should tax it and regulated it".

If you're breaking the law, there's sanctions. You may or may not get caught, and you may or may not be penalised, but that imperfection doesn't decide if it's valid or not. The jails in every country have murderers in them, but murder has been illegal since time immemorial. No-one proposes that we allow murder because with the prohibition we simply wind up with people in prison.

And there's a big difference between free movement of people versus a limited funnel of people. If it's still early enough, that could make the difference between something that is containable and something that is not, and it might make the difference between ICUs that can cope with the peak and being completely overwhelmed. (However, I think the horse has already bolted on this one.)

<comment><USER112> it's a legit question which is the pillar of (software) security thinking. It's called _parallel_ or _adversarial thinking_ [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_thinking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_thinking)

what would work in that case is take the Channel Tunnel to England, then lie about how long you've stayed in the UK. It probably wouldn't work if you have taken a flight out/in the EU in the past months as that would show up to any customs official.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER113> The payroll tax holiday idea is bonkers. The people most in need of help here are hourly or gig workers who are told to stay home from work or who get sick and can't work. Paying less taxes on nonexistent wages doesn't help. It seems like the administration is more interested in propping up the markets than actually addressing the health crisis and its human costs.

Also, eliminating copays on coronavirus treatment is nice, but it's hard not to notice the glaring omission of anything to help the 9% of Americans who are uninsured.

<comment><AUTHOR> Also, do they mean SS and Medicare contributions in the payroll taxes, or just unemployment insurance?

Like if we have a health crisis that disproportionately affects people who rely on Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security, taking away funding for it isn't bonkers. It's batshit insane! We should be doubling, tripling taxes in the short term on those that can pay it to make up the funding gap for testing, treatment, and surge capacity. And who better than the largest medical provider in the country, with contacts and infrastructure for directing funds to every medical provider in the country?

Are they going to cut off the water to the block when the house is burning down?

<comment><USER114> > It's batshit insane! We should be doubling, tripling taxes in the short term > on those that can pay it to make up the funding gap for testing, treatment, > and surge capacity

Taking money out of the economy by dramatically hiking taxes at this point seems _batshit insane_ to me. The government should be well equipped to absorb temporary shocks to revenue.

<comment><USER115> > The government should be well equipped to absorb temporary shocks to > revenue.

Good thing the federal deficit is higher than it's ever been! No, wait, crap...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER116> Just de-boarded and re-boarded an aircraft going to Europe from NY because of this "small" missing "detail" in the initial announcement. 4h delay and the people who de-boarded the plane initially, are not re-boarding because they probably left the airport by now, not knowing they had wrong information. Ouch.

<comment><USER117> The most important detail that was missed, it seems, is that this doesn't go into effect until midnight on Friday 03/13.

<comment><USER118> The president says that clearly in his address.

However the stuff about cargo being included is really odd. As if he was freestyling rather than reading.

Other than that; I fail to see the point of this. There is already community spread in the US and the UK. The ban seems arbitrary and politicized.

<comment><USER119> > As if he was freestyling rather than reading.

Or as if he had problems reading, which we know he likely has.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER120> Let me just explain this to my broker, see if they will unwind after my stops hit...

<comment><USER121> Stonks already hit the downside circuit breakers.

<comment><USER122> Not sure what you're looking at, but the S&P500 e-mini futures are still trading. No breakers were hit.

<comment><USER123> He is referring to the other day when trading was stop for 15 mins

<comment><USER124> No I don't think so. See this other poster's comment, 15 minutes after yours (synchronicity!)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22553350](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22553350)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER125> that's right - don't ban the uk where many people have traveled from italy and the rest of the world unhindered. because the virus cares about politics and trump's shenanigans. folks in the us - i really hope everyone poor and rich gets treatment when necessary, for free.

</comment><comment><USER126> Does this mean return flights too?

Or just travel originating from Europe and going inbound to USA?

</comment><comment><USER127> Couldnt you just travel to Canada and get to U.S through there? I get that it will reduce the number of people somewhat but it might

</comment><comment><USER128> Is there a point to this? The virus is already everywhere.

<comment><USER8> Depends on how imaginative/paranoid you are. It sure seems odd that this week has included an oil price war between Saudi Arabia and Russia, a pandemic declaration, and now the biggest disruption of international travel/commerce since WW2. [https://twitter.com/RusEmbUSA/status/1237048071223160833](https://twitter.com/RusEmbUSA/status/1237048071223160833)

<comment><USER129> If I would have my tin foiled hat on I would say something else is going.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER130> He's dead Jim.

Captain, it appears the containment has failed. What are your next orders?

</comment><comment><USER131> What if.. You travel to UK by land and take a plane to the USA?

<comment><USER132> How are you planning to travel to UK by land? It's an island!

<comment><USER133> You can walk from France to the UK through the Chunnel, technically.

<comment><USER57> Yes, its dangerous and illegal but it's been done!

[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/22/sudanese- ref...](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/22/sudanese-refugee- walked-through-channel-tunnel-pleads-guilty-abdul-haroun)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The FDA fails to adequately screen or monitor products - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/04/opinion/sunday/medical-devices.html <comment><USER2> There's a few things that are problematic about this opinion piece.

First off, many of the items being discussed are related to surgical treatments. It is very hard to impossible to do a double blind study of a surgical thing. What are you going to do? Open a bunch of people up and only do the actual treatment on half of them? I've heard of this being done in very rare situations, but the ethics of this are pretty edgy.

Secondly, there appears to be a mischaracterization of women being disproportionately affected by things. This is a pretty complex topic, but lets balance out the offered information by pointing out that prostate cancer (men) kills more people than breast cancer (women) and receives a lot less funding

[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/02/prostate- cancer-...](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/02/prostate-cancer-kills- people-breast-cancer-first-time-new-figures/)

My personal experience with FDA regulation has been that they are being asked to do an impossible task, and not doing a great job of it. People close to me have been hugely (negatively) impacted by FDA decisions because they are going for a one size fits all solution for everything, and because they somehow fancy that they know more than doctors involved in a particular situation.

<comment><USER3> Doctors are biased too, that's the problem. Often times, knowing a lot about something will bias you even more because you fail to acknowledge or accept what you do NOT know or what conflicts with what you THINK you know.

<comment><USER2> Everybody's biased, and I've certainly met my share of biased doctors. If you have a specific complaint, each doctor brings their toolbag of golden hammers that they know about and rarely has the ability to look beyond it. It's one of the challenges of being a patient to wade through that.

The FDA isn't really going to be very helpful with this, and they labor under the additional burden of being much more subject to politics. Sure, they may stop the obvious quackery, but remember that general anesthesia used to be considered quackery, as did prescribing antibiotics for stomach ulcers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> What really bothers me about this is a) The editorial board, when writing such an important piece, is not identified on the actual article other than 'the editorial board'. Sure you can find out who is on the board but you don't know what parts they played in the write up. I hate this convention.

b) Chain of information custody issue. They cite this organization with a link to the page but there is nothing easily apparent on that page that would lead you to know how legit the actual underlying data (which they are quoting) is. At least on a quick check.

[https://www.icij.org/investigations/implant- files/](https://www.icij.org/investigations/implant-files/)

It's almost as if it's a 'well we are the NY Times the paper of record so you can trust that we have thoroughly vetted all of this as well as how the actual data was compiled'.

This is not to say there isn't an issue. But it's easy for a writer to sit back and take pot shots (and find something to support that pot shot) w/o the scope of the problem other than 'and big number of people are impacted'.

</comment><comment><USER5> The FDA regulates (or fails to regulate) many different classes of products (drugs, biologics, devices, human cell and tissue products, supplements, food, tobacco and nicotine products, etc). FDA's authority and its effectiveness is extremely variable across these classes.

My sense is that the traditional drug and biologic drug parts still work reasonably well, but the biggest problems lately are coming from devices and from human cell and tissue products (and with products that are being pushed into those categories). A lot of this is due to the ways the laws have been written (due to lobbying and legislative capture), but some of it is undoubtedly a result of regulatory capture and incompetence.

</comment><comment><USER6> Another example of a government agency that has been captured and lost the will to govern

<comment><USER7> Congress has gradually eroded its authority. For example FDA can no longer do its own science but has to rely on the companies to do so. It has been stripped of any authority over so-called "natural" supplements so they can make unproven medical claims (e.g. "our homeopathic remedy will cure your cold") thanks to Oren Hatch being paid reelection dollars by Herbalife. Etc.

Don't blame the agency, blame congress.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> They want a:

> global medical device registry where patient outcomes for all medical > devices are openly monitored

A global open database of people's most sensitive medical information, what could go wrong.

<comment><USER9> Jesus! As someone who works in the Pharma industry that's dam near impossible. We'd love to get outcomes data for our product post-approval. Getting that data is damn near impossible as physicians have zero incentive to provide it, even when something goes wrong.

<comment><USER10> Yeah, the current binary model of "proven safe" is utterly broken.

First, the product is considered 100% unsafe and criminal to use until going through some defined set of steps.

Then it is considered 100% safe forever, and no further knowledge needs to be collected.

Any sane system based on gathering knowledge and saving lives would be _very_ different.

<comment><USER9> No one in the industry calls drugs 100% unsafe or 100% safe. That's why there is a long list of side effects on every drug commercial.

A risk/benefit profile is what drugs have.

<comment><USER10> I'm talking about the legal/regulatory framework.

Even there, 100% is an overstatement, there are _some_ minor and slow feedback mechanisms.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Today must be an even-numbered day at the NYTimes.

On odd-numbered days we scold the FDA for demanding too much data and investigation, and so taking too long to let products onto the market.

<comment><USER12> It can be both - The FDA is inefficient when it does test a product causing the costs to increase, and also doesn't screen every product as well as it should.

<comment><USER10> It's also has separate legal frameworks for drugs and medical devices.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It makes sense to rush new medical devices and drugs to market when there's no better option. For example the Reagan FDA removed the review process for new AIDs drugs during the 1980s epidemic. But the FDA should have scrutinized vaginal mesh more closely given that there are already so many effective forms of birth control.

People also need to remember that you can't pick and choose regulations. I feel like many readers of this article will be rightfully appalled, but conversely also want to see increased medical use of psychedelics and marijuana despite a similar lack of research on long-term effects.

<comment><USER14> Transvaginal mesh is for pelvic organ prolapse, not some sort of birth control.</comment></comment>


Freemasons and Ritual Murder: The Story of William Morgan - <AUTHOR> https://www.libertarianism.org/media/liberty-chronicles/everything-is-freemasons <comment><USER2> I was a Mason for a number of years. The reality among Masons varies from jurisdiction (i.e., state) to jurisdiction and also from lodge to lodge. In other words, no single person can speak for all. What I'm saying here is just my experience. I participated in 2 different states and found the differences pretty significant between the 2 (not good or bad, just different).

It was a multi-faceted experience for me (good and bad). I'm grateful that I had the experiences, but I'm also grateful to have moved on. Within the "Blue Lodge" (regular Freemasonry), there are really 2 kinds of meetings: stated (monthly, normally boring stuff), and special (typically degree conferrals). The degree conferrals was a fantastic experience for me and I'll always keep as treasured memories. There are 3 degrees: Entered Apprentice (EA), FellowCraft (FC), and Master Mason (MM). The last section of each degree has a lecture specific to the degree. I really enjoyed the lectures (and ritual if it's done really well), and most especially the one for Fellow Craft (referred to as the 'stair lecture'). The other part of Blue Lodge that's supposed to be meaningful is the friendships that you develop and spend time with your fellow brothers.

Outside of the Blue Lodge are various appendant bodies (affiliated organizations): York Rite, Scottish Rite, and Shriners are the main ones. I did belong to the Scottish Rite and really enjoyed the ritual. The Scottish Rite has 32 degrees and a separate ritual for each. The rituals are essentially plays/drama intended to convey one or more traits/values. I was fortunate enough to attend Scottish Rite degrees in Guthrie, Oklahoma. The Scottish Rite temple there is beautiful and watching the degree conferrals there was the highlight of my Masonic experiences.

Why am I grateful for my Masonic experiences? I got to meet some really interesting people; I got to experience the degrees/ritual, and I became a better person by internalizing some of the teachings. This last part for me was becoming more tolerant and patient.

How far do the 'blood oaths' really go? I don't know. It seems that they were real long ago, but I really believe that they're 100% symbolic in the US. Is it possible that there is some super secret and nefarious inner ring? Yes, it's possible but I wouldn't bet on it.

Many Masons discuss the 2 types of Masons: card-carrying Masons (registered, and carries ID card in their wallet) and real Masons (no physical proof, but it's in their heart). Ideally, the 2 types would always be one and the same, but they aren't always.

</comment><comment><USER3> (Disclaimer: I'm a freemason. I wrote a few lines here about what it's like to be a freemason today: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16153129](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16153129)

If you have any questions please ask.)

Now that's one convoluted podcast. Starting at conflating stonemasonry with Freemasonry (Morgan was a bricklayer by the way, which is related but not equivalent to being a stonemason), segueing into conspiracy theories and finishing off at the supposed foundations of libertarianism in the US.

While for lack of reliable accounts much of what happened around William Morgan's death probably will remain uncertain William Morgan himself seems to have been a somewhat dubious character of questionable repute: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Morgan_(anti- Mason)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Morgan_\(anti-Mason\))

What becomes clear from both the podcast episode and the Wikipedia article though is that much of the anti-masonic sentiment around that time was rooted in religious and political ideas that weren't exactly egalitarian but whose originators rather worried about their own position in the new society that developed in 19th century USA.

<comment><USER4> What's the win to being a mason? What's it like? It's not something I've ever thought about, and it seems like there are a couple HN people involved in it. I'd love to be educated a bit about it!

<comment><USER3> It's about becoming a better person, the best version of yourself.

Lodge meetings, which usually take place once a week, are the main component of Freemasonry. These meetings consist of open discussions (excluding arguments about party politics and religion), someone giving a talk or merely sharing experiences that are interesting or noteworthy (e.g. like dealing with an ethically difficult situation in everyday life).

Once a month there's a special meeting where the actual Masonic ritual takes place. This ritual basically is an allegorical play that - not unlike some meditation techniques - can help you with finding out more about yourself and about how to use your potential to live a worthwhile life.

The wins probably vary from Freemason to Freemason.

Apart from the perhaps more elusive ones like finding your purpose in life I'd say becoming more mindful, especially when it comes to ethics in everyday life is something many Freemasons would mention.

Being able to openly discuss difficult matters without fear of being judged is another benefit as well as being accepted regardless of your personal background or origin.

Freemasonry also allows you to get to know people from all walks of life and backgrounds that otherwise you perhaps wouldn't have met. Apart from being a great way to discover new ideas this can also help with becoming more tolerant towards others who don't necessarily share your background or points of view.

There are many more practical benefits, too, like becoming a better public speaker. Giving talks is encouraged and lodge meetings are a great opportunity to give talks in a comfortable environment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Masons can barely organize a pancake breakfast, much less a conspiracy to commit murder.

Source: I am a Mason in Illinois.

<comment><USER6> Are you allowed to divulge that information?

<comment><USER3> Not the OP but I'm a Freemason, too. Anything in particular you'd like to know?

There's nothing secret about Freemasonry anymore today. All the rituals are available for everyone to see and for the most part have been since Prichard's "Masonry Dissected", published in 1730: [https://freemasonry.bcy.ca/ritual/prichard.pdf](https://freemasonry.bcy.ca/ritual/prichard.pdf)

Masons don't usually talk publicly about the specifics of the ritual or the traditional tokens, words and grips. We still don't "divulge" those "secrets" (as mentioned before these are publicly known anyway) because discretion is considered a virtue.

Masons also don't reveal that someone else is a Mason (simply because he might not want this to happen).

Other than that many Masons will talk openly about Freemasonry.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> How prevalent is masonry in the bay area and the startup world?

<comment><USER7> Some more questions:

Is it easier to get funding if you are a member of masonry? Are all VCs part of the fraternity?

Does favouritism occur within members, and if so how do they justify having high moral values?

<comment><USER4> Further questions:

* Who controls the British crown?

* Who keeps the metric system down?

* Who keeps Atlantis off the maps?

* Who keeps the Martians under wraps?

* Who holds back the electric car?

* Who makes Steve Guttenberg... a star?

* Who robs cavefish of their sight?

* Who rigs every Oscar night?

Thanks in advance!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> [deleted]

<comment><USER9> Good question!

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Is there a transcript or summary? Freemasonry is a fascinating topic with a storied and disputed history, but also a magnet for conspiracy theory lunacy.

<comment><USER11> The article itself is a transcript, and there's a "read transcript" link in the top box.

<comment><USER10> Ugh I didn't scroll down.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I don't know why this in on HN, but in the spirit of serendipity, I ask: Why not?

<comment><USER8> [deleted]

<comment><USER13> > _There is currently a shadow-banned question in this thread which asks the > following > How prevalent is masonry in the bay area and the startup world?_

That comment was killed by HN software which is based on past abuses by spammers and trolls. To my knowledge, our software hasn't been inducted into any secret societies.

It's off topic to complain about killed comments and especially to post wrong speculations about why they were killed. Instead, if you see a dead comment that shouldn't be dead, vouch for it by clicking its timestamp to go to its page, then clicking 'vouch' at the top. When a dead comment gets enough vouches—often just one—it gets resurrected. This way the community gets to override decisions made both by the software and by moderators, on a comment- by-comment basis.

<comment><USER8> [deleted]

<comment><USER7> I think this thread answers my question. Thank you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Hang on, let me get my tifnfoil hat.

<comment><USER13> Would you please stop posting unsubstantive comments here? You've done this a fair bit, and it degrades the quality of the site—both itself and by encouraging others to do the same.

I'm sure you wouldn't litter in a city park. HN is also a park of sorts, so if you'd treat it with the same respect, we'd appreciate it.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

<comment><USER14> Perhaps you have me confused with someone else? Looking at my history I don't see anything particularly abusive and certainly not "unsubstantiated".

<comment><USER13> I was thinking of [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16208095](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16208095) and [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16192384](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16192384) when I posted that. But you're right, your other history looks fine, so "a fair bit" was too strong—sorry!

The word is 'unsubstantive' and we use it to mean empty comments that lower the signal/noise ratio here. The idea on HN is if you have a substantive point, to make it thoughtfully; and if not, then simply to not comment until you do.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Venture-capital infusions shrank Box founders' stakes, ignited strife - <AUTHOR> http://www.wsj.com/articles/rich-but-not-silicon-valley-rich-1429842736 <comment><USER2> > Aaron Levie and Dylan Smith are worth more than $100 million combined after > turning the cloud software firm they started in a Berkeley, Calif., garage > into Box Inc., with 1,200 employees and expected revenue of $285 million > this year. ...But getting there took 10 years.

This illustrates very well the disparity between founder and non-founder equity. It's considered a negative that Levie and Smith got _only_ $100 million combined. They're not Sergey-rich, but it's still fuck-you retire- early start-a-foundation become-an-investor money for each of them.

Meanwhile, given that the sum of non-founder equity (i.e., all employees combined) typically adds up to less than the founders', you've got at most $100 million to spread over 1200 employees. Employee number 1 might have a couple million dollars bonus from his 10 years, but it'll go down quickly from there for everyone after the first few. Where's the WSJ article on them, and the thousands of others who are never written about when silicon valley companies go public? The ones who joined a company early, or when it was in the red, or under pressure from all sides, and helped it grow and succeed... and they walk away still not being able to afford a house in Mountain View, while their founders pick out colors for their Ferraris?

<comment><USER3> This is why being a super early employee is one of the worst deals in tech: marginally less risk than the founders, long hours, minimal equity, and likely below-market salary.

There are upsides, but outside of a few rare cases, I can't imagine joining a company at this stage.

<comment><USER4> It's very easy to justify turning down early-stage jobs with that mentality -- and I've turned down a number that would have made me retirement wealthy based on precisely that logic.

But now that I'm a founder I'd take issue with the "marginally less risk" comment. Quitting a six-figure job, forgoing income for a year-plus, taking the risks of never getting liftoff or financing, taking another year or more at way-below-market angel-funded salary... this is not "marginally more risk" than someone who comes in with a salary from day one at a company that is in motion. The early employee has much less opportunity cost (and -- worth noting -- can also pull out much more easily if things seem to be moving sideways).

Furthermore the theory of "implied pot odds" applies. You're not just getting the returns on the deal, you're getting all of the career and relationship equity of having been a key player on a huge success.

I would argue that early-stage roles, if you can tolerate the opportunity cost over the near term, are one of the better deals going, and likely (though only arguably) better than being an under-ready founder with a high likelihood of failure.

<comment><USER2> Yeah, being a founder is higher risk. Correct. At each stage towards success, a company is de-risked.

But founders' equity usually totals the equity of all employees combined. Did the founders' risk --and their contributions-- equal the total of everyone else in the company, combined?

I'm arguing the numbers in today's equity distributions are wildly out of proportion.

<comment><USER5> 1) "Did the founders' risk --and their contributions-- equal the total of everyone else in the company, combined?"

It depends on how you define the founders' risk as well as their contributions. Both are highly subjective. In Box's case, they could've failed due to an infinite number of potential causes, leaving Levie penniless. We don't consider them because Box is now a huge company. As for a founder's contribution, a prescient business strategy and the ability to handle stress is worth its weight in gold. Who would have thought of starting a cloud storage company in 2005? Who could have raised funds for a tech company in 2005, especially someone as inexperienced as Levie? Additionally, founders have to deal with way more stress than an employee. Founders end up thinking about their startups 24/7, because that is their future. An employee can walk away at any time and just get another job.

2) "I'm arguing the numbers in today's equity distributions are wildly out of proportion."

This assumes there is some ideal proportion, one that leads to some optimal social outcome. High equity payouts for founders mean there will be more founders, as average long-term compensation will go up. High equity payouts for first-employees will mean there be more people who want to join semi- stable startups as employees #1 and #2. Which leads to a better social outcome? I don't really know. I would guess we would be better off trying to encourage people to become founders rather than employees. What I do know is that if you don't think equity is good enough for you, you can always try to start a negotiation or start your own company.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Stories like this make me think it's almost not worth starting a company. Give 1,200 talented people an awesome place to work, be CEO of a company you truly enjoy leading, provide thousands of companies with a service that makes their lives easier, entertain 150k Twitter followers, make a bunch of your employees first-time millionaires, make millions for your investors, make yourself more money than you'll ever be able to spend... and people still consider you a failure.

<comment><USER7> This article was on the front page of the Wall Street Journal today. One thing that struck me when I read it this morning is that the headline is practically unrelated to the article: the word "rich" appears only in the article's 7th paragraph, and the bulk of the piece is pretty straightforward reporting on Box's fundraising efforts.

Box's market cap is approximately $2B. If the founders ended up with, say, $150M combined (the article says over $100M), it may be a relatively small slice -- but of a pretty big pie. I suspect 99.9999% of HN readers would be happy with the results that those two folks managed, and the fact that the company, in this post-Sarbox era, conducted a successful IPO. To put it in perspective, I'm not aware of a single YC-backed company that has had an IPO, though Dropbox seems a likely near-term candidate.

<comment><USER8> We replaced the title with the subtitle, which is hopefully more accurate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> mirror that bypasses the paywall [https://archive.is/WKcLi](https://archive.is/WKcLi)

<comment><USER10> Thank you!

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> > Mr. Cuban put in $250,000 and got a nearly one-third stake in the fledgling > firm.

Why would someone give up a third of their company for $250k? That seems crazy to me.

<comment><USER6> Less crazy when it's 2005 and you're a college student with no money, and you look at Cuban as a business partner rather than an investor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Success in a VC backed company means dilution. Massive success means massive dilution.

The only time it doesn't mean that is when we're talking about super unicorns (Facebook) or primarily self-funded early on along with early traction (Workday).

</comment><comment><USER13> > In May 2011, Citrix Systems Inc. offered to acquire Box for about $600 > million, nearly triple the online storage company's value in February.

> Draper Fisher Jurvetson, of Menlo Park, Calif., pressured Messrs. Levie and > Smith to think long and hard about selling. The venture-capital firm stood > to get $9 for every Box share it bought for 29 cents.

One reason one should hesitate about taking big-name VC funding is that you can get stuck in the "home run" mentality.

</comment><comment><USER14> It's only their own fault...not sure how this is news worthy.

</comment><comment><USER15> Behind a paywall :(

<comment><USER16> google the headline to get a direct link!

<comment><USER17> Note: this trick doesn't work in Firefox now that Google defaults to https. Firefox won't send a Referer header when you're going from an https page to an http page, so wsj.com doesn't know you're coming from Google. (I don't know whether it sends one for https-to-https cross-domain links.)

 _Ninja edit:_ that is, this is how my Firefox behaves. Not sure if it's caused by an add-on like HTTP Everywhere or something like that. But it seems like I read something from the DuckDuckGo blog describing this behavior.

Chrome sends a Referer of "[https://www.google.com"](https://www.google.com") (i.e. just the domain), so wsj.com lets you past the paywall.</comment></comment></comment>


Small, Modular Nuclear Plants Get Their First Chance in the U.S - <AUTHOR> https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601426/small-modular-nuclear-plants-get-their-first-chance-in-the-us/?utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=post <comment><USER2> Hey! It's great to see NuScale on my hackernews homepage. After working there as an intern for my first two summers out of hs, I've gotta say that it was one of the most inspiring startups. Since I started, I was able to witness the company grow up from its roots at Oregon State University to develop it's prototypical state-of-the-art designs that I (and many others) think will blow current nuclear power plant projects out of the water. Looking forward to it's first deployments. Hopefully the SMRs will be near enough to where I live to actually get a chance to visit!

</comment><comment><USER3> Google cache link if you hit the paywall: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Awww.t...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Awww.technologyreview.com%2Fs%2F601426%2Fsmall- modular-nuclear-plants-get-their-first-chance-in-the- us%2F&oq=cache%3Awww.technologyreview.com%2Fs%2F601426%2Fsmall-modular- nuclear-plants-get-their-first-chance-in-the- us%2F&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i58.864j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)</comment>


Media BS Index. (Willingness to Issue Corrections and Updates) [Google Sheets] - <AUTHOR> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MQ6IiQcorsN_pnY6oX1h1K52N66mMw4crpOqVYQJiNg/edit?usp=sharing <comment><AUTHOR> Made while writing a book on Vice media. My attempt to quantify low editorial standards in 'new media'.

The methodology was rather crude. I compared Google search results for the word "the site:example.com" and compared it with "update site:example.com" and "correction site:example.com". Adding a few modifiers to remove 'corrections officers' etc.</comment>


Heights of Fancy: Supertall The Skyscrapper Museum - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903454504576488521377292688.html

<comment><USER2> (Typo in title.)</comment>


Mike Pompeo: "Edward Snowden should be given a death sentence" (2016) - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/lawmaker-traitor-snowden-deserves-death-penalty/article/2583023 <comment><USER2> Old stuff here. As time went on, it became more and more clear that @snowden was actively working against American interests via military document leaks that were completely unrelated to domestic surveillance. He betrayed an oath which is critical to maintaining national security, and it's trivially simple to ascertain that, at the least, at the time that he fled, he clearly caused damage.

Thought experiment: You're the NSA, and @snowden is in HK mid-2013 going public, and you realize he took some unknown set of highly sensitive military documents. You have to assume the worst. Just from this alone, significant damage is an obvious conclusion, just from the uncertainty of what was or was not taken. That he later said something about leaving "breadcrumbs" was either insulting or ignorant of the reality of the impact of his actions.

<comment><USER3> Counter thought experiment: if you are really thinking about national security, would you ever rely on lots and lots of people making ideological promises of secrecy to keep you safe? Of course not, those people are human beings after all and are very easily compelled to break those silly promises. But then again national security has never been about security or a nation, more like keeping a nation in check.</comment></comment>


Homoglyph attacks: How to create an internet hoax - <AUTHOR> http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/does-google-censor-tiananmen-square-how-to-create-an-internet-hoax/

<comment><USER2> So...what do we do about it?

How about a standard algorithm/mapping table for grouping unicode chars to known languages and flagging when a unicode string pulls chars from more than one language? (possibly only flagging if a change occurs within a 'word').

A standard way of rendering unicode strings could then be too highlight flagged chars (perhaps with a different colour). More sensitive areas (such as the browser url bar) could fire additional alerts if any chars were flagged.

Feels like a nice minor RFC to me - anyone see a problem with it?

<comment><USER3> I like your idea of changing the color of the letters if they are in a different language. I might actually work on that.

<comment><USER2> Cool. I think a well-defined algorithm for defining a flagged character is important, to get cross-platform/application support and to validate the algo. (Any bug in the algo is a possible security hole, moreso if people become to trust that any dodgy characters _are_ highlighted).

An exposed API to handle UTF8 strings to get count and/or indices of flagged chars would also be useful. Perhaps it could work as an extension to ICU?

<http://site.icu-project.org/>

If nothing else, the "change language within a word" should use a unicode-sane definition of 'word', which ICU would give you.

Once you have the two pieces above, adding the colouring etc should be reasonably straightforward. But it'd be a shame if the two pieces above weren't factored out - since I don't think the widespread adoption would follow otherwise.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> A really well-known old attack, far more painfully expressed in internationalized domain names (IDN), where attackers can create pixel-perfect DNS clones of "paypal.com".

Notable also as an example of an attack that the DNSSEC security model does little to combat.

One of the biggest security weaknesses on the Internet is in browser UI (something Aza Raskin should be shouting from the rooftops). Right now, users are "trained" (to dignify what's happening) to look at the browser URL bar for a name and a lock icon.

We don't need new protocols or even changes in old ones so much as we need Mozilla, Microsoft, Google, and Apple to sit down and come up with a standard set of UI idioms that will allow users to quickly and visually "authenticate" a domain name from the cues made available to the browser.

<comment><AUTHOR> _One of the biggest security weaknesses on the Internet is in browser UI (something Aza Raskin should be shouting from the rooftops)._

He has been shouting it from the rooftops. Tabnapping, which got on Reuters: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1376075>

And an older trick, now fixed in Firefox: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=201912>

<comment><USER4> You're right, I shouldn't have implied he wasn't paying attention at all. (Although Tabnapping has little to do with the problem I'm talking about).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> You can use this technique to mention people/companies/political parties on Twitter but who you don't want easily finding the tweet (e.g. the vile racists of the BиP ;-)).

<comment><USER6> In this case, the и intensely reminds me of a swastika so the effect is doubled!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This article presents some interesting consequences of using a unified map from numbers to glyphs for all the plethora of human languages.

Perhaps instead of Unicode there could have been an established way to change character encoding mid-string? Regarding and treating control characters as normal characters, as this article demonstrates we do with the mirror character at least, is nonsensical. Maybe a string could have a primary encoding, and tags could be placed around sections which use an alternate.

Under such a scheme, in an english string any cryllic sections would be surrounded by "tag" bits. The viewing program could then handle the cryllic part according to its capability and known environment:

\- An english terminal might render as nonsense english characters.

\- A capable viewing program could render proper cryllic glyphs according to the cryllic encoding.

\- A good browser could render the cryllic glyphs but highlight them, display them in a different color, or even remove them.

Likewise, right-to-left languages would be implicitly rendered as such according to the capability of the viewing program.

But this has no-doubt already been suggested and rejected by somebody...

<comment><USER8> It doesn't really buy you anything. Everything you described is already possible with UTF-8, even the first bit about misinterpreting UTF-8 as an 8-bit ASCII. You've still described a single mapping of characters to numbers, you've just created a much more inconvenient encoding.

<comment><USER7> One could argue that a filesystem which contains two files, one in ASCII and one in EBCDIC, is on the whole just single mapping of characters to numbers. Your point isn't well argued.

What I'm suggesting differs in that it would use consistent tags to indicate deviations from the intended primary language of a string.

Surround sections of a string which _should be interpreted differently_ with tags-bits indicating such. These tags _should not be treated as characters_ as the mirror character described in the article obviously is. And finally, display routines would easily be able to indicate what's what; any sections of the string with tags indicating an alternate encoding could be displayed with bold, highlight, or in a different color. (ie. As in "ti<cryllic>a</cryllic>n<cryllic>a</cryllic>nmen square", except the tags would simply be unused bit-patterns.)

To accomplish the same thing with a Unicode string, one would have to store a list of ranges of code-points which correspond to the string's locale. Then, anything which isn't in one of those ranges could be displayed in the alternate color. (ie. A character outside of the range 32-126 would be considered "not EN-US". For other languages, the code-point ranges might be more complex.)

The scheme I suggested isn't great, but it would avoids having to compare each character to see if it falls somewhere in a list of ranges for the current locale.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The unicode "mirror" character mentioned in the article was very interesting -- I had not heard of its existence before. This Google search indicates its potential for hijinks:

<http://www.google.com/search?q=%26%238238>;

<comment><USER10> It's not the mirror character, it's the "Right-to-Left Override" character. It's for bi-directional text to mark a word as being right to left.

<comment><USER11>  It's pretty damn cool!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Who exactly upvoted this? The fact that this is on the front page of Hacker News is really disappointing.

<comment><USER13> Why?</comment></comment>


Introducing Turbo: 5x faster than Yarn and NPM, and runs natively in-browser - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@ericsimons/introducing-turbo-5x-faster-than-yarn-npm-and-runs-natively-in-browser-cc2c39715403 <comment><USER2> Can Turbo be used server side?

Yarn keeps deleting all compiled libraries and Selenium binaries, and using `yarn install --check-files` instead didn't help (as suggested here: [https://github.com/yarnpkg/yarn/issues/1955#issuecomment-327...](https://github.com/yarnpkg/yarn/issues/1955#issuecomment-327960647) )

(I asked this at Medium too)

</comment><comment><USER3> A faster implementation _for the browser / browser IDEs_</comment>


Inside the Glowing-Plant Startup That Just Gave Up Its Quest - <AUTHOR> https://backchannel.com/inside-the-glowing-plant-startup-that-just-gave-up-its-quest-1e5502cb4808 <comment><USER2> _As one commenter signed off: "Looking forward to one day reading a book by plant-light."_

Count me in. Disappointing to see the shift away from the glowing plant idea, but sounds like there company isn't done yet.</comment>