Lulzsec: UK men plead guilty to hacking charges - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18577609 <comment><USER2> It's depressing when all the biggest governmental agencies in the world can catch are a few teenagers with scripts.

At the same time we just accept multimillion crime groups and governments wrecking havoc because they're just too darn hard to catch.

<comment><USER3> I think you nailed it there. It's the governments I find the most objectionable as they are pretty hard to bring to justice.

<comment><USER4> Indeed, it even comes on the same day the British prime minister makes a speech where he takes benefits away from the young who are struggling to find work and uses the term "culture of entitlement".

This from a landed multi-millionaire and without a hint of irony.

<comment><USER3> The Tories have always kept the poor as poor as possible. Its where they like them. In fact they'd rather everyone was poor.

I'm 300 quid a month down since the unelected fuckers took over and all I've seen is money pissed up the wall on that dreaded word: austerity. If I was a saving money consultant I'd be rich.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Is there a story of how they were caught? They did have pretty good protection against it. Was it a slip somewhere? Did their pride take over so they told too many of their friends, who may have turned them in?

<comment><USER6> Sabu helped the FBI. According to Wikipedia:

      On August 15, he pleaded guilty to several hacking
      charges and agreed to cooperate with the FBI. Over
      the following seven months he successfully unmasked
      the other members of the group.

<comment><USER7> To that I would add that Sabu was found because (according to what I read) he once signed into a Lulzsec IRC channel without masking his residential IP. So yes, there was a slip, which led to Sabu's cooperation.

<comment><USER8> There was a slip which led to his capture. Instead of paying the unfettered price for the crimes he committed, he ratted out his friends in a blatant abuse of the system in order to lessen his punishment.

The lesson for today kids, is never commit a crime alone, so you have someone to rat out on for that plea deal!

<comment><USER9> Why are plea bargains to help capture more people an abuse of the system?

<comment><USER10> Agreed. I'd rather see all of them go down with lessened punishment than one go down while the rest are off the hook. Although I don't like plea bargains which let the squealer off the hook.

<comment><USER8> That's the point. If they were doing their job and interrogating well as well as investigating well they'd catch them all just like Sabu. Unfortunately they're not and it's easier to offer a plea deal after a short period of intimidation so they do that. I think they should all pay, but this way they just abuse something built into the system that was made as an incentive for people they didn't think they COULD catch otherwise.

<comment><USER10> With Sabu, they caught him on mere chance. He connected directly to IRC from his home address, without proxies or going to a wifi hotspot to hide himself. Not everyone will make that mistake, and then it becomes infinitely harder to find them. It's about resource management.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Funny how the title says "men" and then you discover that those are just two kids of 19 and 18 years old. I was expecting to read about some serious cyber criminals...

<comment><USER12> So... you're saying they shouldn't be considered adults at age 18, then?

<comment><USER2> 18 years threshold is just an odd convention. Biologically it's closer to 12 but the legal and cultural threshold varies wildly all over the planet. My rule of thumb: if you don't have to make a living - you're a kid. Enjoy it while it lasts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> By "hacking" here , they basically just mean DDOS right?

<comment><USER8> When they call Anonymous a hacking collective, you know they're either too stupid, or too corrupt to say it like it is.

They're just a bunch of stupid kids, and I wouldn't label what Anonymous as a whole is doing as hacking regardless of how you painted it. Lulzsec on the hand...are a bunch of kids who learned TRICKS before they gained the knowledge that comes with it.

After years of learning and you get to a point of finding exploits yourself, you understand at this point WHY doing things is a bad idea.

They skipped the learning phase and just learned some stupid tricks that allowed them to do a lot of damage while knowing little.

<comment><USER10> It brings to mind the old infosec adage: What's the difference between hacking and pentesting? Permission.

The best hackers learn quickly to become security researchers/GRC/application security/etc. The rest end up in jail or swimming in debt from the lawsuits. It's okay to break things as long as you've been given permission to break them, and generally that permission comes with a clause to give advice on how to make sure it doesn't get broken again.

It's natural selection in the hacker realm. If you want to survive, you have to play by the rules.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What were the 'hot' dev environments c. 1999 - <AUTHOR>

I know that today, almost everyone who reads HN understands when I say 'rails', 'node', 'clojure.' "Hi I'm a textmate wielding rails hacker in the valley...". These are considered the 'hot' technologies that are used today. I want to know what the technologies were pre-bust, in 1999, in the days of pets.com et al. <comment><USER2> That's back when I was using C++/ASM in Visual Studio 6, IDA Pro, and WinDbg to reverse engineer games like Starcraft and Diablo. Now, I use Python to write relatively simple web code. Have I regressed? haha.

Self-taught beauties such as this: [https://github.com/ryancole/broodwar-chat- enhancements/blob/...](https://github.com/ryancole/broodwar-chat- enhancements/blob/master/asm.cpp) It's amazing what the thought of having an unfair advantage in an online game can make you want to learn.

</comment><comment><USER3> Perl was everywhere; that was its heyday.

PHP was not yet a joke. Or, rather, it was a joke, but a chuckler rather than the groaner it has become.

In 1999, if you said you were a software developer, that meant you wrote programs for people to use on their computers. If you wrote software that ran on servers, that was sort of unusual, so you would describe yourself as a "server-side developer" or something of that sort.

If all you did was make web pages, well, that was basically just gluing HTML tags together, so you were at best a "web designer". Maybe, just maybe, you could rise up to a sort of limited honorary "developer" status if your work involved a lot of heavy-duty CGI coding. Nobody would have called your tools a "dev environment" back then.

<comment><USER4> I would definitely have to agree with you, it was a very segregated landscape. Web was all about HTML and DHTML and writing software for servers was a small niche. In the early 90s the first thing I ever get my hand on was Visual Basic I was young enough introduction. Then there was C++ and Perl and never got into PHP big-time but it was definitely prevalent no matter what your misgivings about it today is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> By 1999 there was a lot of heavy java development on the sever happening. But i'd say the most common server environment was perl. A lot of applications wrote out to static html to handle scale.

</comment><comment><USER6> a lot of cgi scripts (perl 5, php 3). when the perl code was clean enough, we used mod_perl. i remember discovering fastcgi (which i still use) and being blown away by easy persistent db connections and just general performance wins.

on more serious projects, java (servlets, custom middle-tier) was common.

</comment><comment><USER7> Perl for coding, BBEdit for editing, Filemaker / SQL / Oracle for the DB.

</comment><comment><USER8> We used "Webware for Python" back then. And Java.</comment>


Full-stack Node.js web diagnostics - <AUTHOR> http://node.getglimpse.com/ <comment><USER2> Looks great, I'll be trying it out when I get a chance.

I noticed it collects telemetry by default; here is a note on how to disable it: [http://node.getglimpse.com/docs/support/faq/#how-do-i- disabl...](http://node.getglimpse.com/docs/support/faq/#how-do-i-disable- telemetry)</comment>


Ask HN: App to leverage for multiple conversations? - <AUTHOR> Not even sure the best way to ask this.
Goal: I have phone numbers in the USA that people have to reach them when travelling abroad.
I want to offer receiving SMS on that number too. I can then SMS it to them, but besides for that costing money, it may confuse them: hitting "reply" will go via the international carrier at large fees.
I can send via email, but people want push notifications...
Is there a way to leverage, e.g. a telegram bot or something similar? The main issue is that I need the user to be able to respond, and that I know which person they are responding to.
Do I just need to make a whole app for this? Some sort of chat/message clone might be a good start... I've only made web sites before, no apps. I don't want to waste too much time if something is already "good enough".
Thanks!!! <comment><USER2> What parts of this can't you do with WhatsApp?

<comment><AUTHOR> 1) you have to pay for the API with whatsapp. 2) whatsapp doesn't let you send any message to users, you can only send templates 3) problematic, which is why a simple telegram bot won't work: it will all show up as one communication, even though I'm sending multiple different conversations to them.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is HomeKit Effectively Dead? - <AUTHOR> HomeKit was released in 2014 and has made surprisingly little progress. Apple execs surely are not automating their homes with it. Is it time to accept it will be another ignored area within Apple (like the Contacts app)? <comment><USER2> [https://ww.9to5mac.com/2019/11/27/apple-lists-the-cameras- an...](https://ww.9to5mac.com/2019/11/27/apple-lists-the-cameras-and-routers- that-will-be-compatible-with-the-latest-homekit-features/#)

[https://9to5mac.com/2020/01/05/ikea-smart-blinds-homekit- sir...](https://9to5mac.com/2020/01/05/ikea-smart-blinds-homekit-siri/)

[https://9to5mac.com/2020/01/07/eve-cam/](https://9to5mac.com/2020/01/07/eve- cam/)

What exactly makes you think it's dead? Seems like it's being supported by a variety of 3rd parties, and new technologies are being integrated into the environment. Routers are coming with HomeKit support now too.

</comment><comment><USER3> > Apple execs surely are not automating their homes with it.

Is this a wild guess or based on reporting?</comment>


Highway Will Recharge Your Batteries as You Drive - <AUTHOR> http://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-that-think/transportation/advanced-cars/british-highway-will-recharge-your-batteries-as-you-drive <comment><AUTHOR> [https://www.pluglesspower.com/](https://www.pluglesspower.com/)</comment>


Apple loses right to iPhone name in Brazil - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/14/business/apple-loses-iphone-name-brazil/index.html

<comment><USER2> I wonder what Apple would do in a hypothetical scenario where a company like Gradiente Eletronica gets its trademark and doesn't want to settle. I really can't see them renaming any of their products, so perhaps they'd withdraw from the market until the problem was resolved. Or not?

<comment><USER3> Gradiente is a dying company, they just want some cash. BTW, they don't make those phones, only rebrand then.

<comment><USER4> > Gradiente is a dying company

Not really. They probably will be one of Brazil's big players in the next 10 years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Loses right? They never had it to begin with in Brazil. Also, I may not remember it accurately, but didn't Apple have to buy the rights for the iPhone name in US from Cisco, too? I don't think it was publicized that much back then, but I think I remember something along those lines.

<comment><USER6> You are correct. Just adding, Brazilian IP law is not similar to the american. The trademarks must be very specific and cannot be used for more than, usually, a single product. That said, you can't own a word, you can obtain exclusivity of naming a specific good (in that case, a cell phone).

I own two trademarks here and guess what, not even the domain name I managed to reclaim, the owner uses the same name for a different type of business which I don't own the exclusivity rights.

Brazilian IP law is one of the most free in the word and among many things, software cannot be patented, non-specific, generic ideas are not even evaluated for a patent. Music can be freely played and shared unless you are doing it commercially.

This is why I can't even download bass tabs on most sites, RIAA managed to block brazilians from 40% of youtube, etc.

<comment><USER7> This is what patent laws should be everywhere.

<comment><USER8> Brazilian here, and I think not...

There are several cases here where an inventor receives no money at all and a lot of people get rich with it's invention, because of this law.

I think it's too loose and also our courts are terrible, there is a case from a guy that waited 20 years to win a first instance sue against several phone companies and after losing it they just appealed... so he will have to wait 10 more years, and probably die or go bankrupt.

Source: [http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/mercado/1161871-inventor-do- bin...](http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/mercado/1161871-inventor-do-bina-luta- por-reconhecimento-e-disputa-direitos-autorais.shtml)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This kind of news makes me go "muahaha <evil laugh>".

</comment><comment><USER10> A substantial pain no doubt to have to rebrand the most valuable product on the planet just for the Brazil market, but given it's such a huge market I'm sure they'll figure it out.

Apple Phone? iPod Phone? iOS Phone?

<comment><USER11> Brazil is one of those very dysfunctional markets. Apple (well Foxcon on Apple's behalf) had to setup final assembly their directly to get around crazy tarrif rules, which assume most value is added during final assembly! Sure, Apple tries its hardest, but at some point it won't be worth it to them.

<comment><USER6> I worked for the brazilian IRS for twelve years, I will say you just invented that.

Imported iphone taxes: 60% import taxes + 7%-15% sales state tax if you are a reseller or 0% if you are the customer. 0% industrial tax.

Made in brazil taxes: 7-15% sales state tax, 6% industrial taxes.

<comment><USER3> Really?

The 60% rate applies only to individuals; companies generally pays much less and in the case of cellphones it currently stands at 18.1%.

In which state sales tax (ICMS) is 7%? Or even 15%? All the big states have ICMS rates north of 20%.

Industrial tax (IPI) for electronics is 8%.

<comment><USER6> Really. Those are nominal values which exclude taxes being paid upfront, which leads to extensive reduction. The legislation is more than 600 pages long don't you think that a simple google search will get any useful answer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I would suggest iPhony (how it's pronounced in Portuguese) but that's probably not a good idea.

It's a tough spot considering they have planned the first official Apple store to be built in Rio (might already be in the process of being built).

Unrelated anecdote. My audio cable was shot on my MBA and so I asked an authorized repair shop (in Rio) what they'd fix it for and they said R$475 (roughly US$240). Instead, I bought the piece online from iFixit (US$20) and took my MBA to a corner repair shop and had it repaired right quick for R$30. That fixed the issue but, if I were Apple and worried about a product name, I'd find myself more concerned with products overheating as my computer was extremely hot on most days, no matter the season.</comment>


Ask HN: Is there still money to be made in ecommerce? - <AUTHOR> Just wondering what the consensus here is really.
I've been involved with eCommerce for about 10 years now, and I've noticed that it's slowly got harder to compete with so many great general eCommerce stores like Amazon and so few niches that haven't got at least a few decent eCommerce stores already set up to serve it.
I'd be really interesting if hearing if anyone here has started a successful eCommerce store in the last 2 or so years. Specifically, how do you compete or avoid competition from big names like Amazon and the others already in your niche? <comment><USER2> FYI Amazon is not a thing in some countries. People in Switzerland avoid amazon because you usually end up on the cart page where it then tells you that barely anything can be shipped to your country.</comment>


UCLA scientists double efficiency of novel solar cell - <AUTHOR> http://phys.org/news/2013-07-ucla-scientists-efficiency-solar-cell.html

<comment><USER2> I was thinking about this the other day, in that since the photovoltaic effect is a probabilistic thing (you need your photon to be absorbed so that you can spit off an exciton), if you had transparent cells you might be able to boost your efficiency by creating a light trap with mirrors to bounce them through the cells 10 - 20 times and thus increase the chance that they generate an exciton by that much.

<comment><USER3> Indeed; I believe they currently do that in some solar cells. I personal favourite are "distributed Bragg reflectors" – they're mirrors, but don't work in the traditional sense:

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

<comment><USER2> Ok, that is just too cool. Thanks for that link.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> it's important to mention that they doubled the efficiency of their own previous solar cell, clocking in at 7.3%. a mass produced amorphous silicon cell achieves around 8%. however the advantage of polymer solar cells might be much lower production costs.

<comment><USER5> So put a regular cell immediately behind the transparent cell? It'd be equivalent to a multi-junction standard cell, just one that goes out into the infrared instead of stopping at red.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Can anyone here comment on whether there is enough energy in the infrared spectrum to make this useful?

<comment><USER5> This shows the solar spectrum:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png)

Visible light ends at about 700nm, so it looks to me (doing an approximate area comparison) as if there is about twice the total power in the spectrum available in the infrared as compared to in the visible.

The article (sorry, it's behind a journal subscription) doesn't say outright in words what frequencies are most absorbed, but from looking at their absorption spectra I would assume that the band gap is between about 650nm and 850nm. I am a materials scientist, but I don't know enough of the acronyms they're using to say more than that. The only other major part I understand and knew to look for is that those efficiencies are measured under one sun of illumination (a lot of the really good looking numbers are done under tens or hundreds of suns).

Convoluting those absorbance spectra with the solar spectrum to get an approximate maximum power input looks to me like something along the lines of 1/2-2/3rds of the total power as is in the visible spectrum. Definitely not negligible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Is anyone looking into manufacturing this? I think it would be awesome to have this as a film that could be put on windows. Of course the main issue there is getting that energy back into the home and power grid.

<comment><USER8> This is totally uninteresting for anything other than PR unless it is cheap. Land for solar-cells is not the primary cost of solar energy and won't be for quite some time.

<comment><USER9> But isn't the idea to decentralize power generation?

<comment><USER8> I don't see big advantages to a slightly decentralized power generated system, and a fully decentralized system won't be feasible at a minimum until we have much better energy storage (and even then, there is insufficient insolation for most tall buildings to be self-sufficient with solar).

<comment><USER7> I see a huge benefit in that if this is in my house then my power consumption off the grid, in aggregate, is less.

You say land isn't the issue, but access to it for the average person still is. Yet if I can coat the windows of my own domicile I consider that a net positive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Seems pretty silly to not absorb visible light, given that that's where solar energy is peaked. I don't really see the point of this.

<comment><USER11> Did you see this part? _placed on windows, sunroofs, smartphone displays and other surfaces to harvest energy from the sun._ It can turn surfaces that need to be transparent into solar cells. And for windows, the visible energy is already being put to good use, reducing the need for interior lighting.

<comment><USER10> Yes, I understand. I'm just questioning whether it's worth the effort trying to collect solar energy in these scenarios.

<comment><USER12> It will provide power that never existed, additionally it makes things like windows be a less of a heat source for things like air conditioners to pump back out.

I don't know if its economical yet (nothing product wise available) so it is somewhat premature to even speculate if it is or isn't worth the effort. The idea is sound however to take advantage of unproductive real estate.

<comment><USER13> "Economical" is the sum total of the problem with solar.

"Lack of space to put the panels" is not a problem at all - even in densely populated city centers there are rooftops galore; everywhere else, the cost of panels far exceeds the cost of land.

So it's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

<comment><USER14> I'd say that the cost of efficient PV array systems is a real issue which currently exists.

Unfortunately the article doesn't say much about the costs of these new cells.

In my area (Latitude 20 deg. N.) solar begins paying for itself after only a couple, or more, years depending on the type of system.

Obviously, one wouldn't choose to power heavy inductive load appliances with solar power, but for small items such as electronics and lighting, even refrigeration, solar makes more sense than paying $0.47 per KWh.

Then there are reliability issues inherent to municipal power grids...

When my neighbors experience a power outage my home is not affected, and to me this alone is worth the price I paid for my stand-alone solar power system.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Linuxs Torvalds on Git [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8 <comment><AUTHOR> Could an admin add '2007' to the title and fix Linus name?</comment>


Google+ History Takes on Facebook Timeline - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2012/06/27/google-history/

<comment><USER2> 75 million users using it daily? That's quite a lot. It should shut up the people that keep claiming Google+ is a ghost town. I think their daily and monthly active users numbers are on par with Twitter's now.</comment>


The Marketer's Attitude - <AUTHOR> http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2008/11/the-marketers-a.html

<comment><USER2> _Here's what I'd want if I were hiring a marketer: ... run them[projects] as the lead ... the best in the world at something ... unimpressed that you are good at following instructions ... enjoy selling ideas to others ... rarely ask for detail or permission ... intellectually restless ... care enough about new ideas_

To me, he is not describing a marketer. Rather, this sounds like an entrepreneur to me. A founder/co-founder/startup type.

It's nice to want this type of person working for you, but (IMO) these type of people usually don't like working for others. That's why they're entrepreneurs.

FTR, I haven't read much of Godin, so I'm not familiar with his MO/style.</comment>


Hacker Leaks Cellebrite's iOS Bypassing Tools - <AUTHOR> https://www.macrumors.com/2017/02/03/hacker-leaks-ios-bypassing-tools/ <comment><USER2> It's kindof sad: By the time your code gets cleaned up to the point where it's not full of bugs, it's time to trash it and start something new.</comment>


Apple just lost an iPhone customer (or 4).. - <AUTHOR>

A week or two ago, the power button popped off my iPhone, and yesterday the volume button (on the side of the phone) disappeared. I'm guessing some form of iLeprosy hit my phone...
Like many, I decided that when parts started falling off my iPhone 3gs, I would get a new phone. My wife and daughter have the iPhone 4, and it sure is a fine looking piece of equipment. So nice that I figured it's what I would get.
That is, until I laid my hands on an HTC One X for the first time.
Oh. My. Freaking. God.
More info here: http://www.htc.com/www/smartphones/htc-one-x/
Review here: http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/02/htc-one-x-review/
Monstrous 4.7" screen, Beats Audio, Android 4.0 ICS... Dual core 1.5Ghz processors (Quad core in some versions), 4G speed that is TRULY unreal, 5-device wifi hotspot, tethering via USB (although with the hotspot, why would I need that?), dual cameras, continuous auto-focus... and on and on..
Maybe it's just me, but when I put the iPhone 4 next to the HTC One X, the iPhone looks like a sad little piece of Soviet cold-war hardware from the 1950's.
I just can't see buying another Apple phone when HTC and others are so very far ahead of the game. Android 4.0 is incredible, and the depth of apps for it is obscene compared to the iPhone, almost to the point of annoyance.
I will admit, there was some comfort in only having one or two different apps to choose from on the iPhone versus the 127 different mileage tracking apps on Android, but it's a hardship I think I can cope with.
So this is it. So long Apple. You've annoyed this developer with your stupid app censorship (err, I mean "approval" process) and over-priced, under-powered hardware for the last time.
When my family's iPhone contracts expire, I assure you they will be getting some form of Android phone. Perhaps even an improved version of the One X, if improvement is even possible..
I urge all you other Apple fan-persons to check out the HTC One X at Best Buy, AT&T store, Target, or any other outlet before everyone realizes how incredible this thing is and the supply dries up.
:) <comment><USER2> Let's see... the last time you said goodbye to Apple, forever, was.... 129 days ago.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3446114>

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep, that's true, and I haven't developed on my Mac since then. I've been using LinuxMint 12, an Ubuntu-centric distribution.

Good eye, Turing. Good eye! :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> (In reference to screen size) I'm not an iPhone owner yet, but the only thing that is keeping me from buying one is the screen size. If iPhone 5 doesn't grow larger, i'm guessing a lot more people will switch to Android devices.

But then again, I can't imagine iPhone 5 not having a larger screen, since the New iPad has a really large retina display. 4.5-5 inches should be simple.

<comment><AUTHOR> Agreed. It's not just about the screen size though. The iPhone keeps you lock- stepped in a fixed user interface that you really have zero control over.

Android, and especially versions 4.0+, allow virtually unlimited customization of the entire phone experience. This includes themes, gizmos & gadgets (like 10+ different styles of clocks), etc., etc.

It's the difference between the old flip phones and the iPhone when it first came out, but the advantage is to Android this time.

Apple's got a looooooong way to go to catch up, IMHO.

<comment><USER4> As far as the customization aspect I think that is two different markets. A person like me doesn't necessarily want to customize all the way down to which kernel the device is running. I like how stupid simple it is, open up app store, buy app, use app, get off.

Which neither scenario is wrong its just two different markets and both companies know that, IMO.

<comment><AUTHOR> In complete agreement. I'm not advocating that such customization is better, clearly it opens up support issues that Apple will not have.

I'm simply saying that it's refreshing _for me_ to have the option to customize and personalize, rather than have the same phone as everyone else, save for the color of the aftermarket case that surrounds the phone.

I did like that the iPhone worked, worked well, and _almost_ never crashed. I didn't like that Apple decided what apps I got to run based on their business whimsy.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Total Cost of Her Covid-19 Treatment: $34,927.43 - <AUTHOR> https://time.com/5806312/coronavirus-treatment-cost/ <comment><USER2> The face values on medical bills in the US are like a bizarre joke - to a first approximation, no one ever pays them. Everyone with insurance gets insurer-negotiated "discounts" to around ~10% of the listed cost.

It's tougher for people without insurance - my understanding is that you can negotiate with the entity that sent you the bill to get significant reductions, but I don't have first-hand experience doing this. Even so, it sounds exhausting, since a single doctors visit will often result in bills from 2-3 separate entities (doctor, lab, radiologist, etc.), so you'd have to negotiate with each of them individually.

<comment><USER3> >Everyone with insurance gets insurer-negotiated "discounts" to around ~10% of the listed cost.

That whole setup is downright cruel & evil. Pretty much guarantees the most vulnerable get fk'd.

<comment><USER4> But won't you be so proud when you sign up for a health plan! You can exclaim to everyone "well I did my due diligence and I signed up for a great plan! why didn't you??"

Meanwhile people in non-US countries are thinking "I don't have to think about any of this shit, at all."

<comment><USER5> ... and half the time people bragging about the spectacular insurance they found have just fallen for one of those "fake insurance" scams that are now legal again. Sure, you get $1,000,000 per year of coverage -- with a per- incident cap of $1000 buried in the fine print.

And even though fake insurance is cheaper than real insurance in this country, it's not cheaper than real insurance in most single-payer countries, which is just nuts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> You could buy 0.018 Tomahawk missiles for that or treat 54 people for every Tomahawk missile fired.

All of the Tomahawk missiles fired since 2001 would have provided 119.000 people with free Corona treatment.

I am thinking that countries with free healthcare care more about keeping their own people healthy than dropping missiles and misery on other countries people.

<comment><USER7> While your point is valid, it also illustrates how the U.S. subsidizes European entitlement programs by implicitly reducing those countries' defense spending. If the U.S. were to cut back on defense, European countries would have to cut back on social welfare programs.

<comment><USER8> Are you trying to say europeans have money to spend on an almost fair medical system because they are spending far less money on military because the USA spends enough to "protect" the europeans? Because that would sounds like a joke. Europe is spending less money in military because its not entering so many wars or conflicts.

<comment><USER9> The 30,000 US troops stationed in Germany and the existence of NATO are significant factors in European countries spending so little on defense.

<comment><USER10> This is a total fallacy - those troops being stationed in Germany does not mean Germany would station 30k of their own should the US troops leave.

<comment><USER9> I didn't say that. I said that, without the US presence in Germany and without NATO, Germany would have to spend more on defense.

I don't understand how anyone can disagree with that; it's obvious. The German government certainly knows it, which is they allow the Americans to keep 30,000 troops in their country.

A lot of people on HN have an extreme anti-US bias. It's pretty tiring.

<comment><USER10> My comment didn't display any anti-US sentiment, so your strawman falls down.

> I don't understand how anyone can disagree with that; it's obvious

No, it's _far_ from obvious.

Those troops are now there to serve US interests, not German ones, primarily using Germany as a logistics base for deployments/missions in the Middle East.

Indeed, there's an argument to made that their spend could even reduce, since they might become less of a target.

<comment><USER9> It's obvious to people without extreme anti-American bias.

Also, maybe don't throw out terms like "strawman" when you bizarrely transfigured my innocuous comment:

> The 30,000 US troops stationed in Germany and the existence of NATO are > significant factors in European countries spending so little on defense.

into:

> This is a total fallacy - those troops being stationed in Germany does not > mean Germany would station 30k of their own should the US troops leave.

edit - It should be clear to anyone reasonable that the way you interpreted my original post evinces anti-American bias. What you don't seem to understand is that US interests and Germany interests have significant overlap. The idea that Germany doesn't benefit from pax Americana is absurd.

That doesn't mean that the US always uses its power responsibility, it just means that things are more complicated than the caricature of US foreign policy that often shows up on this website.

<comment><USER11> I believe that your position was strong during the cold war. From the end of WWII until the dissolution of the Soviet Union, American troops and bombs were a significant deterrent to Soviet imperialism in Europe.

However, the world has significantly changed since December 1991. I agree with the grandparent that today the primary usage of the large US bases in Germany are for staging people and material to the middle east. I also think that it's a reasonable opinion that these wars (or their scale and length) were unnecessary. Is that opinion evidence of "anti-american bias"? I believe that is an unreasonable conclusion.

So - from the 50's to the 90's did the US "subsidize" European economies to some amount by providing common defense from the USSR? Sure. It also served US interests as the policy was to "fight over there" instead of in the US.

Since then, the US has spent upwards of $3T on the GWOT, while declining in every health statistic year over year.

If we're tossing around charges of "anti-american'ism" \- I counter than anyone who wants to continue on with an unchanged healthcare system is "anti- american" \- as in literally in favor of a system that causes more children to die at birth, for people to live shorter, less predictable and more brutal lives.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> After this is over, the saddest possible outcome is if America returns to the same systems, having learned nothing. I don't expect it at all, but I've been more surprised in the past.

<comment><USER13> Unless there are millions of deaths in the US from this, a return to the status quo seems like the most likely scenario, as people will assume the scope and danger of the pandemic was overblown by the media all along.

<comment><USER14> Things would stay the same even with millions of deaths. "Socialism is nothing more than communism" and "communism is evil" are two concepts that are deeply embedded here.

<comment><USER15> Embedded in certain geographic and demographic sectors. Always remember the Republicans have a demographic problem that cannot be overcome long term.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I can't wait until my $5,000 a year insurance with a $7,000 deductible here in the US comes up with a reason why it shouldn't be covered.

Fun Related Fact: I donated a kidney to my Dad in 2000. The Affordable Care Act is what finally made it so it was no longer a "pre-existing condition" that insurance companies could use to deny me coverage for anything semi- related to kidneys.

</comment><comment><USER17> IMO, this current crisis exposes a very strange dichotomy: government is essentially shutting down parts of the economy over shelter-in-place orders, but when people lose their jobs and (for some) employer health care, the government doesn't deal with the repercussions.

Look, I think shelter in place is a great idea for humans. But this is a case of doing the right thing for the masses hurts the individual. Sad times.

</comment><comment><USER18> The amazing thing to me is she didn't get any advanced treatment. She didn't even had to spend the night there.

</comment><comment><USER19> "Treatment" I guess but if she was hooked to ICU machines it could have reached $1 million in no time.

</comment><comment><USER20> It's a shame that the only candidate that wants to tear down this ridiculous health system is getting the boot by the party he is aligned with.

The health system in the US is only accessible to those with money. It doesn't have to be this way. I am not saying socialized healthcare will cure all ailments, but it would definitely be better than the current privatized system.

</comment><comment><USER21> Not having health insurance is not an excuse.

In Germany you are required by law to have it.

<comment><USER22> In Germany, does your health insurance cost >$600 per month for 1 person if your employer or government doesn't subsidize it (for example, if you are self-employed and earning more than minimum wage from it)?

Because that's the case in the US.

<comment><USER23> Similar to Germany here: Insurance costs around € 100 per month per adult, kids under 18 are free. If you have a low income (below roughly 40k per year) you effectively pay less all the way down to zero (if your income is below about 14k per year), because the government pays part of your premium for you.

<comment><USER24> > 100€/month/adult

God I wish, it's about double that [0]: 162€ (health insurance) + 32€ (statutory nursing care insurance) for those making ~1k€/month or less. Not counting any gov support. Btw ~870€ seems to be the max, if you earn ~4700€/month or more.

And from what I remember there is a way to opt out of the public system and switch to private insurance, but this is kind of discouraged by being hard to switch back and requiring significant income in the first place.

> (german) [https://www.tk.de/techniker/leistungen-und- > mitgliedschaft/in...](https://www.tk.de/techniker/leistungen-und- > mitgliedschaft/informationen-versicherte/veraenderung-berufliche- > situation/freiwillige-krankenversicherung-tk/haeufige-fragen-zu-beitraegen- > fuer-freiwillig-versicherte/beitragshoehe-freiwillig-versichert-nicht- > erwerbstaetig-2006970)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> The bill is crazy, but this person won't have to pay a 10th if it if they call the billing department.

Being uninsured is actually something of a blessing in the United States in this situation. If you have health insurance (often with bad coverage and high deductibles), you've agreed to waive your ability to negotiate and to pay whatever bill they've sent you.

Not so for the uninsured.

The whole billing system in the United States is beyond fucked up.

<comment><USER26> To me this sounds like buying fake watches on the street in Thailand.

We both know that the price is to be negotiated, it's just a joke price.

But healthcare is not a joke even there.</comment></comment>


The one second war:  Finding a lasting solution to the leap seconds problem - <AUTHOR> http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2011/5/107699-the-one-second-war/fulltext

<comment><USER2> Maybe the most awesome part of being a human being today is recycling solutions from the past to the solutions of today.

Once upon a time, written language was represented in computers by arrays of characters. Manipulating non-english user content in this model was big pain. Today, effective software dealing with written language uses UTF-8 Characters and the Grapheme abstraction. The problem was solved by separating the concepts of Bytes, Characters and Graphemes, which were previously conflated.

Clearly, it's ineffective to use the same abstraction for "elapsed time" and "time of day" due to the variable length of the day. Representing both concepts with one value leads to the problems described in this article. The concepts should be separated and a new abstraction created: Earth Position (EP).

Statements about the time of day, day of the week or lunar month of the year are really statements about the Earth's position relative to some other entity: the sun in most cases, but sometimes the moon in the case of lunar dates.

Given that "Unix time" is widely understood as "the number of seconds elapsed since Jan 1, 1970", it would be convenient to let it only represent Elapsed Time and define Earth Positional values in terms of Elapsed Time.

The leap second concept should only affect applications interested in Earth Position queries (time of day, etc) and not have any representation at the Elapsed Time level.

<comment><USER3> You mean TAI vs UTC?

TAI: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Time>

UTC: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinated_Universal_Time>

"As of 1 January 2011, 00:00:00 UTC, TAI was exactly 34 seconds ahead of UTC"

<comment><USER4> Unfortunately, TAI (Atomic Time based on radioactive decay) may not be as consistent as we originally thought it was according to recent observations...

[http://news.discovery.com/space/is-the-sun-emitting-a- myster...](http://news.discovery.com/space/is-the-sun-emitting-a-mystery- particle.html)

<comment><USER5> No. The link you gives mentions that the decay rates of radioactive particles are changing, this saying the half life is changing. Atomic clocks are based on the frequency of light emitted from an electronic transition. Ie, an electron makes a transition from one state to another and emits a photon, then we compare the frequency of that photon to another photon which has a nearby frequency, we measure the difference to like 8 digits, then use the frequency of the light produced from the transition as the inverrse unit of time.

One is based on nuclear decay, the other an induced electronic transition and not affected by unknown variations in the half life.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Speaking as a mad scientist, it's clear to me that the best solution is just to adjust the Earth's rotation to be exactly 24 hours.

Maybe 24 and a half, so we can all have a bit of a sleep in every morning.

<comment><USER7> No it should be 24.0159254 old-hours, so that the orbital period is an integral number of earth rotations. _Assuming_ you want to waste your mad- scientist powers on silly bureaucratic nonsense, and not on, say, spinning the earth fast enough to lower surface gravity (leap tall buildings in a single bound to get to Starbucks).

<comment><USER8> No, speed up the orbital period too so we can have a 360-day year.

<comment><USER9> Quarterly reports coming sooner? No thanks. Let's slow down the orbital period to 400 days. Nice, 100 day quarters. And, as that change leads to other changes in our daily life, maybe I'll finally eventually use that "grad" button on my calculator.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> If you live in Britain and you ever hear seven pips on BBC radio instead of six, there's just been a leap second. That's the Greenwich Time Signal computer compensating for the extra second.

</comment><comment><USER11> Dup: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2418234>

<comment><AUTHOR> Rats, on my first submission no less! I knew this was too interesting to be original. I'll search harder next time. Thanks for catching it.

<comment><USER12> Don't worry. I missed it the first time and enjoyed it tremendously.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I've always loved the brown M&M anecdote, and consequently it always bothers me when it becomes a cliche sign of a diva in movies. Then again, lots of things bother me in movies (i.e. most things here: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions>).

</comment><comment><USER14> From my understanding, setting leap seconds 20 years in advance is not a good idea either because large earthquakes (such as the recent one in Japan) can change the Earth's rotation speed enough to require an update.

<comment><USER15> According to my calculations, the Japan earthquake will not require us to adjust a leap second - at least not within the next ~761 years.

The Japan earthquake shortened the day length by 1.8 microseconds. [1]

1.8 microseconds * 365.25 days * 20 years =~ 0.01 seconds off. Not enough to require an update, even less an urgent update before the 20 years.

1.8 microseconds * 365.25 days * 761 years =~ 0.50 seconds off.

[1] [http://www.space.com/11115-japan-earthquake-shortened- earth-...](http://www.space.com/11115-japan-earthquake-shortened-earth- days.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Ignore it until it's one hour off, then do a "leap hour". We do that twice a year anyway.

<comment><USER17> PHK's argument is that leap seconds don't come frequently enough to ensure that software is tested in their presence. Replacing them with a 3600-times rarer event would make the problem much, much worse (but on the plus side, it'll be our descendents' problem, not ours ;)

<comment><USER18> I think he talks about just adjusting timezones to match.</comment></comment></comment>


Sprint confirms it will cap mobile hotspot data for smartphones October 2nd - <AUTHOR> http://www.bgr.com/2011/09/22/sprint-confirms-it-will-cap-mobile-hotspot-data-for-smartphones-beginning-october-2nd/

<comment><USER2> This is huge, if it's true. But where is the source? Sprint doesn't seem to have released anything about this yet.</comment>


IpfsCloud: A Decentralized, Anonymous IPFS Cloud Storage Platform - <AUTHOR> https://hackernoon.com/ipfscloud-a-decentralised-cloud-storage-platform-12ed938a9307 <comment><USER2> IIRC, IPFS itself is not anonymous. What makes this anonymous?</comment>


The Myths and Realities of Studying Computer Science - <AUTHOR> http://www.hindustantimes.com/class-of-2018/the-myths-and-realities-of-studying-computer-science.html <comment><USER2> > confessed that they simply read the textbook out loud to their students in > classrooms without computers.

The root of the problem is this kind of rote-based Asian education system. I started learning to code when I was about 6 years old because it was fun and it was empowering to be in command of this electronic monster that could do all kinds of awesome stuff at lightning speed. There was simply no other reason at that time.

People learn well if you make it fun to learn.

Have a hackathon with the school computers. Have a contest for students to build the best website for the school. The best chatbot. The most useful application. The most educational application. Give prizes. Make it so children enjoy it. Repeat.

<comment><USER3> The reality is that many children in Asia, especially India, don't have access to a computer at home. Only children in relatively wealthy families have access to a computer at home.

This means that having a hackathon isn't really feasible as the students would struggle with even the basic requirement of having a computer to learn the skills necessary to take part in a hackathon.

<comment><USER4> People don't understand how expensive computers are to most people. My in-laws took me to visit a family in Mexico, (My in-laws live 5 miles from the boarder) seeing real people off the tourist track is and in their home is an eye opener.

Their tiny houses look "quaint" at a distance, but seeing them live in them is different. It was sleeting that day, so they were inside their house with all their blankets on, the one heater wasn't making much a dent in the cold despite all the guests crowded into a room that barely could hold the table. When we went back home they had to sleep in that house: all 5 of them in the one bedroom.

I'm told their income is $45/week, the couple is each working, so figure $90/week. From that they have to make their house payment, buy clothing, food and everything else. Since an American was visiting they were showing off: they probably spent more than a weeks income on just that one meal I ate. (they are too proud to take cash, but we find other ways to pay them back)

A raspberry pi is only $35, but that is more than 1/3rd of their weekly income. It still isn't a useful computer though, you need quite a few more accessories that are not common in poor homes.

<comment><USER2> Sure, there are places that are actually poor. You have a point there. I'm talking less about those and more about the places which are actually reasonably affluent enough for the school to have a few computers yet have this traditional education system that is only focused on spitting facts and disciplining students rather than educating them to be thinkers and leaders.

<comment><USER5> TFA seems to imply that "reading out the textbooks" happens because the school doesn't have computers, so theory is all they can teach.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I learned programming from programming books; the only actual computers I got to use were demonstration units in computer stores, where I'd hang out on lunch breaks until the staff threw us out. I'd memorize a fragment of syntax, then try it until I got it right in the store.

Later, at home, I'd make up my own language / CPU hybrids from lists of instructions in notebooks. Whole pages for memory / registers. The intensity of my desire to understand computing is hard to comprehend to me now. I'd spend hours thinking about how to combine what I'd learned to do new things.

When I eventually got a (second-hand) Amstrad CPC464 for home use, the tape drive didn't work reliably. I'd lose every program I wrote when the machine restarted - and certainly, without a tape drive, I couldn't be tempted by games. It was just me and the BASIC prompt, fresh, every day.

If people are genuinely motivated, and they have access to information, there isn't much need for a lot of sophisticated electronics to learn. I'd even write programs on those little toy computers that had two lines of LCD digits, where you'd never see more than two lines of your program at a time.

<comment> a-nikolaev This is a fascinating account, thanks for sharing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Few institutes in India:

C++ is taught before C;

C++ is taught before explaining OOP;

Teachers hardly have industry exposure.

Lab exercises are so kiddish with practically no purpose - build a pyramid shape with asterisk.

Complete mismatch between the way real-world software project is built and Final Year College Project is built.

Students passionate about Computer Science are deprived of hacking it because you're supposed to do what's required for your lab assignments.

Government is only interested in focusing, regulating and reforming big names like IITs which help them in PR while Private colleges with a huge inflow of students every year never have to kind about being right and do what students want. And the inflow is primarily because of the culture IT industry has set _CS pays off well_ because of which students flock into this course with no understanding of what am I going to learn and why.

<comment><USER8> I agree with all your points except the first two. There is absolutely no reason to teach C before C++. In fact, modern C++ is a very different animal from its C origins, and it's often better to teach the correct C++ idioms first, and then later go into detail on what happens under the hood.

Similarly, C++ is not an OOP language. It's a multi paradigm language, and arguably the generic programming style is better suited to C++ 11 and 14, than the traditional, inheritance heavy OOP style that was in vogue in the 90s.

<comment><USER9> On the 2nd point - what OP wanted to say was that students are just forced to learn the language without really understanding why it is what they are doing.

Teachers just try to finish the syllabus, and students just want to get marks. Nobody is bothered to explore the language, get involved in open-source projects, create something cool of their own.

<comment><USER8> Yep, that is true, and I agree. I found that applied to my math classes as well, unfortunately. It was not until I came to the US that I started to find the intellectual wonder in math (versus memorizing stuff). However, I was very fortunate to have some amazing physics teachers in high school in India, who taught from first principles, which was simply amazing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Is it worth pointing out that studying computer science and learning to program aren't the same thing?

<comment><USER4> No. While the two are different, you need both to be good at either.

<comment><USER10> I had a teacher that was fond of saying that the only thing he needed to work as a computer scientist was a pencil and paper. That was around 1989, so maybe things are different now. That was usually when we were complaining about using Prolog or SML for some assignment rather than C.

<comment><USER11> 15 years later, I had professors that said the same thing. And it was true in a lot of classes. Even though the mid-aughts was a time when almost every CS student had a laptop to bring to class, the arguments for actually "needing" them in class were usually pretty contrived.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is not about learning computer science, this is about learning how to program. Two very different things. I mean if C++ scare, what until your homework is to write an interpreter in an object oriented language.

Having said that I think is admirable that there are students that flourish in these conditions!

</comment><comment><USER13> In Germany it's called "Informatik" and there are different kinds of it.

Often the "Informatik" is just translated to "Computer Science".

Angewandte Informatik -> Applied Computer Science (administration, application development, etc.)

Praktische Informatik -> Practical Computer Science (compilers, software engineering, programming paradigms, etc.)

Technische Informatik -> Technical Computer Science (IT-/electrical engineering)

Theoretische Informatik -> Theoretical Computer Science (math, complexity, algorithms, etc.)

Also, especially smaller universities just call their degrees "Informatik" and its often a mix of appied, practical and theoretical.

"Theoretische Informatik" is what maps best to the US "computer science"

"Praktische Informatik" is what maps best to the US "software engineering"

"Technische Informatik" is what maps best to the US "electrical engineering"

I even did a master that had the English name "computer science" despite being more "software engineering" than computer science, but it got renamed to "praktische Informatik" later.

<comment><USER14> IT and electrical engineering are very different fields in my experience.

I think of IT as networking, operations, etc. Though I guess if you're more on the communications side of both, there's a bit of overlap.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Programming is to Computer Science what telescopes are to astronomers

<comment><USER16> Inaccurate. Software engineering is as to CS as electrical engineering is to physics.

[edit]

I guess a telescope is like a library like quickcheck. Both specific applications of a type of engineering that might help science out.

<comment><USER14> What are some other fields which are applications of CS?

For instance, civil, mechanical, and electrical engineers are all applications of physics.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> > 'We faced resistance from the private textbook lobby, who didn't want to > invest in fresh textbooks for Python'

The private textbook publishers didn't want to invest in something that would result in their customers replacing all of their books‽ Is there some structural reason for this (maybe Indian schools pay a flat fee for textbooks or something)?

<comment><USER18> Typically in Indian private schools the students are responsible for purchasing textbooks at the start of the school year, not the schools (I don't know how it works at public schools). And they won't change their textbook mid-year.

Textbooks don't usually have much resale value, though I'm sure poor students buy them secondhand. They are paper-bound (and not even as sturdy as the average paperback) and tend to fall apart after a year unless you rebind them with cardboard. The quality of the paper isn't great. These are all good things because the books are inexpensive to purchase new (and it's possible some government subsidies may be involved).

My guess is that the publishing company would prefer to keep printing the same book and make minor updates year-to-year, instead of investing in writing a whole new book. Unless the number of students enrolling increases dramatically they're not going to make more money by writing a new Python book.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> We should probably link to the main article: [http://www.hindustantimes.com/class-of-2018/the-myths-and- re...](http://www.hindustantimes.com/class-of-2018/the-myths-and-realities-of- studying-computer-science.html)

<comment><USER20> Changed from [https://cacm.acm.org/careers/220766-the-myths-and- realities-...](https://cacm.acm.org/careers/220766-the-myths-and-realities-of- studying-computer-science/fulltext), thanks</comment></comment>


Caffeine for Sale: The Hidden Trade of the World's Favorite Stimulant - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/02/26/467844829/inside-the-anonymous-world-of-caffeine <comment><USER2> Caffeine powder is pretty interesting. In college, my roommates and I stored half a kilo of anhydrous white powder in a closet. It's incredibly versatile: you can mix it into drinks or food, put it under your tongue, and even insufflate it (higher bioavailability, shorter duration).

You have to be careful with it though, because like the article says, it doesn't take much to kill a person. Usually when you order caffeine powder it comes with a little 50mg scoop so you can track consumption.

<comment><USER3> is 50mg the typical dose? my caffeine pills are 200mg a pop, and i think coffee is normally ~150-200mg for a 20oz drink.

<comment><USER4> The typical dose varies by your past consumption ;)

If you typically get 200mg through coffee every day, that's not going to do anything for you and you'll have to go significantly higher.

I can say from experience that taking large amounts of caffeine comes with a rather pronounced crash afterwards with headaches and general sluggishness.

<comment><USER5> How large is large?

<comment><USER6> Not the user you asked, but I took 800-1200mg a day for a while. Then I finally went to the doc to find out I was having a depression. So I unconsciously tried to treat my depression, which obviously didn't work out. The caffeine enabled me to get out of bed at all though. Without it I was just sleeping/staying in bed all day. And coming down from a lot of caffeine really makes you feel a lot worse than not taking any at all, just like the comedown of other stimulants.

<comment><USER5> Thanks for sharing. That's rather interesting. I hope you're doing well, now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> For those who are interested, the youtuber Applied Science explaining in detail how caffeine extraction works:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvmM6qa2a90](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvmM6qa2a90)

very educational.

<comment><USER8> Thanks for posting this. I really like these kind of videos. Matthias Wandel, primitive technology, etc.

YouTube can be very relaxing. It's like the next generation of This Old House or How It's Made

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> > Those beans were harvested, loaded on ships bound for the port of Houston, > Texas, and ended up at a factory within sight of downtown Houston: Atlantic > Coffee Solutions.

I occasionally object to business' use of the term "... solutions," noting that my science-educated mind is wont to interpret "solution" as in "solvent" rather than as in "solve," but here for once I guess it works either way.

The article makes me curious to know what coffee brands are sourced through such industrial means (though my initial guess would be, almost all of them), and its interesting that even the manager of this plant has no idea what products his caffeine is actually winding up in. Are there ways to track this sort of commodity-flow? I imagine large parts of it must be public to some degree.</comment>


Lisprolog – Interpreter for a simple Lisp - <AUTHOR> http://www.logic.at/prolog/lisprolog/lisprolog.html

<comment><USER2> Can you run this backwards and print simple lisp code that has a given output?</comment>


Why I Mine Bitcoin - <AUTHOR> https://seanmckaybeck.com/2014/05/19/why-i-mine-bitcoin/

<comment><USER2> are there any phone apps that allow you to buy bitcoins on the spot?

<comment><AUTHOR> You need to go through an exchange. Or if you use Mycelium on Android they have a service for finding local sellers.</comment></comment>


Reel: simple GitHub backup tool - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/lavelle/reel <comment><USER2> I understand the purpose, but why use node for this? It's perfectly suited to a shell script with minimal dependencies (curl|wget, jq, git)</comment>


There Are More Jobs for Fewer Workers, So Why Aren't Wages Rising? - <AUTHOR> http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/there-are-more-jobs-for-fewer-workers-so-why-arent-wages-rising/ <comment><USER2> Hmmm... [http://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-continues-to- rise/](http://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-continues-to-rise/)</comment>


Rejected By VCs, Rescued By Angels - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2009/04/09/rejected-by-vcs-rescued-by-angels/ <comment><USER2> i'm starting to think angels are just dumber, poorer VCs

i defy you to spend ten minutes on basho.com and actually know WTF their product ACTUALLY does. no wonder the VCs passed on this fluff

<comment><USER3> according to this page, they helped Akami increase their sales by _25%_ : <http://www.basho.com/about/clients/6-akamai_technologies>

I have no idea what they do, but attributing +25% sales due to a seminar is like me saying I bought the CEO of Leham Bros a coffee and therefore its down to me they went bust.</comment></comment>


Study shows massive insect loss - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2018/10/15/hyperalarming-study-shows-massive-insect-loss/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6e364be6ddca <comment><USER2> Years ago, my family used to drive to our grandparents' village in hot, summer Friday nights.

The windshield ended so pestered with dead bugs that the first task on Saturday morning was to drive the car to the river to clean it. I remember it vividly because it was so fun to wash the car with the cold river water.

Last August I went stargazing with my wife. We chose a secluded area because it was far away from light pollution, a few hours away from the capital.

We watched the Perseids for a couple of hours in the middle of a field. We had no lights on, but being CO2-emitting mammals, no flying insect bothered us. We had anti-mosquito spray ready but we didn't need to use it. There were a few ants but that's it.

Afterwards, I drove an hour and a half at 2am and only a few bugs died on my windshield. I didn't even need to use the wipers the next morning.

I hate mosquitoes as much as everybody else, but something has been happening to insects in the last 20 years. As a human it's comfortable but I'm honestly a bit afraid for the environment. And studies like this don't paint a positive picture.

<comment><USER3> > and only a few bugs died on my windshield.

Smoother airflow around the windshield means fewer bugs smashing into it and more glancing hits that don't leave a mess.

Traditional hard edged cars like Jeep Wrangler seem to get a lot of bugs on the windshield (based on brief Googling), so while there may be fewer insects I'd wager to guess aerodynamics is large factor.

<comment><USER4> Can confirm aerodynamics are part of it. I drive a 2013 Jeep Wrangler. Wife has a brand new, aerodynamic vehicle. Jeep definitely collects bugs, bird poop, and even rocks at a MUCH higher rate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> At what point does the cost of continuing the status quo outweigh changing it? How do you even measure something like that, when the people in charge of making changes won't live to see them?

I think a major problem humanity has, among many others, is the way we assign leadership roles. Leadership of major institutions should be balanced not just among gender, but also among age. Every government should include decision makers under 40.

When we don't have rules for this, we wind up with the current situation: the average Representative is 57, the average Senator is 61. [1]

This might seem trite or pointless to many, but I really think we need decision-makers who will have to live with the longer-term consequences of their decisions.

Mitch McConnell, the current majority leader in the Senate and one of the most powerful people in Congress, is 76. When the UN says we have 12 years to change our ways or suffer possibly world-ending consequences, how much does that matter to a 76-year old?

I think it's pretty well established at this point that we can't rely on our leaders to think or act empathetically, or make decisions that matter beyond their party and the next re-election. We need to figure out a way to build future-focused thinking into our governance.

Unfortunately, I have no idea how to do it.

[1]" [https://www.quorum.us/data-driven-insights/the-115th- congres...](https://www.quorum.us/data-driven-insights/the-115th-congress-is- among-the-oldest-in-history/175/)

<comment><USER6> I don't see how making us have more diverse set of leaders will make things better. There are plenty of people under 40 I don't want making decisions and there are plenty of people over 40 I do want making decisions.

Diversity isn't going to make good leaders, it's going to give us diverse leaders.

<comment><USER7> In general if you are suppressing a class of people's participation, the top people in that class will be more apt than your average participant. So including them will increase the average aptitude.

The only time that isn't true is when you are suppressing a class of people who are fundamentally shittier than the dominant class.

The affirmative action debate comes down to whether you think skewed performance numbers are evidence that a) some of the classes are superior to the others or b) the numbers don't accurately measure performance.

There's nothing inherent in the data to point one way or the other. It's just a litmus test on whether you're a supremacist.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> My wife and I leave large portions of our lawn untended. We seed ours with flowering native plants and herbs. We had fireflies and butterflies and bees galore this year— noticeably more than any of our neighbors. It's not much, but it's something.

<comment><USER9> After the three year California drought and not watering the lawn much during it, I just let the grass and wild flowers grow up without mowing the last few years. Lots of different kind of plants, many bees, etc. Pretty cool, although some people comment on how we have let the yard go. I wish I could do a controlled burn at the start of the rainy season.

On the other hand, I recently learned what a carpenter bee is and what they can do to exposed wood structures. This year was the first time I had them boring into the wooden eves of our house. I have mixed feelings when I see them now.

<comment> saiya-jin What exactly do you mean by controlled burn? If it is what I think it is, you will kill many insects that call that lawn their home. Not really good for anything (plus the risk of burning down the neighborhood)

<comment><USER9> Of course burning my front lawn would never be allowed and I understand the reasons for that but ever since humans arrived (15,000 years or so ago) California grasslands would burn quite often. The "native" ecosystem was adapted to it and I think it would be fun to see what a few years of buring would do to the biological diversity of my little bit of grassland.

<comment><USER10> California has been burning for far longer than people have been here. Human presence did, of course, alter things, but natural ignitions due to lightning strikes shaped the ecology for millennia before we showed up.

[https://www.sierraforestlegacy.org/Resources/Conservation/Fi...](https://www.sierraforestlegacy.org/Resources/Conservation/FireForestEcology/FireScienceResearch/FireHistory/FireHistory- Stephens07.pdf)

<comment><USER9> This looks like an interesting paper. I'll read in over in detail, but from the abstract this paper is discussing the suppression of fire after Euro- American settlement in the 1800's. Fires caused by Native Americans is discussed as the cause, along with lightning, and I don't think lightning is a big factor in (Northern) California wildfires. While lighting is a major cause of fire throughout the Rocky Mountains, they are less of a factor in California, especially along the coast and central valley. I have lived in Oakland for over two decades and the number of thunderstorms I've seen/heard here is less than a half-dozen.

We don't get the same kind of bad lightning storms that occur in the Rockies where the monsoons bring up thunderstorms from the south during otherwise dry summers. Maybe in the San Bernardino mountains near LA get a few of these summer lightening storms.

It would be interesting to read about pre-human fire occurrence rates in the grasslands of California but, as this study states, preserved evidence of grass fires more than 15,000 years ago are rare.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> My dad claims that the bugs come and go in cycles and says he has seen so several times over his life. He believes that we are just in a period of low bug population and that at any time there could and will be a population explosion. Personally I am not so optimistic. My dad moved around multiple times over his life and I would suspect different areas would naturally have varying bug densities and that is why he felt they went in cycles. Because for myself I DO notice the decline in bugs and articles like these do scare me for the sake of humanity.

<comment><USER12> I'm starting to feel like this is the common trend when you bring up arguments of potentially how disastrous our effects on the environment have been.

Bugs? They come and go in cycles. Climate? Again, cycles. I suppose next we'll see claims that the rising ocean is just the cycle of the ocean and it'll fall back down any day now.

<comment><USER13> But the oceans have been rising for over 1000 years at the same rate, and things like insect population and climate are cyclical.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Does anyone else find spicing up ordinary words with new cognates amusing? Super-researchers are ultraconcerned about hyperalarming insect megaloss.

<comment><USER15> Prefixes, not cognates.

<comment><USER16> One of the examples that coldnose offers has a suffix appended to it, so I think you're incorrect, too.

Maybe affixes?

By the way, yours is an example of Muphry's law. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law)

And because I'm correcting your incorrect correction, I have a feeling that I've gotten something wrong, too.

<comment><USER17> Which one is a suffix? super- hyper- ultra- mega- are all prefixes

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm pretty sure this is more related to a rather radical shift to a more industrialised agriculture the recent 40 years.

Grazing land and more importantly meadows are simply gone. According to Wikipedia, England and Wales have lost about 97% of their hay meadows. Meadows are artificial, but they increase the biodiversity significantly.

Neonicotinoids are probably also to blame.

Climate change must be negligible in comparison, but it seems that everything can be blamed on climate change. War in Syria for instance.

<comment><USER19> The article specifically addresses and refutes this:

>Huge numbers of bugs have been lost in a pristine national forest in Puerto Rico... [it] remains the only tropical rain forest in the National Forest system

>Lister pointed out that, since 1969, pesticide use has fallen more than 80 percent in Puerto Rico

The article also provides several - reputable, scientific - references that demonstrate a _predicted_ loss of insects in tropical regions from thermal pressure.

<comment><USER20> >>Lister pointed out that, since 1969, pesticide use has fallen more than 80 percent in Puerto Rico

The article does make this claim, but it doesn't appear to back it up in any way. Additionally, nothing is said about the type of pesticide. If I use a pesticide that is 10x stronger by weight than what was available in 1969 and possibly doesn't need to be applied as often, then we're not comparing apples to apples.

Additionally, it's not mentioned what is meant by 'pesticide' Is that just insecticide or herbicide? Perhaps the application of herbicide (roundup) has increased, killing off native food-stuffs and poisoning the insects that eat them.

<comment><USER21> You should read the linked studies before posting, they answer all these questions.

<comment><USER20> You should read it. They don't actually answer any of the questions I raised.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'd be more inclined to blame neonicotinoid pesticides than change in temperature, but seems plausible I guess.

<comment><USER23> Why would you be more inclined to blame neonicotinoid pesticides?

<comment><USER8> Presumably because their entire purpose is to kill insects?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> It probably won't save the world, but we developers sure could do more to save energy and not requiring ridiculous hardware resources for what seems like merely gradual improvements over the 90s, with all the chemicals for processing and in batteries, and with all the waste. By this time, we could've achieved long-lived solar-powered mobiles with B/W LCDs. I remember text processing software being pitched as paper-saving devices.

<comment><USER25> You mean like Proof of Work mining?

<comment><USER26> I a more generalist sense just things like using Electron vs native toolkits matter. The desktop Discord app is going to use substantially more power to run day to day than if it were a native code app that just used something like C++, and across millions of gamers for hours a night every night those resource requirements and power demands add up.

It isn't always just "average hardware is faster so use more inefficient frameworks to lower time to market". Using those shortcuts to ship makes sense, but it should then be a long term goal to reel in those expensive abstractions once you can start counting the amount of power your software is using on a regular basis by whole power plants required to keep your code running on a daily basis.

<comment><USER27> Presenting "not using Electron" as a significant way to reduce our impact on the environment has to be the most HN thing I ever read.

<comment><USER28> Javascript is ruining the environment. Everyone should switch to Rust, and compile all apps to web assembly. Also, blockchain.

<comment><USER29> No, blockchains are bad for the environment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Yes. Has been in the news since a few years.

More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas

[https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185809)

Connected?

Glyphosate perturbs the gut microbiota of honey bees [http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/09/18/1803880115](http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/09/18/1803880115)

</comment><comment><USER31> Cars, Pesticides, and habitat loss.

There is nowadays also a general phobia and fear towards nature in general. Millions of people (driven by decades of publicity) had assumed that a backyard with tall grasses is a sort of unforgivable sin. They run compulsively towards their fancy lawnmower (and their magic products against each single plague known in the continent) each weekend.

But if you loose the grip and let a small space of lawn alone (Maybe cutting it three times a year instead 30 times a year). The thing will bloom and attract thousands of species of invertebrates including many butterflies and rare beetles. Is a very satisfying change. Small backyard ponds give also a big life boost.

</comment><comment><USER32> > The authors of a 2017 study of vanished flying insects in Germany suggested > other possible culprits, including pesticides and habitat loss. Arthropods > around the globe also have to contend with pathogens and invasive species. > "It's bewildering, and I'm scared to death that it's actually death by a > thousand cuts," Wagner said. "One of the scariest parts about it is that we > don't have an obvious smoking gun here."

I feel this is a good place to share a quote from a favorite author (Charles Eisenstein). His philosophy might be too New-Agey for some (the skeptics society at Google even protested his visit), but I think there's more than a little something to it:

"Clear-cutting aside, the decline of one after another species of trees all over the world is something of a mystery to scientists: in each case, there seems to be a different proximate culprit— a beetle, a fungus, etc. But why have they become susceptible? Acid rain leaching free aluminum from soil silicates? Ground-level ozone damaging leaves? Drought stress caused by deforestation elsewhere? Heat stress due to climate change? Understory damage due to deer overpopulation due to predator extermination? Exogenous insect species? Insect population surges due to the decline of certain bird species?

Or is it all of the above? Perhaps underneath all of these vectors of forest decline and climate instability is a more general principle that is inescapable. Everything I have mentioned stems from a kind of derangement in our own society. All come from the perception of separation from nature and from each other, upon which all our systems of money, technology, industry, and so forth are built. Each of these projects itself onto our own psyches as well. The ideology of control says that if we can only identify the "cause," we can control climate change. Fine, but what if the cause is everything? Economy, politics, emissions, agriculture, medicine … all the way to religion, psychology, our basic stories through which we apprehend the world? We face then the futility of control and the necessity for transformation.

...

Thus I say that our revolution must go all the way to the bottom, all the way down to our basic understanding of self and world. We will not survive as a species through more of the same: better breeds of corn, better pesticides, the extension of control to the genetic and molecular level. We need to enter a fundamentally different story. That is why an activist will inevitably find herself working on the level of story. She will find that in addition to addressing immediate needs, even the most practical, hands-on actions are telling a story. They come from and contribute to a new Story of the World. "

<comment><USER33> I think views such as this take a premise of peace in nature -- that without external influence, Earth would be relatively static. But we know this is false. For instance (as per the topic of this article) these [1] are the temperature readings we have from various sources, just over the past 400k years (things get _really_ wacky going back a bit further). Literally before humanity existed we see extreme global climatic swings happening on very short time scales, with upwards of 9 degree (celsius) temperature changes. We are likely exasperating both the acceleration and magnitude of the most recent swing, but even if humanity did not exist or even if we managed to achieve 0 carbon output, we'd see a warming event happening some time right about now.

And it's easy to forget that throughout the history of our planet that have been numerous mass extinction events where nearly everything on this planet went extinct, all without any help from any species whatsoever, let alone humans. For instance during during the Permian-Triassic extinction period, about 250 million years ago, some 96% of species ended up going extinct. All of the incredible diversity we know as life today emerged from those 4% that survived.

The point of this is that Earth and nature are not inherently peaceful or stable. We live on a brutal planet that has a habit of killing just about everything that manages to evolve on it with a pretty good degree of regularity. The one and only reason we might not end up going extinct, in the longrun, is because of our intelligence. Be one with nature and it will, sooner or later, kill you. Overcome it, and you might just survive.

[1] - [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Ice_Age_...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Ice_Age_Temperature.png)

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I really like all the innovations with indoor farming. But I have always thought that it's missing a huge chunk of the bigger picture. The rest of the eco system and habitat. Traditional farming(as we know it) is not that close to nature. It's is essentially an open air factory for food...largely aided by chemicals and a lot of brute horse power. In all this, nature and it's balancing effects are lost.

</comment><comment><USER35> Growing up in the 1960s, I remember car windshields being just _covered_ with dead bugs in summer, especially after highway trips. Thinking back, I haven't seen this happen since 1990, at latest.

Putting my zoologist hat on, arthropods make up the largest fraction of biomass of any other large animal group (phylum). The next largest, fish, heavily depend on arthropoda for food. As do small birds, and as it happens the worldwide loss of birds is also being called 'catastrophic', at about 40%. That makes me wonder, how much fish have we've also lost? And what's next?

[https://e360.yale.edu/digest/forty-percent-of-the-worlds- bir...](https://e360.yale.edu/digest/forty-percent-of-the-worlds-bird- populations-are-in-decline-new-study-finds)

When the world's population of insects drops 50% to 80% in only 40 years, this is a VERY BIG problem.

</comment><comment><USER36> First the climate came for the coral reefs, and I did not speak up because I am not a marine invertebrate.

Then, the climate came for the rest of the arthropods, and I did not speak up because I only have two legs.

Then, the climate came for the fishes of the sea, and I did not speak up because I do not have gills.

Then, the climate came for the plants, and I did not speak up because I am not a tree.

Then, the climate came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.

These are serious warnings the planet is giving us and those in charge are more concerned about their nest egg than their grandchildren's future. Something's gotta give, and so far it's Earth's ecosystems.

<comment><USER37> > Then, the climate came for me, and there was no one left for me to eat

ftfy

<comment><USER36> Same result, we starve.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> This summer was very atypical; in previous years my house was getting all kinds of insects visiting it during the day, this year very few. Also, there were too many bees I found lying dead on the floor - I had to pick one almost every day - something is definitely up.

</comment><comment><USER39> Interesting. The insects must be migrating to Australia. I have lived in the same location now for 20 years. In that time, I have seen cycles in the populations of both insects and birds. This years has been one of the peaks for birds.

So many different species, and some of them are much larger than I have seen in a number of years - some of them are up to twice the normal size. Flies again have increased, but mosquitoes are down. Bees have been out and about as the amount of flowers being pollinated and fruit starting to appear is large this year. It seems to be an increase over last year. Plenty of spiders and earwigs, though down on snails (as yet).

The chooks are chasing lots of insects about for a feed. There are plenty of aphids on the roses - too many in fact - may not get any roses this year.

Mind you this is Spring and we may see a different change later as we get to summer. We are expecting a bad fire season, though doesn't appear to be like it was when we had the Black Saturday bushfires a decade ago.

I have only just stopped running the fire at night because it has still been too cold to not do so.

</comment><comment><USER40> Similar to what others have said here, I've noticed a marked decline in dead bugs on my vehicle following cross-country road trips over the last 10-15 years.

I _never_ have to clean my windshield of dead bugs anymore. The first time I visited the midwest after moving to CA, something like 10 years ago now, via i80, the front of my car was completely covered with insects to the point you could barely see the paint.

Every successive year I made that same trip the dead bugs lessened until there was simply no need at all to even clean my car upon arrival.

Things are changing, there's no doubt about it.

I just hope the species evolving to thrive in the emerging conditions are as easy to cohabitate with as the ones going extinct. Other than a small subset like mosquitoes, wasps, ticks, and some spiders, insects have been rather hospitable to us. Maybe not so much in the future.

</comment><comment><USER41> Living in Vietnam, there is a massive population of swallows. They are prized for the nests they make [1] and people build whole multi-story windowless buildings just to house them [2]. I've seen these buildings all over. At dusk you see them flying around clearly eating up all the mosquitos and bugs in the air. No absolute proof, but I'm pretty sure this is why there are so few mosquitos and flying bugs here.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edible_bird%27s_nest](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edible_bird%27s_nest)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edible_bird%27s_nest#/media/Fi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edible_bird%27s_nest#/media/File:Nestinghouse_003.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER42> I'm fishing quite a lot, few years ago if I reeled cloth, old sock, or plastic bag from river bottom it was full of tiny shrimps and other tiny insects. When I reel it now it's just empty. Also I see significantly less chubs.

</comment><comment><USER43> This year about half the apples in our garden were devoured by insect and microbial predators. You could say this is the natural condition for producing organic food. The pristine ones marketed for sale are there courtesy of the 2.8 million tons of pesticide (2009. Is it more or less now?) used to fend off such attacks. Have we properly assessed the true cost of our food?

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2946087/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2946087/)

</comment><comment><USER44> > The invertebrates that live there, likewise, are adapted to these > temperatures and fare poorly outside them; bugs cannot regulate their > internal heat.

This makes me think that the insects which do survive will be better adapted to the higher temperatures. Hopefully the change is slow enough they have time to adapt. And this is nothing to say about the impact of that adaptation time on other species...

<comment><USER45> Problem is the temperature keeps changing (upwards). If it was a step input, then you might see a sudden die-off and then a ramp back up. But the temperature change is, to first order, a ramp input.

<comment><USER46> Problem? Slow ramps are the ideal way to drive adaptation. That's why finishing a course of antibiotics is so important.

<comment><USER45> This isn't slow, by evolutionary standards. The bugs are trying to adapt to a changing, rapidly increasing temperature.

<comment><USER46> I'm willing to bet that the necessary genes already exist in the population, since the bugs already handle daily temperature swings that are much larger than the increases from climate change.

Given that, a few dozen generations is plenty. And insect generations are for the most part quite short.

<comment><USER45> Then why are the insects all dying? If this is true, the populations should be rebounding. They aren't.

<comment><USER46> Because it's still a bad effect that takes time to adjust to. And there might be other factors.

<comment><USER45> It has, apparently, been going on for a couple of decades now. As you correctly point out, this constitutes many insect generations. If this were simple case of letting pre-existing genetic variations that are robust to temperature get selected for, _we would be seeing populations rebound_.

And it seems most of the other factors, besides climate, have been accounted for. The losses here are in large nature preserves, where insecticides and herbicides are not used. And in the case of Puerto Rico, at least, pesticide use island-wide has dropped dramatically since the 1960s. So one would not expect the results of pesticide use on insect populations to only be manifesting themselves now. Other than climate, most other factors seem to have changed in the insects' favor. Yes, neonicotinoids are an issue, but a relatively local one. One would not expect them to be an issue deep inside a Puerto Rican rainforest nature preserve.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Can confirm, its happening in Canada too. When I was a child, the car windshield used to get covered with bugs, but its not happening anymore. Drastic change. Even driving up north, where you would expect very little human induced influence. Where have all the bugs gone? even windows has fewer

</comment><comment><USER48> re: "Lister and Garcia attribute this crash to climate. In the same 40-year period as the arthropod crash, the average high temperature in the rain forest increased by 4 degrees Fahrenheit. The temperatures in the tropics stick to a narrow band. The invertebrates that live there, likewise, are adapted to these temperatures and fare poorly outside them; bugs cannot regulate their internal heat."

No doubt, this is alarming. None the less, couldn't this suggest that the species in question simply moved to more suitable climate? That is, there is a difference between being killed off, and leaving an area that no meets their needs.

<comment><USER49> Have any of these studies found places where insect populations have not declined at all?

<comment><USER50> Midges in Northern Europe still seem to be thriving.

<comment><USER51> Not in Scotland [https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/693445/dont-know-why- myste...](https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/693445/dont-know-why-mystery- midge-populations-decline-Scotland)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Is there a chance that there is an issue with the methodology and that numbers are wrong? I would have thought this type of loss would cause very obvious and catastrophic changes higher up the food chain.

<comment><USER35> I would think so too. But most species are capable of switching among multiple food sources, to compensate for lean times. I think this allows those critters that are already living to stay alive. But it probably limits their ability to reproduce, since their young are unlikely to be as flexible in finding food. I suspect the impact of a long-term change in foodstuffs will take a while to fully propagate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> We are killing everything the way we're living. Either we change or we too die.

</comment><comment><USER54> We talked this summer in a wonderfull warm night about it. Usually there are some kind of bugs around at nighttime. But there was not even one around. Our idea was, because of all light is LED now, or something like this.

<comment><USER55> Insects can see ultraviolet light but not red.

<comment><USER56> I'm no expert on the matter, but that seems like a pretty sweeping generalization.

<comment><USER55> This site confirms it: [https://indianapublicmedia.org/amomentofscience/insect- color...](https://indianapublicmedia.org/amomentofscience/insect-color- vision/)

I knew because ultraviolet light is used by entomologists to attract insects to traps during the night, e.g. moths: [https://mississippientomologicalmuseum.org.msstate.edu/colle...](https://mississippientomologicalmuseum.org.msstate.edu/collecting.preparation.methods/Blacklight.traps.htm)

This site gives the visual spectrum response of a species of beetle: [http://cronodon.com/BioTech/Insect_Vision.html](http://cronodon.com/BioTech/Insect_Vision.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> that's because all the mosquitos are now in china...</comment>