How we're scammed into eating phony food - <AUTHOR> http://nypost.com/2016/07/10/the-truth-behind-how-were-scammed-into-eating-phony-food/ <comment><USER3> My family raises grass-fed beef and sadly, this article is spot-on when it comes to the lack of consistency with that product.

We know of farmers who go to cattle auctions and buy the cheapest steers they can find -- often sick and/or emaciated ones coming from farms in financial distress -- then fatten them up on grain while giving them pasture to forage, and sell it as grass-fed at farmer's markets. Just install a pretty girl in a tank top and a Realtree baseball cap at your booth and it all goes off without a hitch.

A good rule of thumb is that 1 acre of grass supports 1 head of herd. When you go to the farmer's market, ask the people selling you beef what their herd size is and how many acres they have under pasture. They should know these numbers cold. They should be ready to talk your ear off about how much of a pain in the ass haying is. They should know how calving is going and how many calves they've lost this year.

It is very possible, easy in fact, to raise animals (or vegetables) in toxic conditions and turn around and sell into farmers' markets. If you want clean food the answer is simple; buy into CSAs with farms run by people you trust. They should be willing to let you come to the farm, walk around, ask questions. Many of the best farms are not certified organic because they smartly use stuff like potash that is cheaper, makes better vegetables, and ecologically way better than organic equivalents when used in the right amounts.

I find it interesting that much of the discussion on this thread has centered on enforced standards. There has never been good enforcement of governmentally-sanctioned standards pertaining to high quality farm produce in the US. Certain private organizations are OK but the people administering them tend to be assholes so that results in a lot of farms (including ours) doing things the right way and selling to people who trust us, without getting formal certification.

<comment><USER4> I only buy grass fed beef from Australia, and lamb from New Zealand.

<comment><USER5> The best steak I've ever had in my life was at Rockpool in Melbourne. It has ruined me. I can't really order steak and enjoy it anywhere else anymore.

<comment><USER4> Hah, I will have to try it. They carry Wagyu steaks from a notable local Victorian farmer, right?

<comment><USER5> I dont know actually. Just go and get the grain fed. You wont regret it. Also their mac and cheese is pretty amazing. Really everything is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> We're trying to end this.

Open Food Facts is an open, collaborative effort to try to make more sense of food and food packagings. A bit like Wikipedia, but for food. Using smartphones, you can scan any food item and get detailed and structured data about what you're about to buy/eat.

If the item is not yet in the database, you can help by taking a picture, so that next time there will be detailed facts.

You can peruse it at [http://world.openfoodfacts.org](http://world.openfoodfacts.org)

We have Apps for Android ([http://android.openfoodfacts.org](http://android.openfoodfacts.org)) iPhone ([http://ios.openfoodfacts.org](http://ios.openfoodfacts.org)) Windows Phone ([https://www.microsoft.com/en- us/store/apps/openfoodfacts/9nb...](https://www.microsoft.com/en- us/store/apps/openfoodfacts/9nblggh0dkqr))

It's Open Data, so feel free to use the API in your apps and let your users contribute to end this (OdBL licence)

Also, we're looking for volunteer contributors and developers from all over the world to: \- translate it to more languages \- add food from your fridge \- enhance the apps and web version

<comment><USER7> Wait, how does your website take care of this problem? I clicked on a few items, and it just seemed to list the ingredients and nutritional information.

<comment><USER6> We list labels and claims, and enable calculations like calorie average on a food category, nutritional score calculations, and many other things.

We try to make it easier to read, decypher and compare food info.

Was there a feature you were expecting ?

<comment><USER8> How does this address the issue of, say, one type of fish being sold as another?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Not quite the same, but earlier this year I was working in Italy for a few months. I went back to the UK last week and it really surprised me how poor the quality of food is there. I don't mean in restaurants, but the actual ingredients you get in supermarkets.

In Italy you can go into even the cheapest supermarkets and get tomatoes that smell like actual tomatoes, where as in the UK they just have no smell. Even tomatoes supposedly grown in Italy were the same (I guess they keep the good ones for themselves).

<comment><USER10> Another scam is extra virgin olive oil. Almost all of the ev-olive oils that you buy at supermarkets in the US are fake [0]. It's basically lower-grade olive or vegetable oil with some added green chlorophyl for color. UK supermarkets aren't faring much better [1]. It's all due to mafia control of the oil markets in Italy. 60 Minutes did a report on it recently and they even tested oils for fakes [2]. It's extremely difficult to tell if your ev-olive oil is fake without chromatography/spectroscopy equipment but some people try [3].

[0] [http://time.com/money/4326354/fake-olive-oil-food- fraud/](http://time.com/money/4326354/fake-olive-oil-food-fraud/)

[1] [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/11988...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/11988947/Italian- companies-investigated-for-passing-off-ordinary-olive-oil-as-extra- virgin.html)

[2] [http://www.oliveoiltimes.com/olive-oil-basics/mafia-olive- oi...](http://www.oliveoiltimes.com/olive-oil-basics/mafia-olive-oil- on-60-minutes/50203)

[3] [http://www.foodrenegade.com/how-tell-if-your-olive-oil- fake/](http://www.foodrenegade.com/how-tell-if-your-olive-oil-fake/)

<comment><USER11> What's the cheapest way to get guaranteed-real EV olive oil? Are there known- good brands (perhaps ones produced entirely outside of Italy?)

Or, if you cared about "authentic Italian" olive oil, perhaps for personal or restaurant use (i.e. not for resale): how much would it cost (in the US) to just buy bulk Italian _olives_ , and then press them yourself?

<comment><USER12> I know this is crazy, but you can taste it :-) Of course, most people don't know what olive oil should taste like, but it really has a wide flavour range. Buy a selection of small bottles and simply taste them (possibly with some nice bread and a little salt if you don't like drinking oil straight up).

I highly recommend trying olive oil from other countries as well. It's really an eye opener. Once you get some experience it's pretty easy to spot good olive oil. It's a bit like beer. Some people love American lite beer (and more power to them), but if you compare an all malt lager with a single variety noble hop to a light beer with 30% rice/corn and a mishmash of 8 nondescript hops (or isomerised hop extract) it doesn't require a discerning palette to detect the difference.

Interestingly, I have been wondering for about 10 years now about how ridiculously cheap balsamic vinegar has shown up in the super market. Buy a bottle of 30 year old balsamico and compare it to the cheap stuff and I suspect you will wonder (like me), "Is this really balsamic vinegar???"

<comment><USER13> Yeah it's like going to Greece and eat a ripe cucumber. Even in italy they sell watery, acidic stuff that would never comare to the real thing. I've never eaten one again anywhere else in the world.

<comment><USER14> To be fair, most contries have good cucumbers, if you buy them in season. The last part is the important part.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> According to [https://www.teekampagne.de/en/tea/darjeeling-tea/only- accept...](https://www.teekampagne.de/en/tea/darjeeling-tea/only-accept- genuine-darjeeling) the Tea Board of India estimates that about 40000 tons of Darjeeling are sold all over the world.

But only 10000 tons of tea are produced in Darjeeling.

<comment><USER16> I am not certain about this, but I think Sri Lanka is one of the largest exporters of Darjeeling Tea.

<comment><USER15> It cannot be, that's the point.

If Sri Lanka exports tea as "Darjeeling", it's automatically fake.

<comment><USER17> Surely, it is just the name that is different. If we can call the tea leaves by their botanical name, would that make it more correct?

<comment><USER18> It is, indeed, just the name. But it's also only the name that means I know what Pepsi is.

You can find products sold in European supermarkets labelled, for example, as "Stilton-style blue cheese". Or "Cola drink".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> That's why EU people are protesting against TTIP. We're worried that the lower standards that are common in USA, will prevail, and any resistance will be trampled in private arbitrage courts.

<comment><USER20> Sorry, but that doesn't make sense to me, why would the quality of food there decrease?

<comment><USER21> Because in the EU there are laws that say that if something is labeled as virgin olive oil, it has to be olive oil and nothing else. Greek Yoghurt has to be made in Greece and nowhere else. Lobster meat has to be lobster meat, and Kobe beef absolutely has to be Kobe beef. TTIP basically(in extreme simplification) says that if something is allowed in US it should be allowed in any other signatory country - which would obviously lower our standards as they are much higher than those in US.

<comment><USER22> > Greek Yoghurt has to be made in Greece and nowhere else.

This is a really stupid regulation though. It's just protectionism for Greece, like the regulation that you can't call it "champagne" unless the grapes were grown in Champagne, France. There is no reason to expect this; consider Cheddar cheese, Peking duck, French toast, and Hamburgers.

<comment><USER23> No it's not just protectionism. If I buy Bleu d'Auvergne (it's a French cheese) in the Netherlands, I want to be sure I get the real deal, as a consumer.

<comment><USER24> But what if someone outside France is able to produce equivalent cheese using the same formula? Why do you care where it's from?

<comment><USER23> In this particular case, as with the Champagne example, the name of the product indicates its origin. Bleu d'Auvergne means "Blue from Auvergne" (a region in France), where blue is short for "blue cheese".

If someone outside of France (Auvergne, more specifically) can concoct a product with similar quality, let them label and market it under their own name.

If you fork an open source project, wouldn't it be convenient to come up with a new name for your project?

<comment><USER24> But presumably there is more than one brand of Blue d'Avergne? I'm not suggesting one should be able to steal the trademarks of any of those brands.

And if someone from a different place makes a product that is compositionally identical then probably their ability to market it will depend on the customer's recognition that it is exactly the same thing.

<comment><USER25> You're confusing brand/trademark with origin labelling. A farmers market will inevitably have multiple cheeses created by different producers, all of which may be labelled "Blue d'Avergne".

Yeah, brands do happen, I bought a cheese labelled "Blue style cheese" the other day because it was cheaper and may have been made in Poland to the same process.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> From a 2011 UC Davis* report on extra-virgin olive oil sold in California:

[http://olivecenter.ucdavis.edu/research/files/report041211fi...](http://olivecenter.ucdavis.edu/research/files/report041211finalreduced.pdf)

>Of the five top-selling imported "extra virgin" olive oil brands in the United States, 73 percent of the samples failed the IOC sensory standards for extra virgin olive oils analyzed by two IOC-accredited sensory panels. The failure rate ranged from a high of 94 percent to a low of 56 percent depending on the brand and the panel. None of the Australian and California samples failed both sensory panels, while 11 percent of the top-selling premium Italian brand samples failed the two panels. Sensory defects are indicators that these samples are oxidized, of poor quality, and/or adulterated with cheaper refined oils.

*"We are grateful to Corto Olive, California Olive Ranch, and the California Olive Oil Council for their financial support of this research."

</comment><comment><USER27> I am surprised this isn't more commonly known. Locally (Australia), there has been recent furore over the 'blueberries' in most foods (including blueberry muffins etc.) not actually being blueberries, but a bluey chemical gel.

Also, a local delicacy, the Barramundi fish is commonly replaced in restaurants with the cheaper, imported, less tasty, commercially raised Nile perch. Same with prawns, where beautiful sea fresh King prawns are being replaced with poor sample raised in Vietnamese sewerage farms.

I believe by law now restaurants and shops have to show the actual name of the fish, plus whether it is local or imported.

<comment><USER28> Additionally, most Australians (don't know about the rest of the world) have never eaten an actual scallop.

Mostly they're discs hole-punched from skate wings (a skate's a bit like a stingray)

<comment><USER29> Here in New Zealand, most of the time when I get scallops they have the orange egg-sac bit still attached.

Is that not the case in Aus?

<comment><USER28> Sometimes the anonymous white discs will have a bit sliced almost off and coloured with orange food dye. Often not.

You'll see genuine (imported) scallops at markets occasionally, but it's years and years since I saw a restaurant serve the real thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> This article is so over the top that it borders on parody.

Start with the title: "Everything we love to eat is a scam". I can provide lots of counter examples to that statement.

Other statements with my comments

"After reading it you'll want to be fed intravenously for the rest of your life." \- Look up total intraparenteral nutrition and see if you would prefer that to eating.

"Escolar is so toxic that it's been banned in Japan for 40 years, but not in the US, where the profit motive dominates public safety. In fact, escolar is secretly one of the top-selling fish in America.". - By toxic the author means causes diarrhea due to unabsorbed oils/waxes. Also when we you hear that a lot of people are eating a lot of very toxic food, the food either is not very toxic or else not widely consumed.

"These fake foods produce shallow, flat, one-dimensional tastes, while the real things are akin to discovering other galaxies, other universes — taste levels most of us have never experienced." \- I can imagine Galileo realizing that discovering the moons of Jupiter pailed in comparison to eating real Parmigiano cheese.

"Imagine if half the time you pulled into a gas station, you were filling your tank with dirty water instead of gasoline," Olmsted writes. "That's the story with seafood."" \- Zero calorie seafood, I never knew?

"Perhaps most surprising of all: discount big-box stores such as Costco, Trader Joe's, BJ's Wholesale Club and Walmart are as stringent with their standards as Whole Foods." \- In my opinion, the more "hipster" a food establishment is, the less likely that they are really taking care of the food basics. When was the last time you heard of a large-scale McDonalds food poisoning incident? How about Chipotle?

This is one of those genres where books try to convince people that the sky is falling. In reality, we have never had such abundant, safe food in the history of humanity. Other than the people who truly have food allergies, the vast majority of people are really unaffected by any of these "revelations". In addition, especially for seafood, the substitutions are probably more ecologically sustainable.

Relevant xkcd: [https://xkcd.com/915/](https://xkcd.com/915/)

<comment><USER31> > By toxic the author means causes diarrhea due to unabsorbed oils/waxes.

Oh, I see. No problem then, move along.

> Zero calorie seafood, I never knew?

Reading favourably before going into a rant is an important skill to have. If you try it, you'll see that the article has a good point with fake seafood, past the somewhat ridiculous comparison.

> In reality, we have never had such abundant, safe food in the history of > humanity.

The US has also slipped to 27th place in life expectancy. So is everything good enough now? Should we never innovate again, because "look how bad people had it in the past"?

<comment><USER32> >So is everything good enough now? Should we never innovate again, because "look how bad people had it in the past"?

I don't think the guy you're responding to said we should never innovate again, just that the level headed response to today's food situation in the United States is not to declare there is an apocalypse, which is what the article is doing.

<comment><USER31> Tbh. I'm a bit confused by this reaction. When we had the horse meat scandal in Europe, it was a huge, in the news for weeks. If this article is right, it seems like this sort of scam is almost the norm in the US, and people don't really seem to care. In the countries I'm most familiar with (Western Europe, Japan), if a restaurant turns out to be feeding you a cheap substitution for what they advertise, they are _done for_. Even big chains like Mac Donalds aren't safe, as they had to painfully recognise in July 2014 [1] following a meat scandal. Their sales went down a third for about a year, resulting in quite a substantial operative loss. If potentially dangerous fake olive oil or Tuna doesn't cause a huge media outcry in the US, what will?

[1] [http://www.wsj.com/articles/food-scandals-push-mcdonalds- jap...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/food-scandals-push-mcdonalds-japan-into- loss-1423121899)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> > Perhaps most surprising of all: discount big-box stores such as Costco, > Trader Joe's, BJ's Wholesale Club and Walmart are as stringent with their > standards as Whole Foods.

That's not really all that surprising: they are large enterprises and have the economies of scale to ensure that they are selling authentic food.

What I'd like to see is police resources directed away from the War on Some Drugs and towards this sort of fraud, which is an actual crime with actual victims.

</comment><comment><USER34> Food in the US is sh*t. There are great things in the US and UK( from where it comes from), but food is so wrong there.

I lived some years in Japan, I enjoyed the food. China, not so much, but is is so big you can find anything, they have gastronomical culture that is different and you have to get used to new flavors.

The US totally lacks gastronomical culture. Everything is about money, and quantity.

As an Spanish that lives in Germany I am so worried about TTIP and Americans telling us(Europeans) what to eat. Their way of eating is making a big part of the population obese with arteries clogged.

<comment><USER35> A nation of 300 000 000, spanning 4-5 time-zones, 5-6 climate ones and not a single person with functioning taste buds ... what a tragedy /s

The blandification and sugarification in the supermarket isles does not represent everything a territory has to offer in the culinary department.

<comment><USER36> But does have a tremendous effect on the food. Of course you can get good food in the US I have been to many restaurants that were both good in an absolute sense and good value.

But you know that there is something wrong when children say "I can't eat this it's too sweet" which is what happened to me when I took my family with me to North Carolina for an extended business trip. In the supermarkets almost everything you can buy is heavily sweetened and seems to be designed for the most childish of tastes.

<comment><USER37> You need to shop around the outside of the store - that's where the vegetables, fish, milk, yogurt (unsweetened greek/skyr), and eggs typically are, with a stop-by in the flour/sugar/etc. aisle when you run out of those.

Alternatively, speciality stores - vegetable markets or farmer's markets, Asian/Mexican markets, etc., buy bread from a bakery, not a supermarket aisle.

<comment><USER36> Why should I have to try so hard to find good food? Why isn't it there in the supermarkets? Presumably because the customers are at least willing to buy the junk that is there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> The article is filled with mistakes and misunderstandings or maybe this guy eats in really terrible places:

Spanish people weren't buying "fake olive oil" when poisoned. This was canola oil, was advertised as canola oil, and everybody in Spain can spot the difference among the wine and cider or between the cheapest olive oil and other vegetable oils. All this paragraph is false, including the "No one is checking, Olmsted writes".

Not, Your salmon is most probably true salmon, because to use fake salmon is a mess when the true species is breeded in farms since decades, is relatively cheap, can be found easily in your market, and its origin can be tracked easily by the tag.

There is only an "acceptable" substitute to salmon available, and is rainbow trout feeded with carothenes; smaller and more expensive to produce for farmers than true salmon. This is like to say that your coke bottle is probably faked because in the restaurant somebody could refill it with other thing of equal value or more expensive.

Yes, I must admit that milk is basically a cheap imitation currently, and there is a lot of things that must improve in tracking fisheries and marine species, but spreading fears and saying that nobody is surveying this is not correct. You have the NOAA for example, blatantly ignored in the article.

<comment><USER39> The cheap imported rape seed oil blamed for the Spanish epidemic was probably a cover-up, it was actually pesticides being used in the cultivation of tomatoes. ( Posted earlier today here on HN: [https://www.theguardian.com/education/2001/aug/25/research.h...](https://www.theguardian.com/education/2001/aug/25/research.highereducation))

<comment><USER38> A lot of conspirative theories arose of course, but the oficial version was that some oil destined to industrial uses was imported from French to Spain and sold door-to-door as edible oil by some unscrupulous sellers.

The case was not repeated since that, so tomato pesticides aren't really a strong candidate. A lot of the tomatoes eaten in Germany, Holland and other European countries are from Spain (and pass strict quality tests in those countries) and nobody developped the same symptoms ever. Tomato production created a new type of spanish landscape in fact, that we call "the sea of plastic".

In my family we use exclusively olive oil for all. In any case, I will love to taste the sazanqua oil, that is the equivalent to an olive tree for japanese and is reputed also as excelent. Have somebody tried it?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I see a lot of Americans claiming that respecting origin naming laws is "stupid".

Im guessing this is partly the general "disrupt" mentality At work, and partly because based on your bread, beer and cheese, you clearly have long ago "evolved" to have no tastebuds.

Having seen what Americans insist on calling pizza, I can't imagine what you lot would do to other foods.

<comment><USER41> Oh come on, I'm tired of hearing about US beer from people that don't drink real US beer. Yeah, the domestic big seller beers like Budweiser are pretty crap, but there is an incredible craft beer scene. Look at brewers like Stillwater and Dark Horse, or even bigger ones like Sierra Nevada. Even European brewers like Evil Twin now have US based breweries.

<comment><USER40> Other countries have excellent small-scale beer producers too. But some of them also have quite good mass-produced beers too, which is my entire point.

Like someone else, you're trying to compare American small-scale products against mass-produced international goods, as if other countries don't also have very good small-scale producers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I live between NYC and Bangalore, India. The taste and freshness of vegetables and fruits in India is _way_ more than what is available from Fairway in NYC. Some of it could be attributed to the broken cold storage (and hence most perishables come from around Bangalore).

I normally buy Spinach (and other Indian greens) from the lady outside a small community park. "No Agathi (type of green) today? What happened?" She grins widely "Went to the movies yesterday. Did not pluck them." To me this is fresh :)

I use the prices of vegetables swing wildly as a proxy for freshness. Tomatoes swung between 10Rs to 80Rs a Kg in a matter of days and is now around 15Rs a Kg. It is hard on the farmer, no doubt, but it also shows how local demand and supply is.

<comment><USER43> I moved from Edmonton, Canada to Goulburn Valley, Australia: the foodbowl of Australia; and the difference in food is just astonishing. The first time I had a bite of the salad here, I was mesmerized. Right back to the childhood spent in Punjab, India. Nothing beats onions, guavas, coriander, mandarins, olive oil, plums and the berries from the garden. The earth is golden here. The biggest difference is the vegetable and the weather here. Else, I miss Canada and especially the Rockies.

Btw I wouldn't trust most vegetables in India. You don't know the source of water and if they have been injected by oxytocin. My grandfather owns a big farm and grew vegetables (never laced them though). BTW NorthEast India has good quality produce too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Food is actually a surprisingly good market for counterfeit goods, because the evidence gets eaten.

<comment><USER45> This article is all about how the "evidence" is around us in the stores we shop at and restaurants we go to.

<comment><USER44> Right. I just meant that if you sell a counterfeit painting that could come back to bite you twenty years later. But sell tilapia as red snapper for a week, then wait a month, and you should be in the clear.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Companies using fake advertising need to be held accountable.

I have seen and heard about so much fake advertising, that I don't really even care what the label says anymore.

How hard would it be to create easy to use testing kits? (like home water tests for heavy metals)

If we could create test kits to help identify heavy metals, peanut oil, or other bad additives. Then that would help consumers to identify fake food.

I don't know how hard it would be to make kits like this, but it seems there is a market for it.

</comment><comment><USER47> Here's a thing on food science from The New York Times from three years ago I keep referring to. Long but _really_ good read.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/the- extraordinary...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/the- extraordinary-science-of-junk-food.html)

In the context of new developments of food replacements from the internet (Soylent etc), you can't help but see a tragic waste in how food science has spent all this time on addicting snacks, cynically geared towards heavy consumers.

When I think about this emotionally and feel like oversimplifying, I can't help but to lump this in as a part of the James Howard Kunstleresque argument of how Western Civilization wasted much of the potential of the "good growth period" of global capitalism on completely unsustainable living conditions (suburbia etc).

</comment><comment><USER48> Is there an app or a site that tracks brands and tests their claims of what's in their food? I'm always curious especially when buying olive oil if what I'm buying is actually real. I think the biggest issue is consumers have no way of knowing what's actually in the food they eat. If the information were readily available it'd be much harder to push food substitutes.

<comment><USER49> In Italy, a bottle of proper extra-virgin olive oil is roughly 10 euros per liter. If you're paying less than that, it's not real.

<comment><USER11> Ah, but that's only a one-directional test. Cheap oil is obviously not olive oil, but that doesn't help you choose in the supermarket aisle if the expensive oil is _also_ not olive oil.

(And, in fact, the expensive oil being the fake is rather the whole point: the Italian Mafia wants to sell something cheap as something expensive and capture the margin; there's no point in just selling something cheap as something cheap.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> I'm glad that this article is about actual fraud rather than the much more common (and less interesting) "Processed food isn't real food" type hysteria that is much more prevalent these days.

<comment> Capt-RogerOver It is more common because that problem is much more widespread and ultimately much more dangerous for the health of the victims.

<comment><USER51> When you cook something on your stove, it becomes "processed food". If you have an aversion towards anything you hear is 'processed food', you are basically a chump.

<comment><USER52> The problem is industrial food is usually made with industrial grade additives: Monosodium glutamate, modified palm oil, various stabilisers, buckets of sugar, etc - I would list more, but I literally threw away the worst offender I had on hand (Pre-made meal-in-a-jar)

<comment><USER53> I'm glad you bring up MSG because it's a great example of something that's been repeatedly proven harmless but people still irrationally fear. It also occurs naturally in large amounts in many foods.

People are stupid when it comes to food. It's probably an evolutionary thing, from back when heeding food lore from other people could mean the difference between life and death.

<comment><USER52> I have severe acidic reflux - I can pretty quickly tell when something is laden with MSG - I literally start gushing acid within few hours. Also the issue is of amount - some processed foods just go nuts

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> I start sneezing whenever I eat processed food. I think it's an allergy to preservatives.

There's no test for that. I first noticed it about 5 years ago. After eating Subway, I always got sneezy, and also after drinking beer. I had an allergy test but nothing came up positive.

After years of trial and error, I'm pretty confident when I see a fake juice, condiment, or something commonly canned like olives that I will have a reaction if I eat it.

I should be a food taster for health nuts

<comment><USER55> Carls Jr sent me to the hospital, twice. Had an horrible allergy to their cheese.

I can eat other cheese fine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> > _As with so much regarding food safety, the USDA, which makes the rules, and > the FDA, which is meant to enforce them, are nowhere to be found. These > institutions routinely cite cost-cutting and low staff._

Hmm. Maybe the better solution is to give consumers legal standing, with massive punitive damages, to sue restaurants to mislabeling food. Even better, make it a strict liability tort (i.e. no need to prove intent or negligence) if the restaurant is notified but doesn't clean up their act. Also, let the restaurants sue up the supply chain.

I bet that after the first restaurant or supplier loses a multi-million dollar lawsuit for pretending to serve Kobe beef or white tuna, the problem will solve itself.

<comment><USER35> Most of that mislabeling is legal. Unless there is standard set by the USDA/FDA marketing has free reign. I can totally call my salmon "purplefin tuna"

<comment><USER53> I'm skeptical, but if so, it sounds like another aspect of the law that needs to be changed. Definitions can be tricky, but the difficulty in drawing an exact line doesn't necessarily matter. There will be plenty of cases where the line has clearly been crossed. And sure, give the defendant the benefit of the doubt in those cases where it's a close call.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Regarding Italian food, it's important to be aware of how widespread illegal dumping of toxic waste is affecting food production in that country: [http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/the-mob-made-southen- italy-a-...](http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/the-mob-made-southen-italy-a- toxic-wasteland-0000555-v22n1)

</comment><comment><USER57> Endless deregulation makes people lots of money but is exactly why Europe should never sign TTIP.

</comment><comment><USER58> My company[1] builds machine learning and AI based quality control and production optimization for food manufacturing...

Would consumers be interested in a food verification service?

For the most part, we don't / wouldn't deal in food-safety, but we could do things like verify the age and provenience of wine, or the terroir of coffee.

Discuss here or shoot me an email[2]!

[1] www.Gastrograph.com [2] jasonCEO [at] ^

</comment><comment><USER59> I've always been frustrated by the lack of government involvement in situations like this. Not specific to food but businesses in general.

I leave my car parked for an hour past when I'm supposed to - harming no one really - and I get a ticket. Meanwhile blatant fraud gets ignored?

<comment><USER60> Enforcement of parking rules by low paid workers should more than pay for itself. Prosecuting food fraud is more expensive for the government, and unlikely to be an election issue.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> Believe it or not, it is possible to make good food in the US for cheap, despite what the article says. I was lucky enough to be raised by two people who took cooking very very seriously (and to be fair we did buy olive oil from some family friends who owned a farm in Greece).

Point being that I have eaten all across Asia, Europe, and the Americas and very few restaurants produce food better than what I get when I go home. I suppose that it may be easier to find good ingredients in rural areas (local produce, seafood bought off the dock as the water-men brought it in etc..), such as the one where I grew up, but if you are paying $350 for fake Kobe in NY than you are more interested in the price of your food than the flavor anyway.

</comment><comment><USER62> The author recommends a few labels from food-certifying organizations, but can't food sellers or manufacturers just slap a logo on there too? Or do these food-certifying organizations' aggressively litigate for misuse of their labels?

<comment><USER63> They do - quite aggressively. It lets the localized producers sell at quite a markup, and a lot of the GI/DOC designations are protected at the level of international treaties.

[http://www.gourmetretailer.com/top-story- profiles___trends-p...](http://www.gourmetretailer.com/top-story- profiles___trends- parmigiano_reggiano_consorzio_and_rienzi_and_sons_settle_lawsuit-3991.html)

WIPO and WTO handle a lot of them: [http://www.wipo.int/geo_indications/en/](http://www.wipo.int/geo_indications/en/)

They seem to be more effective because there's a very direct cost/benefit to the GI-protected producers when people infringe. IANAL, but I suspect that because it's a WIPO/WTO treaty issue, it's also probably easier to prosecute than a very generic claim that someone is mislabeling "white tuna", again because the incentives are aligned for producer to show that they're being damaged by the forgery.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> US restaurants need not list ingredients. But is it illegal for them to lie? That's an honest question.

<comment><USER65> In some places, yes. A few sushi spots around here were fined for using not- lobster in their lobster dishes: [http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la- me-fake-lobster-r...](http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-fake- lobster-roll-20151209-story.html)

<comment><USER64> An FDA FAQ tells me:[0]

> Inspections and licensing of restaurants and grocery stores are typically > handled by local and county health departments. However, FDA serves as a > scientific and technical consultant to state and local regulatory agencies > by publishing the FDA Food Code, which sets forth model provisions for > keeping food safe in restaurant, cafeteria, and institutional food > operations. Most states adopt these model provisions as legal requirements > applicable to restaurants and food-service establishments within their > jurisdictions.

Looking at Food Code 2013, I don't see anything about ingredient listing for restaurant food. But I do see this at p 102:[1]

> 3-601.12 Honestly Presented.

> (A) FOOD shall be offered for human consumption in a way that does not > mislead or misinform the CONSUMER.

> (B) FOOD or COLOR ADDITIVES, colored overwraps, or lights may not be used to > misrepresent the true appearance, color, or quality of a FOOD.

[0] [http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Transparency/Basics/ucm194244.ht...](http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Transparency/Basics/ucm194244.htm)

[1] [http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/RetailFoodProtect...](http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/RetailFoodProtection/FoodCode/default.htm)

<comment><USER66> Is there even any definition of what "keeping food safe" actually means? And it still would mean nothing as long as those standards aren't being enforced.

<comment><USER64> I get the sense that it's mostly about foodborne illness.

One could search the CFR, but I'm not up for that today.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> Has anyone ever sent anything to a lab to be examined? How would I get started

For the escolar example, would we need to do genetic testing or is there something cheaper?

<comment><USER68> > _would we need to do genetic testing or is there something cheaper?_

I would assume that DNA sequencing services are pretty cheap nowadays. You would need to understand basic genetics to be able to request them to sequence sites that suit your needs, and then you would need to interpret the results yourself when you get the data.

23andme does a pretty comprehensive profile for $199, and to figure out the species of a fish, much less sequencing would be needed.

<comment><USER67> 23andme does SNPs, not large scale sequencing. I don't think it knows what to do without a library.

I have actually researched full genome sequencing. That is why I asked if there was a cheaper way to do it.

<comment><USER68> You need nothing like full genome sequencing to figure out the species of a sample. Just sequencing some mitochondrial D-loop and cytochrome regions will do. I am not sure exactly, but we're talking some hundreds or some thousands of base pairs only.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This story reminds me of the episode on This American Life on doppelgangers, specifically on Calamari Rings. A warning, if you like Calamri Rings, ignorance is bliss.

[http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio- archives/episode/484/d...](http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio- archives/episode/484/doppelgangers)

<comment><USER69> That illustration of the pig is priceless

<comment><USER17> I believe you can purchase that illustration as a print for wall decoration purposes. It will be quite a conversation starter.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> Can anybody comment on how well food is regulated in Canada? Since moving from the US to the EU I've definitely noticed a difference in food quality. I'll soon be moving to Quebec so I would be interested to hear if Canada is more like the US or EU in this respect.

<comment><USER71> During the winter, most fresh vegetables in Canada are imported from Mexico and the US. These are mostly breed for shelf life and usually bland. In the summer, local fruit and vegetable can be quite tasty if you know where to shop. The public markets of Montreal are very good ([http://www.marchespublics-mtl.com/](http://www.marchespublics-mtl.com/)). You can also subscribe to get weekly organic baskets from local farms during the harvest season ([http://www.paniersbio.org/en/](http://www.paniersbio.org/en/)).

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> Okay, I have to ask. Which brand of Olive Oil that can be found in US stores is actually olive oil? Is there a good resource for finding real foods? Outside that stamp which might only exist for CA originated oil I don't see a good indication in the article.

</comment><comment><USER73> So, so many of our problems are caused by profit motivated people poisoning the well for themselves and others.

It is truly a shame that our culture is so motivated by money over doing the right thing.

edit:

Also, this article makes it sound exhausting to buy real food. :(

</comment><comment><USER74> [http://nautil.us/issue/26/color/the-colors-we- eat](http://nautil.us/issue/26/color/the-colors-we-eat) seems relevant in how this goes unquestioned for the most part

</comment><comment><USER75> see this Tim & Eric song for more information [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Re6pZri8Gw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Re6pZri8Gw)

</comment><comment><USER76> Wow! Can I blame this for my obesity?

<comment><USER77> Sometimes it really could be a conspiracy.

[http://imgur.com/W7AcUDV](http://imgur.com/W7AcUDV)

Medieval peasants ate 4000 - 5000 calories per day.

As late as the 40s, it was recommended that people eat 3000 calories per day and many men ate 4000 calories per day.

Now it is recommended we eat 2250 calories per day.

Neither of the first two groups are known for being fat. Actually the opposite. They look amazing in photos, all of them.

This is despite many of them eating low quality foods and insane amounts of fats and sweets. Gluttony is not new. Fat people everywhere is new.

So the number of calories we've been absorbing has steadily decreased over time.

It is all physical activity that accounts for the discrepancy?

I'm not confident that is the case. It sounds wrong to me because although I accept that our grandparents were far more physically active than we are it is known that exercise burns calories at a low rate. Exercise has always been a bad way to lose weight. It has always been easier to lose weight by eating less. You could skip the gym for two days by neglecting to eat half a mars bar.

I wonder whether there is some other systemic affect at work. Like the temperature is warmer outside so we burn less calories just living.

I'm sure that's probably wrong, I'm just offering up that there may be some alternative explanation than the conventional one.

Here's another one. Our brains use most calories. Maybe we're using them in less energy intensive ways than we used to. Maybe our brains actually use up more energy when engaged in physical activity for an actual purpose i.e. not mindlessly zoned out on a treadmill and that is a hidden multiplier affect.

Now I'm going to make a sandwich because I'm hungry.

<comment><USER78> >I'm not confident that is the case. It sounds wrong to me because although I accept that our grandparents were far more physically active than we are it is known that exercise burns calories at a low rate. Exercise has always been a bad way to lose weight. It has always been easier to lose weight by eating less. You could skip the gym for two days by neglecting to eat half a mars bar.

I don't want to call you out for exaggerating, but you are approaching exaggeration by orders of magnitude. A mars bar is under 300 calories.

For me? a 6', 210lb man? bicycling for one hour at 14-16MPH is gonna burn well north of 900 kcals. (Note, this is completely reasonable at my fitness level, though I _need_ to carry water; I'll consume a litre during that time period, and judging from the condition of my clothing, excrete it from my skin; without it I make it about 20 minutes and then slow to 8mph. As far as I can tell, if you are carrying around as much spare weight as I am, there's no reason to use gels or really worry about eating extra before or during the ride; but the water is essential to performance.)

Check out some numbers for walking:

[http://www.nutristrategy.com/caloriesburnedwalking.htm](http://www.nutristrategy.com/caloriesburnedwalking.htm)

My point here is just that cardio is a real thing. And it takes time and effort and sweat, (oh my god, the sweat) but it is a real thing, and one of the interesting bits is that the fatter you are, the more you burn doing any cardio activity.

I'd bet money that the increased caloric intake of our ancestors is entirely explained by their increased physical activity.

<comment><USER77> > I don't want to call you out for exaggerating, but you are approaching > exaggeration by orders of magnitude. A mars bar is under 300 calories.

I was making a general point. It is easier to stop eating than to lose weight by exercise. Much easier. Also mars bars have been undergoing food inflation. It's another sinister conspiracy we can actually prove is real. They used to be about 1/3 bigger. The world around you seems a little darker now doesn't it.

> For me? a 6', 210lb man? bicycling for one hour at 14-16MPH is gonna burn > well north of 900 kcals.

I should warn you that those machine counters are kind of optimistic. The human body is really good at holding onto calories. We walk and run very efficiently, I think we may even be the most efficient at long distance running in the animal kingdom.

I'm not trying to stop you running or cycling around. I approve of it. It is very good for your health even if it doesn't lose many calories. I think there is also a multiplier affect indirectly coming from exercise in that it elevates mood and this makes you less likely to binge on food. It is however probably not the calories you burned per se that are causing you to lose weight, not unless you're the 1% that actually exercise seriously and continually.

Maybe this is subjective. I don't consider 500 calories a lot of food, but to me it's a significant amount of running. A mouthful of food vs half an hour on a treadmill.

> I'd bet money that the increased caloric intake of our ancestors is entirely > explained by their increased physical activity.

I'm not denying our ancestors were very much more physically active than we are. Probably that accounts for at least half the results despite us also eating half or less of the calories we used to.

I think there could be confounding factors. Like a slightly warmer world would presumably mean the inhabitants burn less calories on an ongoing basis. Less obvious factors could invisibly add 50 or 100 calories per day and that would add up over time.

By the way I am not fat! This isn't an attempt to avoid guilt :)

<comment><USER78> >I was making a general point. It is easier to stop eating than to lose weight by exercise. Much easier.

Now, I've been overweight on and off for much of my adult life, and... that hasn't been my experience. In my experience, if I want to stop _gaining_ I need to cut out sweets and sodas, and that takes some effort and will, but I feel okay replacing my mountain dew with carbonated water and tea. I would classify that as 'easy' \- but it doesn't make me lose weight, it just stops the expansion.

My experience has been that I feel... pretty bad if I try to cut beyond just skipping the sweets, the sodas and maybe the fries. I mean, I do lose weight without serious calorie-burning activities, but focus completely goes out the window, and I end up feeling really lethargic, and I become kitten-weak. It's quite possible that this is due to me not balancing the food I do eat correctly, or something of that nature, but the point is that nearly every time I've lost weight through caloric restriction, I stopped because I didn't like the side effects rather than any failure of will

I mean, maybe you are right; my lethargy actually makes it easier to not eat than to eat, but I don't get anything else done, either. I _have_ successfully gotten down to a normal BMI this way, but if that's how being thin feels, I don't really see the point.

Exercise, on the other hand, generally makes me feel better on all fronts right away. I mean, it's still hard for me to stick with it, but when I stop it's always pretty clearly me being a flake or just not setting aside the time or properly prioritizing it, rather than the negative effects that significant caloric restriction seem to have. For me, when I stop exercising, it's nearly always clearly a failure of will. Last time, it was that they shut down my bike path for resurfacing. But I was feeling pretty good; I could take some time off... and yeah, that's how you get fat. That, and allowing myself to eat the incredibly good employer-provided sweets.

I have also gotten down to a normal BMI through exercise and avoiding sweets, and it feels great.

(there are injuries that will throw me off, too; but that's why I bicycle or eliptical rather than running; I ran a lot when I was thin, but as a fat person, trying to run enough to stress the cardiovascular system properly usually resulted in minor injuries that prevented me from running often enough to get into shape. On the bicycle and the eliptical, the limits are my will, my time, and my cardiovascular system.)

>I should warn you that those machine counters are kind of optimistic. The human body is really good at holding onto calories. We walk and run very efficiently, I think we may even be the most efficient at long distance running in the animal kingdom.

I was going off of [http://www.bicycling.com/training/weight-loss/cycling- calori...](http://www.bicycling.com/training/weight-loss/cycling-calories- burned-calculator) -

In theory, you can put a floor on how many calories you are burning, because you can measure the output. On bicycles, often this is done with strain gauges in the rear freehub, but the idea is that you can put a floor on it; thermodynamics says that you are putting out at least that much energy. Of course, then you can argue about how efficient your body is... and if you really believe that man is an incredibly efficient machine, well, you probably have not seen me engage in any sort of sport.

>Maybe this is subjective. I don't consider 500 calories a lot of food, but to me it's a significant amount of running. A mouthful of food vs half an hour on a treadmill.

well, 500 calories most of the way to a pretty good burger, if you skip the cheese, fries and mayo. I mean, I'm not saying it's a huge meal or anything, but it's not just a mouthful. Double that, and I think one hour on the eliptical while watching silly action movies is totally doable, and you've got a fully loaded fat-man double-burger with bacon and cheese. (I've still gotta skip the fries if I want to lose weight, but I get to eat the burger, which is the best part.)

yeah. I guess I don't really see a half an hour on a treadmill as a huge amount of gym time. I personally have a goal of 5 hours a week of intense (read: I'm dripping with perspiration) cardio every week. And if I keep that up for any period of time, and manage to avoid sweets? I lose weight. And doing any of that at all makes me feel better, even if I fail to meet the goal (which, as evidenced by my current 14 stone weight, has been the case rather more often than not lately.)

Of course, everyone is different and your body probably responds differently than my body does to all of these things. Certainly, if your point is that a half an hour at the gym three times a week probably isn't going to move your BMI very much, I agree, though it is likely to make you a somewhat healthier fat person.

<comment><USER77> > In my experience, if I want to stop gaining I need to cut out sweets and > sodas, and that takes some effort and will, but I feel okay replacing my > mountain dew with carbonated water and tea.

I do the exact same thing! I get absurdly cheap sparkling water and leave it chill in fridge. Sometimes I add crystal light lemon or cherry.

> I have successfully gotten down to a normal BMI this way, but if that's how > being thin feels, I don't really see the point.

Sure but a chocolate bar just tastes incredible if you haven't had one for a long time. I think sweets are much harder to kick than fats.

> I ran a lot when I was thin, but as a fat person, trying to run enough to > stress the cardiovascular system properly usually resulted in minor injuries > that prevented me from running often enough to get into shape

Don't bother running! Walking is shown in study after study to make you more creative. Better yet walk in a forest (maybe you saw the plant research thread?). A mysterious journey in the brain happens when physically walking.

> if you really believe that man is an incredibly efficient machine, well, you > probably have not seen me engage in any sort of sport.

Take a look at hurling. It's like a sport found in Harry Potter but without broomsticks.

I think it is worth improving physical coordination abilities. You might be bad at it but improving in weak areas should improve seemingly unrelated areas in your brain. Even if it didn't, you will live longer.

> I personally have a goal of 5 hours a week of intense (read: I'm dripping > with perspiration) cardio every week.

Trust me, you're the 1%. Your gym's existence depends on the fact.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER79> Some people have a bad reaction to escolar, but it does taste really good. Well worth the risk.

<comment><USER80> Yes, I went to a sushi restaurant that was honest enough to list it on their menu. I only ordered one piece because I was aware of the reported digestion issues, but it was delicious and I had no distress later on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> > That Kobe is probably Wagyu, a cheaper, passable cut, Olmsted says.

I am not sure if something is lost in translation between the article and the books' authors, but that is rubbish. Kobe beef is PDO (which US is not participating internationally), so you can cure ham at home, and call it "best original prosciutto".

Wagyu is a breed of cattle. And depending on the produces/sourcing it may even surpass the beef from Kobe (which also comes from Wagyu animals) in quality. There is nothing that prevents US farmer or Australian one of producing the best beef in the world. Or the best wine, best cured meats, best beer, best cheese, best whatever.

Some people try to capitalize by falsely designating their products as coming from regions that have put centuries into perfecting products. That says nothing about the quality of the underlying product - it depends on the producer.

Kobe beef - for USDA and the like means nothing. You can call your beef Kobe, Kube, Kombe, Kombat, Kohinoor and it will be all the same as long as it is beef.

In the other parts of the world Kobe beef means well - beef produced in Kobe, in a specific way that is of certain quality.

<comment><USER81> I'm always surprised the Japanese (or more specifically the Japan National Wagyu Registration Association) don't kick up a fuss about the name 'Wagyu' being used for the name of the breed (no matter where it is raised) and not the origin of the meat.

'Wagyu' in Japanese literally means 'Japanese Cow'. I wonder what it would take to name an existing cattle breed 'US Beef', send breeding stock to somewhere with lots of land and cheap labor and starting a new domestically raised 'US Beef' industry.

<comment><USER35> I think that trademark dilution is in place. Also it is tricky - if it comes to mean Japanese (as the territory), I will just put some third rate cattle on the disputed islands under Russian administration and it will become as Wagyu as they come.

Personally I think they decided to take smaller slice of much bigger pie - <USER2> the world gets a taste for Wagyu - there will be a lot of money in the business. And as long as they make sure they are providing among the best stuff - they will always be able to sell everything with a premium.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER82> The article conflates the problem of "the physical item is a bait-and-switch" with the problem of "same thing made the same way, just not in the geographical location with the name". If the _only_ thing that differentiates two food items is the name of the location in which one was made, then that's just pure food wank.

<comment><USER83> Not always. An onion marketed as a Vidalia onion can only come from Vidalia, Georgia (and a few counties around it [1]). Vidalia onions _are_ different because of the soil used to grow them; they are sweeter and milder than normal onions (and if you take seedling Vidalia onion plants elsewhere, you'll end up with regular onions).

Now, does this make Vidalia onions a different food from onions? I don't know.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vidalia_onion#Legislation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vidalia_onion#Legislation)

</comment></comment><comment><USER84> shutterstock picture to illustrate article about fake food. Irony at its best.

</comment><comment><USER84> Shutterstock photo to illustrate an article promoting a book warning us about fake food. Best kind of irony.

</comment><comment><USER85> Can we trust the factual accuracy of this article? It was written for the New York Post, which is a tabloid. It has posted misinformation before.

[http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/the_new_york_posts_disgrace.php](http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/the_new_york_posts_disgrace.php)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post)</comment>


Google retires the Pixel C tablet as it shifts focus to the Pixelbook - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/28/google-retires-the-pixel-c-tablet-as-it-shifts-focus-to-the-pixelbook/ <comment><USER2> I don't know, but I still like the idea behind the "netbook": small, portable form factor with real keyboard, cheap machine, decent battery life, GNU/Linux. To me, it's too bad that the netbook was pretty much been pushed off the market by the advent of the tablet PC, but as this fact suggest, I'm obviously part of a minority here.

<comment><USER3> I am not sure I understand your comment regarding this article.

Aren't chromebooks (except for the pixelbook which is very nice but not cheap) the direct successors of netbooks ?

<comment><USER4> I think the problem with Chromebook is that they are too reliant on connectivity. The disk are too small and I would like to run real desktop apps.

<comment><USER5> _net_books usually have small disks too and rely on connectivity -- hence the name.

<comment><USER6> Netbooks run the same OSes as more powerful PCs do. Sure, the concept was that they'd be good for lightweight web browsing, but that was kind of a stretch even when they were popular. The way that I used it never really relied on the net. I installed the software locally. Netbooks are just small laptops.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Sigh. I'm building these into a "kiosk"-like application where the great touchscreen, nvidia graphics, and good cpu are awesome.

We sort of knew this would eventually happen but it still sucks.

Developing on Android in Java is pretty gross, esp without rooting.

I would love some sort of vanilla Linux tablet that had something like a 10 year SLA and basic support. Ideally a system with PC architecture hardware that has great support by vanilla linux kernel.

The idea is to reduce your dependency on a Big company that only cares about consumer whims for a couple years at a time.

<comment><USER8> There are a huge range of kiosk touch displays that'll connect to standard PC hardware. There are also all-in-one solutions like the AOPEN eTile 19M.

IMO a consumer tablet is absolutely the wrong device for a kiosk application. They don't have the ruggedness, the warranty or the mounting options to provide a reliable and hassle-free installation.

[http://cdn2.blocksassets.com/assets/aopen/aopen/0a5bKLXyDqjI...](http://cdn2.blocksassets.com/assets/aopen/aopen/0a5bKLXyDqjIwcz/AOPEN- WT19M-FB-eTILE-19M-Value-FanFree.pdf)

<comment><USER7> I think this is a great idea. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> So, where can one go for a well-made Android tablet these days? Is Samsung the only game in town? The Amazon tablets aren't that great.

A few years ago, my parents bought Nexus 7 tablets to use as e-readers and for games. At the time, they were obviously the best small Android tablets and the purchase was a no-brainer. If they broke today, I'm not sure what I could recommend as a replacement.

<comment><USER10> How are they still using the Nexus 7? I mean, mine didn't outright break, but it sure as hell doesn't have a remotely usable performance. Something with the storage in them degenerating to the point of a cassette drive.

<comment><USER11> I had a Nexus 7 (2012) that was barely ever used. Even that became comically slow as dirt. Was really an eye-opener about how bad a lack of attention from a vendor can be. They'd moved onto the next thing and evidently did not care one iota.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> That's a shame - the Pixel C was the nicest out of the Google Nexus/Pixel tablets I've owned - luckily I skipped the Nexus 9, but the Pixel C was head and shoulders above the Nexus 10. The keyboard was the first I've seen for a tablet that wasn't just an afterthought (and that includes the Surface Pro 1).

I think this really only leaves the Samsung S3 as a premium Android tablet out there, which is a shame.

I had high hopes for a Nexus 7 replacement with Pixel branding - and I understand the whole "phablet" argument against a mid-size tablet - but it doesn't sound like that will be the case.

<comment><USER13> my Nexus 9 has worked well for years and of all of the Nexus products I have purchased (4,5,9,10,5x), it has been the most reliable over time. I don't see anything to replace it with.

<comment><USER14> my nexus 9 has kind of shocked me as well. Originally i was unimpressed, but three years later the software has gotten to the point that it's totally stable and all the overheating issues seem to have been worked out. the build quality is still kind of shitty, but overall the tablet is working better than when it was new and i have no need to replace it (other than the ever-present want for shiny new things).

<comment><USER15> My nexus 9 is the most disappointing piece of tech I've ever bought. It used to crash all the time when watching video which was the entire point of buying it, it crashes when it hits 40% battery, which is all the time because the battery only lasts a couple of hours.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I got a pixelbook a couple of weeks ago and I freaking love it. Before that I had a Yoga 2 pro running arch. I'm using Termux on it to get a local linux environment that doesn't require turning on developer mode. It's good enough for the light coding that I do on it (emacs, clang, cmake). I also use Termux for SSH rather than the chrome extension.

So far it has been amazing. The hardware feels top notch.

<comment><USER17> What about the screen tho'? I would love to use a Pixelbook, but I simply can't go for any screen < Retina.

<comment><USER18> Uhh, what do you mean? It has an excellent 12.3" 2400x1600 screen which is "retina" by any definition.

<comment><USER17> Oh man, didn't realize that! So that actually makes it a doable replacement for my MBP once it wears out. Considering I use Codeanywhere as my IDE, I don't really need anything that, but a netbook, like Pixelbook is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Will it still receive updates? I don't own a Pixel C, but I'd just like to know since it bugs me immensely that every device Google delivers is discontinued in less than 3 years. My Nexus 5 was marketed as a stock Android device that would get updates immediately and now it hasn't been receiving updates for 1-2 years. I know that the problem kind of lies with Qualcomm because of some security applications, but it still pains me to see this.

This imo is the same as planned obsolescence. Can we really not get phones that will be supported and working for 5 years or more? Not all of us get a new phone every year like you Americans.

<comment><USER20> Devices from that fruit company are the best bet as far as I can tell. My 3 year old tablet is still getting updates. My 2 year old phone is too, and I expect it'll continue getting them for at least another 2 years; my phone before this one got updates for 4 years.

I've considered jumping ship many times, but device support seems so poor across the board in Android land I find it hard to justify the move. Like you, I don't want to buy a new phone every year. I'm watching to see how the Pixel phone support plays out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> The main caveat in Pixel C is android, Pixelbook fixes it with ChromeOS.

ChromeOS's window management is far suited for productivity than android and in some cases (IMO) even mainstream desktop operating systems. Android app ecosystem is an added bonus, albeit missing some essential features like HW acceleration, better clipboard management etc.

ChomeOS + android > Android + Chrome browser !

<comment><USER22> This is one of the things Microsoft really got right in Windows 10. Tablet mode works well for when you want to have a single app on the screen at a time (and even works for normal desktop apps), while traditional mode works great when you've got a mouse and a keyboard hooked up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I have been on the verge of buying a Pixel C or Pixelbook for my parents :

\- They currently have an aging nexus 10

\- my dad does not want an apple product

If Google had created a new Android tablet instead of the pixelbook, I would have bought it.

The pixelbook looks really nice but I am not sure that the mix of Android and Chromebook will be easy for my parents to pick up.

<comment><USER23> I just gave a Samsung Chromebook Pro to my 83 yo mom. She has been a long time Windows user, so wasn't sure she'd pick it up. She _loved_ it.

This model runs Android apps natively, so it has access to all apps in the Play Store. Some weren't converted to take full advantage of large screen resolutions, but so far I haven't found anything that doesn't run.

She had a very short learning curve; in a day or two she was doing everything she used to do with Windows (which wasn't much - email, photos, browsing, spotify, some light printing). The fact she was an Android user probably helped a bit. Also having a touch screen and pen was a huge bonus, so she doesn't have to fiddle with the mouse trying to click on tiny spots.

I considered buying a Pixelbook, but at 2x the price, it was hard to justify considering her use.

( _Full disclaimer: I work at Google, but in a different team, not related to hw or Chrome /OS. I purchased the device at the store, full retail price_)

<comment><USER24> You can now print locally on a Chromebook? This used to be a big minus.

<comment><USER3> Aren't virtually all printers able to print via wifi these days ?

Note : I don't own a printer, so I am not entirely sure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I absolutely love my $65 Samsung Chromebook I got on a Black Friday sale a few weeks ago, and while of course it bogs when I have 15 tabs open, I am constantly surprised at how well it performs even under heavy loading.

The ridiculous price point of the Pixelbook literally makes me laugh out loud. A thousand fucking dollars for a damn Chromebook?? Absurd.

I personally like the $199 price point and would love to see manufactures deliver a kick-ass chromebook at that level....something that almost matches the Pixelbook performance.

<comment><USER8> > I personally like the $199 price point and would love to see manufactures > deliver a kick-ass chromebook at that level....something that almost matches > the Pixelbook performance.

That's not going to happen, for obvious reasons. The processor in the Pixelbook costs more than the entire BOM for a $200 laptop.

The Pixelbook is sort of a crazy idea, but it represents Google's belief that ChromeOS can be more than just a cheap option for schools and casual users.

<comment><USER26> I have used Samsung ARM Chromebook from 2012 for development (mostly Java plus occasional C++). It was OK. The limiting factor was memory, not CPU.

I think a new cheap and small ARM Chromebook with 8GB would be very attractive option for me as a travel laptop. Sadly I am such a minority...

<comment><USER8> DRAM prices are insane at the moment, so we're going to see manufacturers scrimp on it for a while. Hopefully the price of DRAM should start to ease in the latter part of 2018.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I mean once you start getting into the upper price range for tablets you might as well start to consider purchasing a 2 in one laptop with a touch screen as well. But it appears as Google has bet on it's various chromebooks to fill the gap between tablet and laptop with providing the features most regular consumers want.

</comment><comment><USER28> Am I wrong in thinking that Google is crazy to not have a proper linux option for the Pixelbook?

They get alpha geeks away from OSX and Macbooks. They get a platform they can own and leverage. Get the developers, expose them to the tools, let them build stuff, and cross compile it or whatever to ChromeOS and Android.

Have it dual boot into ChromeOS so your family can give it a spin.

<comment><USER29> Crouton allows exactly that. Except for the limited disk space, I'm a big fan of the ChromeOS/Crouton option. I've used a Toshiba Chromebook 2 (? 1920x1080 screen) as my laptop for many years now.

It's nicer than a dual boot, as you can swap between the runtimes on the fly.

Adding dedicated delete, home, page up, page down, etc. keys would make the chromebooks even better.

<comment><USER30> Just enabling dev mode on a Chromebook is apparently pretty insecure against local exploits [1]. An officially supported way of running Linux could do better than that.

[1] [https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/06/how-to-install- linux...](https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/06/how-to-install-linux-on-a- chromebook/)

<comment><USER31> It's exactly as insecure as a standard x86 PC then (ignoring recent Intel issues!).

Yes this is less secure than the default config.

<comment><USER32> For regular x86 PCs you can use secure-boot and load your own signing keys, then sign your own linux kernel.

As far as I know, chromeos has no option for that. Either it has only google's signing keys, or secure-boot is entirely disabled via devmode.

That's clearly a massive step down in security from most modern x86 laptops.

<comment><USER31> Yeah fair call. Although I've never met anyone who has actually done that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> the Pixelbook will fail because it is too expensive. I love Chromebooks and think they make sense in a lot of cases...but at a $350 price point.

I still use my Nexus 9 (typing this on it)...and skipped the Pixel C due to costs and bad reviews

Google's entire "upscale" Pixel effort seems doomed. The Nexus effort was mostly perfect: decent hardware at attractive prices and stock software with reasonable updates.

Apple commands a premium in part due to Apple Stores being plentiful. When my son cracks his iPhone screen, he walks to the Apple Store and he has a replacement screen in about an hour. What can Google offer? Nothing similar.

<comment><USER9> It's a serious problem for Android, and one that many people don't recognize. Part of the reason people are willing to pay more for Apple products is the customer service.

Similarly, I know people who buy or lease luxury cars because they know they will get a nice loaner car when they send theirs in for maintenance at the dealership. For example, some of those people really would be satisfied with a Camry, but they spend the extra money on a Lexus ES to get a better service experience.

<comment><USER33> Just the same, part of the reason people don't buy Apple is because they don't want to pay extra for service. For most of the middle and lower end such hardware (i.e., tablet) is a commodity. No sense paying extra for that.

Note: Not saying I agree, only that not everyone can afford / wants to pay a premium for Apple.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Jooseph – Playlists for Learning - <AUTHOR> Hello HN, Every time I tried to learn new subject through internet. I am confused by the resources.
- Which one will worth my time?
- which ones are reliable or relevant?
Eventually I open infinite amount of tabs and close them without browsing.
Finding right material and resource is hard in this era. Yet we believe lifelong learning is a meaningful way to live your life.
I'm Firat co-founder of Jooseph: https://www.jooseph.com/
Jooseph is basically playlist for learning.
You can follow modules curated from different resources. You can also your learning journey to guide other users. Curate list of resource and share on the relevant topic.
If you're an infinite learner, we would like to hear from you.
Thank you HN community. <comment><USER2> Why not embed the videos into the site? It is a bit of a hassle having to switch between tabs all the time.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is our MVP and we have only demo modules right now. We'll be launched in 2 weeks. There'll be embeded videos and more features such as goals and progress bar.

If you leave your mail from site or send me a mail at email@example.com I would be happy to reach you when we launch.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is interesting... How do you monetize this if all the playlists are Youtube links? Also how is it different from Youtube playlists that many educators have created?

<comment><USER4> Can you guide me to one such playlists? Quite interested.

<comment><AUTHOR> Actually there are few demo playlist on Jooseph right now.

You can check from

[https://jooseph.com/modules](https://jooseph.com/modules)

I recommend

UI/UX Go-lang Simplicity

You can also contact me at email@example.com

If you have a topic in mind that you want to learn we try to create module for that.</comment></comment></comment>


Fremont police Tesla runs low on juice in high-speed chase - <AUTHOR> https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2019/09/24/fremont-police-tesla-runs-low-on-juice-during-high-speed-chase/ <comment><USER2> I'm not sure why this is even newsworthy. An officer forgot to put the cruiser on the charger at the end of his shift so it ran low. The department even stated this happens all the time with gas powered cruisers.

It doesn't matter if it takes less time to fill up with gas than charge the car if the officer only noticed it's low mid-chase.

<comment><USER3> Whenever I see this kind of "news" I imagine how the news must have looked like when cars replaced horses.

<comment><USER4> This comparison is incredibly tired. People may scrutinize electric cars unfairly, but there are real scrutinies to be made, and you can't just wave everybody away by calling them luddites. I also find the choice of comparison to smack of superiority, which is the last thing techno-progressives need more of in their public image.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Why don't they stop with the high-speed chases anyway? It puts everyone at more risk as well as the cop's life in more danger. Then, when the chase ends, the officer is so amped up he or she is much more likely to open fire.

<comment><USER6> The article states that they stopped as soon as conditions turned dangerous. This is a very common outcome by the Fremont Police Department.

Worth noting also that criminals know about the rules... which one might speculate gives them an incentive to flee into dangerous situations.

<comment><USER5> After reaching speeds of 120MPH before it got "dangerous".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> A relative of mine is a cop that works a stretch of I-75. He was in a high speed chase towards the end of his shift and ran out of gas about 40 miles down the road, and had to wait for another officer to bring him a gas can. not sure how this is any different.

<comment><USER8> Ford doesn't have as high of a percentage of stock shorters :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> In other news, Fremont police is driving Teslas.

<comment><USER10> Per the article, they have one 2014 Model S that they bought used in 2018, and recently rolled out as a test program

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Teslas don't seem like a good idea to me for a police depsrtment. Not only are they significantly more expensive (20k more according to the article), but they also suffer from battery degredation, long repair times, and also a reliance on a single company to still exist in the future to provide repairs (which is definately not a given if you trust Tesla bond yields). Also the dependence on Tesla charging stations is not ideal either, though probably not a huge issue in California.

Personally I'm not sure I would ever buy an electric vehicle (not that I even have the option where I live) and if had to guess, I wouldn't be surprised if oil powered cars are the dominant paradigm for the next 50 years or so. Even after that, I would guess that oil powered cars are going to be driving for at least 100 years at best.

Ignoring the climate externality, oil is, like, the best. The most useful substance that man has ever found, probably.

<comment><USER12> Yeah, apart from how it's killing every, it's awesome.

Police cars are idle a lot of the time, great use for EV. No need to keep the engine running to power their computers/radios.

They don't suffer from battery degradation. And why would they rely on Tesla charging stations? You can charge them from pretty much anything.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> New agressive criminal tactics come to light; regular fill-ups, not pulling over. Public in danger! Film at 11.</comment>


DIY iPhone Call Recorder - <AUTHOR> http://awaitinginspiration.com/2009/11/iphone-call-recorder-v2/

<comment><USER2> Looks like a fun project! But can't you get a google number, associate the phone, and click 4 to record?

<comment><AUTHOR> You could. This lets you use it with your own number, lets you record outgoing calls, and is useful outside the US where Google Voice is not available.

As an added benefit, you get two extra devices to carry in your pocket (this box and the recorder itself), and you get to change the 9V batteries.</comment></comment>


Can we stop talking about meteor "explosions"? - <AUTHOR> https://plus.google.com/101132562710376037298/posts/4rosuTcrkgu

<comment><USER2> Maybe we cannot. [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v361/n6407/abs/361040a0...](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v361/n6407/abs/361040a0.html)</comment>


Moving from London to San Francisco (as a Software Engineer) - <AUTHOR> http://nicolasgallagher.com/moving-from-london-to-san-francisco-as-a-software-engineer/

<comment><USER2> Ouch, the number of "Know all that consumer protection related stuff we take for granted in the EU? That doesn't exist in the US, expect to pay for X Y Z" sentences made me wince.</comment>


SQLite Release 3.8.5 On 2014-06-04 - <AUTHOR> http://www.sqlite.org/draft/releaselog/3_8_5.html <comment><USER2> June 4th. Any reason in particular why this 2+ week old version of SQLite popped up?</comment>


The Complexity Era in Economics - <AUTHOR> http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/complexity%5B1%5D.article8.14.09.doc Abstract: This article argues that the neoclassical era in economics has ended and is being replaced by a new era. What best characterizes the new era is its acceptance that the economy is complex, and thus that it might be called the complexity era. The complexity era has not arrived through a revolution. Instead, it has evolved out of the many strains of neoclassical work, along with work done by less orthodox mainstream and heterodox economists. It is only in its beginning stages. The article discusses the work that is forming the foundation of the complexity era, and how that work will likely change the way in which we understand economic phenomena and the economics profession.<p>Indirectly via a deleted comment from emilind at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1144548 <comment><AUTHOR> Abstract: This article argues that the neoclassical era in economics has ended and is being replaced by a new era. What best characterizes the new era is its acceptance that the economy is complex, and thus that it might be called the complexity era. The complexity era has not arrived through a revolution. Instead, it has evolved out of the many strains of neoclassical work, along with work done by less orthodox mainstream and heterodox economists. It is only in its beginning stages. The article discusses the work that is forming the foundation of the complexity era, and how that work will likely change the way in which we understand economic phenomena and the economics profession.

Indirectly via a deleted comment from emilind at <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1144548>

</comment><comment><USER2> regulatory complexity and the convoluted hoops large players jump through to get around them does not count as a fundamental shift in economic principles.</comment>


Report from Management: Programmers don't know how to develop software - <AUTHOR> http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/05/19/software.designers.strut.their.talent.cost.profit.says.management.insights.study Pesky programmers potentially putting profits puttering!<p>Apparently management researches believe that what's really costing software development projects are that the talented developers are making too complex software!  The only logical reason: because programmers are evil and only think of themselves.  Management's solution: make pay based on short term software development metrics (because you can measure software development, after all!), and force talent to dumb down the complex solutions. <comment><AUTHOR> I think their statement (of developers acting for their own personal good) is overblown and shows a lack of understanding of software development. It's a reactionary publication predicating on the fears of not being agile enough in the new software development world. The proof:

Their suggestions of using better metrics on development practices of the software being built. Which is a ridiculous suggestion for anyone well vested in the literature of practical, real-world software engineering. Measuring software development is inherently difficult. What will you measure? lines of code? number of functions written? bugs fixed? All of those are ridiculous and fail at any number of different approaches to software development (and are all easily gamed). The problem is that there isn't a sure-fire way to measure how well a developer is doing without someone well experienced/knowledgeable walking through and checking everything At which point, what would be the reason for having that person develop the software to begin with?

All that can come of this study are managers in corporations reacting to suggestions of improvements in software projects from good developers by shutting them down.

This will, in effect, make those corporations _slower_ and _less productive_ than any sensible startup, accomplishing _the exact opposite_ of what they want.

Yet my biggest qualm with this report, though, is the implication that _it is a bad thing_ that developers are trying to become better with new/more complex technology! It's in the interest of _all_ IT departments to nurture growth of their workers. While the comparison isn't exact, it would be like a pro-sports team saying it's a bad thing their players are trying to become really good.

From a tin-foil hat perspective: this was funded by YC to create more hackers dissatisfied with their jobs and go form startups!!!

<comment><USER2> You assume that new technology is necessarily more complex. This is counter to the recent trend emphasising simplicity and developer ease-of-use in development tools.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> How is the title of this submission related to the content? The article is about research on counterproductive motivations of software designers. There's nothing like the phrase "don't know how" in the article at all.

</comment><comment><USER4> _Many software designers intentionally create unnecessarily complex products that do less to serve their companies and customers than to advance their careers._

Many software managers intentionally create unnecessarily complex projects that do less to serve their companies and customers than to advance their careers.

Breaking news: people sometimes act in their own interests.

</comment><comment><USER5> Whether or not the suggested courses of action have any merit is not going to be a constructive debate, but the problem is real. People who really know what they're doing come up with the simplest solutions. Almost every time I've had someone suggest a really complicated solution to a problem (or been tempted to build one myself), I've found that after further thought there is a better way. In the few instances I've plowed forward, I've regretted it later.

The simplest solution is almost always the best one.

</comment><comment><USER6> I especially liked the suggested fixes - pay programmers for completing projects and "have product designers receive evaluations from managers who have an interest in the design projects succeeding and an excellent understanding of the technology."

If the latter is a change for a given organization, it's unlikely that overly complex software is their biggest problem or that eliminating it is possible or will make a difference.</comment>


Junior remote devs/designers/marketers/sales reps – tell me your experience - <AUTHOR> Remotegrad.io is a platform for undergrads and recent grads looking to begin a remote career. A blog will be starting soon, which will feature remote junior workers in short, spotlight interviews. If you're interested, let me know and I'll send you the short list of questions which can be answered in writing or via voicenotes. <comment><USER2> I have about 10 years of experience in software and have been working remote for the last year. While I enjoy the flexibility of working remote, I would not recommend it to junior developers. The experience you get from working in an office and listening in on conversations between senior engineers and management is invaluable. Not only that, but when sh*t hits the fan and the site goes down, watching how the experienced engineers handle and de-escalate the situation is something you cannot learn unless you are there to witness it first hand. These situations are what help you become a great engineer and can only be learned with time and exposure to those situations. Plus the fact that you can easily ask questions and pair program with older developers and learn how they approach and think about problems will pay off tenfold.

Once you've built that foundation, it's much easier to transition to a remote role since you hopefully now have the discipline need to know what features/bugs/projects to prioritize, and how to plan and lead projects. This would be extremely hard for a junior engineer to learn if they begin their career working remotely.

</comment><comment><USER3> I've considered responding to this question 3 or 4 times, but every time I try, I bump up against the nebulous spetrum of spectrums of knowledge from which we get the terms "junior" and "senior."

My early work experience was not remote, but my most significant work journey in my life has been entirely remote and it started 6 months after I graduated college.

We have to stop thinking about individual experience in absolutes.

Ultimately what matters is whether you can provide the right value at the right time for the right person or group of people.

If you're totally inexperienced, as in, you haven't participated in industry at all, then your success as a remote employee is going to depend highly on how thoughtful the hiring organization is - and I would say that still goes for more experienced people as well.

</comment><comment><USER4> I started my career as a remote junior dev, but I wouldn't recommend it. it's very difficult to get brought up to speed as a skilled developer in a situation where contact with other devs is minimal.

</comment><comment><USER5> I do not see junior remote positions very often. It is difficult to do the kind of mentoring necessary for a fresh graduate remotely. I suggest starting out in an office and getting used to professional / office life. Then transition to remote later.</comment>


Building and Shipping Functional CSS - <AUTHOR> https://blog.colepeters.com/building-and-shipping-functional-css/ <comment><AUTHOR> From the article, markup that once looked like this:

Now looks like this after their refactor:

For a filesize improvement of 19kb to 9kb.

Personally, I feel like the new class names they're using are extremely difficult to read and scan. I imagine the mental parsing time from reading the classes to forming a mental image of the result goes up with the addition of each class and variation. I wonder how difficult it is to discuss design decisions using these terms?

I've found that semantic, component-specific class names make it really easy to reason about markup and discuss UI changes with designers and product people. This increases maintainability and makes it easier to prune classes used by deprecated components, and also decreases iteration time when developing a UI.</comment>


The Strategy Pattern in JavaScript - <AUTHOR> http://weblog.bocoup.com/the-strategy-pattern-in-javascript

<comment><USER2> I'm surprised the author didn't mention the use case where I've seen this most often: animation easing. In every JS library I've seen, the strategy pattern was used for easing functions.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good point! I don't have much experience with animation libraries, but maybe if I look at some source code I can get a stronger real-world use case for the article...

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Sorry, but (coming from a 40-years-of-software-development grizzled veteran), I don't see any new pattern here. Just good old-fashioned modularity.

Perhaps I missed the point?

<comment><AUTHOR> I can't say I completely disagree.

When I was putting this together, I kind of felt like I was writing a general article on one method of exploiting polymorphism--not necessarily the Strategy pattern specifically. Honestly, I'm still not sure.

What I do know is that JavaScript has a number of features that make OOP significantly more informal--namely dynamic typing, object literals, and first-class functions. I'm thinking of implementing more patterns in JS in the future to try and get a better grasp on this...

I think jbwyme is getting at this with his comment <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2680408> (specifically "Then, if needed, use a prototype to set defaults"). Using the prototype is not really necessary at all, but it adds some amount of formality to what is otherwise a ragtag collection of objects.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Try jQuery Condom, which allows you to make namespaces jQuery Plugins on the fly and override jQuery functionality without touching the global namespace (modularity).

<https://github.com/kuroir/jQuery-Condom>

</comment><comment><USER5> Tell me if I have this straight: this pattern basically says to create a generic object with properties and handlers to allow for simple iteration, creation, etc. like you would with an interface. Then, if needed, use a prototype to set defaults?

<comment><USER6> Pretty much. I'm using this pattern in the following way:

SomeComponent.prototype.views = { home: { template: '/path/to/template', render: function(tmpl) { this.element.html(Mustache.to_html(tmpl, this.data)); } } };

I then have SomeComponent inherit the prototype of Component which has a generic render method. When I call the render method on any given component, it will have some logic to figure out which view it is in, then call the render method specific to that view with the correct template, that it fetches the content of under-the-hood.

Having consistent and expected behavior in your code is a huge win.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Funny, this looks precisely like basic object-oriented programming.

</comment><comment><USER8> In Python, at least, this pattern is called the "dispatch dictionary" and relies on the ability of Python to store just about anything as dictionary values. It is considered to be Python's answer to the question, "Why is there no switch/case in Python?"</comment>


Ask HN: How to Make Craig Wright Go Away? - <AUTHOR> Just saw another article about Craig Wright, the Australian fraud who claims he invented Bitcoin[1]. This guy seems to so obviously be a huckster at this point that I can't believe he's given the time of day by news organizations.
The article includes phrases like:
> The case could potentially help shed light on whether he really is Satoshi Nakamoto -- something that many in the cryptocurrency community doubt.
Which, a) it won't and b) the second part is a massive understatement. Also:
> Critics have urged Wright to verify his identity by transferring some coins, a proposal he has refused.
Which would be the obvious way to prove he was Satoshi and by his refusal is quite damning.
----
More broadly, there's a frustrating asymmetry here - now that he's notorious, Craig Wright can say or do just about anything and it makes the news cycle. This is also more generally a problem with, shall we say, some other individuals who are often reported on. Meanwhile, I think most semi-technical people who have read the points raised against Wright will have found them convincing. "Quite a few people on the internet disagree" doesn't make for a great article though. Is there any way to precipitate this guy's return to irrelevance other than "voting with your eyeballs" and not engaging with the content? This strategy seems...diffuse and ineffective.
[1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-28/self-proclaimed-bitcoin-inventor-says-fortune-inaccessible <comment><USER2> I came around to thinking that CSW should be challenged wherever possible, to show he has little public support.

The conspiracy theorist in me considers him a probe to see whether Bitcoin can be averted by labelling it "for bad people only" in public opinion. At least CSW is strongly signalling that he would be willing to support that narrative should he be given a chance.

E.g. here: [https://twitter.com/CarolinaBolado/status/114464996569798246...](https://twitter.com/CarolinaBolado/status/1144649965697982464?s=20)

This could lead to a dangerous outcome many opportunists might hedge against, making it more likely.</comment>


Ask YC: Should 37signals be banned from YC? - <AUTHOR>

Clearly 37signals provide no content for our community. I am calling a vote on banning their articles from Hacker News. <comment><USER2> 37signals is doing what a lot of us are trying to do, and what's more, they're doing it with tremendous success. That's why posts about them get voted up -- each is a chance to learn from their example.

Anyway, don't you agree you ought to have more than 1 karma before making blanket statements about what's best for "our community?"

</comment><comment><USER3> why don't you post something interesting instead?

</comment><comment><USER4> I agree with their model and love what they write, though I do think that they could post a picture of themselves and it would get voted up here just the same.

</comment><comment><USER5> Speak for yourself, I find most of their content worth reading.</comment>


What Was the Highest Price of Ethereum Classic? - <AUTHOR> https://www.btcwires.com/round-the-block/what-was-the-highest-price-of-ethereum-classic/ <comment><USER2> The day it forked, it was worth the same as ETH, for a moment!</comment>