Stacked images of the comet, photobombed by Starlink satellites - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/djulik/status/1286053695956881409 <comment><USER2> It's trivial to erase these things from photos. The photographer no doubt knows this, but that isn't the point.

It's perfectly reasonable for scientists to want to capture accurate data on the space surrounding the main subject being imaged. Simply erasing the satellites from photos does not recover the data on the space behind. Any data from behind the satellites is lost forever. This photo keeps the satellites in order to visually demonstrate this problem.

Remember that astronomy today is often done on a single pixel of data. Starlink blocks multiple pixels, and even ruins entire exposures when they flare up. This will make astronomical research, like searching for exoplanets, far harder and more expensive than it is today. Space telescopes are, and will always be, orders of magnitude more expensive than ground telescopes to launch, maintain and operate.

<comment><USER3> If the images are stacked, doesn't that mean that there's plenty of images with the parts that are occluded in others not occluded?

I understand for any specific image, there's going to be some lost background because of Starlink satellites, but that's not what this is showing, this is showing something that's not possible, right? Shifting all the satellites temporally so they appear together, _arbitrarily maximizing the problem beyond what is real_ isn't an accurate depiction of the problem, IMO.

Put another way, if you erase the Starlink satellites from the images _before_ stacking them, you then get a fairly accurate representation of the sky without any Starlink satellites, and you still have the data behind them (from the other pictures where that portion of the sky was not occluded). You can also probably fix the intensity of anything occluded in a few of the pictures but not others through some math.

<comment><USER4> Not an actual astronomer, but somewhat aware of detector issues for space- based telescopes.

Typically, you want to use one single integration time, if possible. Doing so can limit readout noise, for one thing. (Note that ground-based astrophotographers, with consumer cameras, often take multiple exposures to cool down the detectors. This is not a factor with the actively-cooled detectors in astronomical telescopes.)

For instance, the observations leading to the recent discovery of the two- planet exosystem [1] used roughly 15-minute integration times [2, sec. 2] across an 8 meter (!) aperture. This is a longer integration time than the 17, 30-second integrations that produced OP.

I think the above considerations about stacking vs single exposures are a side issue, though.

The saving grace is that many astronomical observations are narrow-field-of- view, and are done away from the _illuminated_ part of the StarLink constellation. But, surveys or wide-field images could really be affected strongly, at the 30-40% level [3].

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23917559](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23917559)

[2] [https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/492/1/431/5680498](https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/492/1/431/5680498)

[3] [https://www.eso.org/public/archives/releases/sciencepapers/e...](https://www.eso.org/public/archives/releases/sciencepapers/eso2004/eso2004a.pdf)

<comment><USER5> There are plenty of amateurs using actively cooled specialized astrophotography cameras with total integration times reaching hours (2-3 are typical). Readout noise can be cancelled by taking so called bias frames. Shorter exposures are sometimes preferable because of the light pollution and to minimize the possibility of an exposure being rendered usles by some plane or satellite: it is less painful to throw away three minutes of exposure time than 15.

<comment><USER4> > Readout noise can be cancelled by taking so called bias frames.

That's not what bias frames [1] are doing. Bias frames measure a systematic effect in the conversion of stored charge to a digital number in the CCD device. You can then subtract it out.

The calibration offered by bias frames does not fix readout noise, which is a _random_ , not systematic, effect that is inherent in the same conversion.

You can use the bias frames to compute the strength of the readout noise (i.e., the rms magnitude of its random part) but you can't remove the random noise itself.

See sec. 1.1 of the linked reference for more.

[1] [https://users.astro.ufl.edu/~lee/ast325/handouts/ccd.pdf](https://users.astro.ufl.edu/~lee/ast325/handouts/ccd.pdf)

<comment><USER5> The point of bias frames is what you take them without accumulating any charge. Well yes, you cannot eliminate random noise, but you can reduce it. Also, most popular deidcated astrophotography cameras are now CMOS not CCD and readout differs in these. Your link does not work, and probably for the better. See this instead: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6oGyFlZgAc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6oGyFlZgAc)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Anec-data, but in my shots of the comets there were 0 satellites and about 12 airplanes with flashing lights that I had to remove. ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

I get the frustration, and no doubt I'll be pissed when I have a shot that's more affected, but amateur astrophotography seems like the least-important reason to be concerned about Starlink.

But then, the photo is going to get more attention, for sure.

<comment><USER7> It doesnt matter the impact of amateur astrophotography's work, starlink doesn't have the right to take that from them. I do think we need to evaluate whether these costs are worth it.

I go further.

I myself think we need to take a second look at city light. I'd like us to begin working on making the milky way visible again.

<comment><USER8> I agree. Vast populations of people can't know their place in the universe because they physically can not see it. What can we do to avoid that? In suburbs it seams feasible to stop building / start removing streetlamps in neighborhoods that don't necessarily need them, but I don't know how that would work in bigger cities

<comment><USER9> Better, more directional street lamps help, even in large cities. We can tune their wavelength to be less blinding as well. They do not need to illuminate the sky. More of them, and less powerful, would provide better light where it's actually needed.

The other side is to reduce emissions of aerosols and particles that scatter light in the atmosphere.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Flipped on its head, I would say Starlink, or at least the underlying technology that makes it feasible (and it's all related, since it's all SpaceX) may be _good_ for astronomy... _eventually_.

Space based telescopes give a much clearer picture than land based ones. You can't have ubiquitous and/or (relatively) cheap space based telescopes without a thriving launch industry that reduces costs. You can't have that without innovation and competition in the space launch industry. You are unlikely to innovation or competition in that industry the without a market need. Starlink _is_ the market need right now.

Want lots of space telescopes to give you even better pictures? Don't kill off what's going to take you there before it begins. The astronomy industry needs to work with SpaceX to minimize the problem while also encouraging them (and anyone else working to drop costs to launch something into orbit) to succeed, not killing off or greatly delaying the oncoming age of ubiquitous and easy access to space telescopes because they are short sighted.

<comment><USER10> > Space based telescopes give a much clearer picture than land based ones.

Aren't those far more expensive to launch and operate?

<comment><USER3> Right now? Yes. As I understand it you get much more capability for your size of telescope if in space, because you don't have to look through the atmosphere. If launch costs go down (which they are), and satellite components and labor to build operate become cheaper (because of increased general experience, supply of parts and labor, etc), then space satellites become cheaper. If we get better at assembling things in space (which we're only going to do after demand and experience in doing it), it might even be easier to make a larger telescope in space than on land eventually, and the stresses of gravity on the structure for the mirror are greatly reduced or eliminated. It looks like all the recent large telescopes are with segmented mirrors now anyway.[1]

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

<comment><USER10> It seems you're basing your assertion on projections based on wishful thinking. It's like saying to a cancer patient that he shouldn't worry about having cancer because in the future you believe there will be wonder drugs that fix everything. Well, perhaps there will be wonder drugs in the future, but what about real life, and real life solutions to real life problems? I already have a ton of money invested in earth telescopes. What good does it do me if you argue that in the future I might gain some capabilities if I scrap everything and buy a whole new infrastructure?

Moreover, you only need a guy with a wrench to fix a telescope on the ground. If your telescope is in orbit then the problem is a tad more expensive to fix.

<comment><USER3> > It's like saying to a cancer patient that he shouldn't worry about having > cancer because in the future you believe there will be wonder drugs that fix > everything.

Is the field of astronomy facing death because of Starlink? That seems a bit excessive.

I would say it's more like a national healthcare system covering only poor quality glasses for vision for a decade while they pump money into research and training for laser corrective surgery to both reduce the downsides and make it much more affordable, in preparation for covering laser reconstructive surgery at the end of that period.

> I already have a ton of money invested in earth telescopes. What good does > it do me if you argue that in the future I might gain some capabilities if I > scrap everything and buy a whole new infrastructure?

Again, telescopes aren't scrapping everything, astronomers aren't going to disappear. They're at most some percentage less useful than they thought they would be prior to this. That sucks, but homeowners have complained about other people moving in and obstructing their perfect view for a long time, so it's not entirely new. I don't support Starlink because I think SpaceX has some right over astronomers, but because I think humanity as a whole benefits from more industry in space, and there's a solution for astronomy on the other side of this, and I don't want humanity held back because astronomers feel it infringes on a domain with a problem they've generally not had to worry about (even if they would probably argue that they are doing it for the benefit of humanity by providing knowledge).

Bottom line, I think the benefit to humanity from increased space industry is greater than the benefit unhampered astronomy provides in a case where we impede that industry.

<comment><USER11> To be honest, I understand where you are coming from, and share your opinion that many issues are more important than astronomy, including humanitarian issues. I think actually most astronomers would agree with that (the ones that I know, anyway).

But the problem here is with the _way that this debate is being framed_. There is a false dichotomy that has been repeated here which I sum up as basically "Space-X is trying to solve humanitarian problem A, and astronomers are getting in the way! Deal with it astronomers, you are not more important than humanitarian issue A." but that's not at all what's actually happening. This is a monumentally impactful project undertaken by Space-X in secret, with enormous ramifications on science that -- despite the simplistic claims here -- are _not_ something that can be worked around (LSST and other projects _cannot_ be done in space, regardless of the cost of space delivery). Instead of responsibly investigating the impact, consulting with scientific agencies to either mitigate them, or prepare for the impact (as they are doing now after a huge outcry, but there is little that can be done now), they have instead opted to completely blindside entire branches of science, ruining decades of work around the globe and impacting tens or hundreds of billions of dollars in R&D. Even their press releases now say things like they are "learning how astronomical detectors work" \-- that is extremely disturbing. That should basically never happen. There are responsible ways to do what Space-X has done, and they have shirked those responsibilities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Each starlink group is inserted at a low orbit, booted up and tested, and then they boost themselves to a higher orbit over a period of a month or so. During this boost, they orient their panels horizontally to minimize drag. Once they reach their final orbit, they rotate their panels vertically, at which point their visibility goes way down (mag 5 (prior to the new coating) down from a mag 0).

I've seen plenty of people saying some variation of "there are only 600 of these now, imagine what it will be like when there are 42k of them..." If I understand correctly, the number of bright satellites will be proportional to the launch rate, not the total quantity in orbit. Going off Wikipedia, they have launched about 1/8th of their 2024 goal, and the majority of the remaining satellites are destined for much higher (and dimmer) orbits.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Constellation_design_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Constellation_design_and_status)

<comment><USER13> >If I understand correctly, the number of bright satellites will be proportional to the launch rate, not the total quantity in orbit.

Because the constellation needs constant replenishment, the launch rate (and hence the # of brighter satellites) will have to reach a steady state that is directly proportional to the size of the constellation.

We can extrapolate that in the future this rate will actually be _significantly_ higher than it is currently:

They currently have permission to launch around 12,000 sats. They're launching around 250 per year. The current launch rate is only sustainable if each satellite lasts for _50 years_.

If you expand that to the proposed 42,000 constellation, 250 new satellites per year is only sustainable with a MTBF of around 150-200 years per satellite, which is nigh impossible in low Earth orbit. Using a lower (but still very generous and optimistic) MTBF of 10 years, Starlink will need to launch 4,200 satellites every year, about ~15x _higher_ their current launch cadence.

> the majority of the remaining satellites are destined for much higher (and > dimmer) orbit

Just about all of the satellites they've orbited so far are hanging out around 550km. SpaceX initially got permission to go as high as 1300km, but they've since changed their mind. The new plan (still pending FCC approval I believe) is to keep all of the satellites between 300-550km. So the future satellites will be as low or lower than the current ones.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> It's bad faith, a normal stacking would have made them completely disappear, it's one of main reasons to do stacking, remove things which are not on all images, and it's works flawlessly.

You have to actively tweak your settings to create this kind of photo.

<comment><USER15> I guess the most basic way to stack (just add the images together) would leave them in, but

> Almost every modern astronomical post-processing program has a rejection > process (sometimes referred to as sigma-reject) to remove unwanted signals, > though the exact sequence will depend on which program you use.

[https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-blogs/imaging- foundati...](https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-blogs/imaging-foundations- richard-wright/satellites-begone-how-to-remove-satellite-trails-from-your- astrophotography/)

<comment><USER16> From your link:

> The way this process works is that, while averaging all of the pixels in a > series of, say, 10 images, the program mathematically calculates which > pixels fall far away from the mean value because they're much brighter (or > much fainter) compared to the same pixels in other frames. The algorithm > then discards those out-of-range pixel values so they don't affect the final > image.

Wouldn't this process remove part of the comet trails as well as the satellite trails?

I mean, I get how it works if all you care about is relatively static like distant stars, but would it work for this specific use case?

<comment><USER17> No, because the comet does not perceptibly move in the sky during the acquisition. All comet pixels are present in every image.

<comment><AUTHOR> The comet does not change but its position in the sky does btw. Longer exposure times turn points into streaks if the object is not tracked to compensate for this.

<comment><USER17> Yes, I assumed tracking as it's basically a mandatory requirement when you do telephoto astrophotography, and definitely used in the OP photo. The alternative is to shoot wider angle and align the images during stacking, but either way you have to get your subject's pixels aligned or the result is just blur.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Apart from all the comments about this being a bad faith post, I wonder about the utilitarian argument, if you take it at face value. If you could provide decent internet at low cost to large parts of the world that are underserved, at the cost of ruining ground-based telescopes, is that a good trade-off? What if it's just certain kind of telescopes, or certain classes of astronomers (as this seems to be)?

<comment><USER19> I think this is useful if we also consider that part of SpaceX's plan is to make launching satellites cheap (in fact, launching anything cheap). So while ground-based astronomy will suffer, space-based astronomy will get cheaper and easier.

Presumably to the point where people who want to can subscribe to a Hubble- like satellite service and get all the space photos their hearts desire.

Also, we made a similar trade-off a long time ago - most people live in heavily light-polluted cities, because we value having street lighting more than being able to see the stars.

<comment><USER20> Cost of launch is not really main reason why we don't see more space based astronomy.

1\. Space is a hostile place, and developing telescope that works there is much harder. 2\. There are very real limits on size and weight of what can be put there right now, and rocket equation is ruthless. 3\. Any type of maintenance or upgrades are basically impossible, compared to earth based. 4\. Adaptive optics were such a huge breakthrough, that basically negated need for most of space based telescopes.

<comment><USER21> Reasons 2 and 3 are big part of why launches of expensive.

There's a feedback loop in space launches: they're expensive, therefore you launch less, so you need to add redundancies and spend more time ensuring the payload will work, which raises the development cost and increases mass, which makes launches less frequent and more expensive.

Conversely, reducing the cost of access to space means you can send more stuff that's less robust, which shortens development time and makes it less expensive, and of course makes technological progress faster.

Which translates to: suddenly space telescopes may be more affordable, and more of them will be launched.

<comment><USER22> Some ground-based observatories have been productively operated for nearly a _century_, with improvements in instrumentation providing leaps forward in sensitivity. That amortizes the cost of the observatory (mirror, site, etc.) across many years.

Even with cheaper launches it's much harder to get that benefit in space-- servicing missions are much more expensive than driving up a mountain...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The truth is most people will never notice the Starlink satellites. Because light pollution obscures the night sky so much you can only see the brightest of stars and nearly nothing close to the horizon. How many kids are hearing about this comet in the sky, rush out at sunset, and are then disappointed to only see the haze of city lights?

<comment><USER24> Truth is, _most people_ never look at the night sky, period. But this isn't about _most people_ ; this is specifically about people who look at the sky _a lot_ \-- and those people typically seek out darker skies anyway.

<comment><USER25> > _Truth is, most people never look at the night sky, period._

Truth is people never look at the sky _period_. Ask people when the moon is visible and most will say _" during the night."_ But about half of the time, the moon is actually visible during the day. Wouldn't people realize this if they simply looked up?

<comment><USER26> That's because what they mean is that the moon appears more brightly at night, and I suspect you know this. You don't _actually_ think these people have never seen the moon during the day, surely?

<comment><USER25> > _That 's because what they mean is that the moon appears more brightly at > night, and I suspect you know this._

No, I don't think that's the reason. The moon is frequently very bright during the day, not even remotely hard to see. Moreover, people are mostly outside during the day, meaning that most of the time they have the opportunity to see the moon will be during the day.

I think the reason is that a supposed sun/moon - day/night dichotomy is perpetuated by culture (for instance, clock dials that use an image of the moon to symbolize the night) and that culture has a stronger impact on people's perception of the moon than their personal observations of the sky. I think they have seen the moon during the day, but the moon is very rarely the object of their attention. They see it, but rarely do they notice it.

The reason for such a culture emerging seems obvious to me; the Sun's presence in the sky obviously correlates with daylight perfectly, making the sun an obvious symbol to associate with the day. But then what symbol would you use for the night? There's a clear day/night dichotomy, creating a demand for a symbol that's inverse of the sun. However there's no object in the sky that correlates so perfectly with the night. The moon isn't there half the time, but neither is any particular star. You could use generic stars, and sometimes that's done, but stars aren't necessarily visually distinctive. The moon is visually distinctive and so it's pressed into the roll of being the symbolic opposite of the Sun, even though a trivial glance into the sky reveals that it isn't actually opposite of the sun.

<comment><USER27> "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I find it astounding that just any old for profit company can decide to ruin a world-wide public resource just to turn a few bucks. In 2020.

I'd expect that from something like the East India Company in the 1700's or something. Not a modern company in a modern society.

<comment><USER29> Do you shake your fist at every airplane that flies overhead too?

<comment><USER28> The country agreed to that. One day the country may decide against it. No-Fly Zones can be created.

A US company airplane passing over my house doesn't impact people in India, for example.

Airplanes have proven utility. Airplanes proved their utility before bothering people worldwide.

<comment><USER29> The country agreed to the starlink satellites as well, considering they received FCC approval.

The country can still decide against it and now allow any more launches, and the satellites that are up there will come down naturally in a few years time. You may even be able to forcibly deorbit them if they still have propellant left (not sure if they do or not).

No-fly zones are almost always created for the government to do government things, and not for the direct benefit of the public (ie reducing airport noise for nearby residents).

A US plane passing over your house doesn't impact people in India either negatively or positively(except for the consequences of global warming). These satellites passing over the US and India can equally benefit people in the US and India. It's not like starlink is a US only service and SpaceX is going to prevent anyone in India from having access.

Satellites also have proven utility, as does the internet, which is why groups like the UN General Assembly HRC declared access to the internet as a basic human right.

<comment><USER28> What is not proven is if Starlink will work the way it's been sold to you as an idea. What is also no proven is if it can be profitable even if it does work. People in these remote places of the world are unlikely to be able to afford internet... not have a need or desire for it. They have other priorities.

Not to mention there's already ways to get very high-speed internet to remote villages that want it. The only barrier is cost - but for motivated villages and/or governments, it's not very expensive ($10's of thousands up front cost, trivial long-term costs). I've sat in many conferences with people building out wireless networks in remote regions - very fascinating work.

There's some pretty non-trivial chance Starlink was only approved because of the Cult of Elon.

SpaceX wants to put 1,584 satellites in orbit[1] to the cost of around $10 Billion USD, and will need to replace these routinely due to orbital decay.

There's only 2,666 satellites in orbit currently[2]. 1,327 of which are from the US[2].

Re: No fly zones - they can be established for all sorts of things. There's no fly zones around many amusement parks, for example, and not just because of the remote possibility of some terrorist attack.

> UN General Assembly HRC declared access to the internet as a basic human > right

That seems simply to be virtue signaling. Of course everyone should have access to information and knowledge, but that's not exclusive to the internet.

It costs money to provide internet access. Basic Human Rights don't cost money to exercise. The Right to be Free doesn't require a monthly payment to some mega-corp. If it did, you would not be free, would you?

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

[2] [https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/satellite- database#:~:text=...](https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/satellite- database#:~:text=In%2Ddepth%20details%20on%20the,purpose%2C%20and%20other%20operational%20details).

<comment><USER29> Literally anything that hasn't been done yet hasn't been proven, so I don't really understand how you can use that as an argument against it. At worst, if it is unsuccessful, then the satellites will just stop getting launched and will all fall back to earth after a few years, and Elon et al will be out a few billion dollars.

> People in these remote places of the world are unlikely to be able to afford > internet... not have a need or desire for it. They have other priorities.

Not my experience visiting some remote areas of India, Nepal, and Tibet. A single anecdote, but I gave a man a ride to the top of a mountain near Ganden monastery so he could use his cell phone. He went with a list of messages of various people in his family and who to send the messages to. He would normally walk 3 hours uphill in order to get service to send those messages (This was in 2007, maybe things have changed since then).

> The only barrier is cost - but for motivated villages and/or governments, > it's not very expensive ($10's of thousands up front cost, trivial long-term > costs).

Many places in the world wouldn't be able to drum up tens of thousands of dollars, and it isn't for a lack of motivation. But they might be able to drum up $500 and then $60/mo.

> There's some pretty non-trivial chance Starlink was only approved because of > the Cult of Elon.

The FCC isn't composed of the twitter mob or the spacex subreddit.

I'm not really interested in debating positive or negative rights, or whether the UN was virtue signaling. My point was that many people view internet access as extremely important for humanity, and starlink and other projects may be an incredible boon for the world, at the expense of _some_ astronomy observations.

<comment><USER30> "This was in 2007, maybe things have changed since then)."

So before 3G, when AT&T had an exclusive deal to sell a locked iPhone.

I mean I remember having to use dial up for the first time in years when I lived in Spain in 2005!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> im 100% against that commercial project is destroying my night sky.. its like building highway through my yard.. our already overglobalized world will be even more 'globalized' in the hands of few.. w t f..

</comment><comment><USER32> What are some of the potential consequences of this? I'm curious if stars getting photobombed is a signal pointing to a greater issue? If they can coat them in a way to not be reflective then will most astronomers be satisfied?

<comment><USER33> We will exchange white lines for black lines. We won't be able to see through the satellites.

Actually maybe a white line is simpler to remove than a black one on a black background.

<comment><USER34> Black lines are far preferable because they do not contribute to the total amount of light collected. A momentary flash from a bright light can swamp the sensor, but a brief moment of blackness will leave the pixels' state much less disturbed.

<comment><USER35> This is why long exposure photographs of roads have light trails with no cars.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Wait till we have the first moon bases and there will never be a new moon again.

<comment><USER37> Can't wait!

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I wonder if these things will have any effect on astronavigation. It would be sad to see such a cool practice become impossible.

<comment><USER25> I don't see why they would. The stars typically used for astronavigation are very bright; brighter than starlink satellites. A brief web search leads me to believe typical starlink satellites have a magnitude of around 5 or more, while the stars typically used for astronavigation have magnitudes of less than three ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stars_for_navigation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stars_for_navigation))

Even if that weren't the case, it's easy for the human eye to distinguish a star from a LEO satellite; the satellite is the one that's moving fast. I see no reason the sailors couldn't simply ignore the satellites.

<comment><USER38> It was the brightness I was worried about, yes. Should've probably just looked it up myself!

I don't think astronavigation is used in any serious capacity anymore, so in that sense it's a moot point. Still, it's a cool practice and it would've been too bad to see that go away.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> There's a tension here, and I'm not saying that I know where the appropriate balance is-- but it's a tension between the positive societal impact that inexpensive and ubiquitous broadband may have, vs. the societal impact of scientific knowledge from ground-based observatories.

I'm sure there's other ways of solving the broadband problem. I'm sure there are other ways of getting the astronomical data. I'm also pretty sure that all of them would have their own trade offs. Everything does.

In this case, I think the unilateral approach that Musk is taking has hurt perception of the project as much as the trade offs represented by the project itself.

</comment><comment> asdfk-12 Perhaps to remedy the situation, SpaceX would do well to introduce a large fleet of freely-accessible amateur astronomy platforms with some kind of timeshare credit component? I ordered several images through a university terrestrial telescope as part of an astronomy course and it was a great experience to refine the object's orbital parameters based on the observations.

</comment><comment><USER40> This is pretty much a cherry picked worst case scenario. The comet is only visible right above the horizon after sunset for a brief period.

Starlink satellites are also only visible low on the horizon, and only for brief periods after sunset and before sunrise, because their low orbits keep them in the Earths shadow the rest of the night.

<comment><USER41> Yeah its basically optimized to look bad. The satellites are relatively close to each other. In normal operation, there's no reason to have 30 different satellites in view. I suspect these satellites were very recently launched, so they are not in the normal sun-tracking orientation.

Also, the comet is a wide object. A wide image is just more likely to have any satellite in view.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> That's odd, I took a bunch of pictures of that same comet and saw no satellites at all. Did I do something wrong?

</comment><comment><USER43> That looks so cool.

</comment><comment><USER44> The OP posted this in the ensuing Twitter argument...

> Why (on Earth) do you want to become a multi planetary species??

That's just an un-neccesarily foolish question. Why does a dog swim when you place him in a lake?

> Have you ever tried to live in Antarctica or in the Atacama desert (I have)? > I support science, exploration, tech development but not foolishness. Do you > surround your house with roads to explore distant locations?

Isn't that exactly what we've done as a society already?

<comment><USER45> > That's just an un-neccesarily foolish question.

On Twitter there seem to be a lot of people on who expect to _live_ in other worlds soon, and not just to explore and study them. He's likely rhetorically responding to that idea. And I think it's worthwhile to confront those ideas critically. IMO as well, living off of Earth sounds hellish, given what we know now.

The person the Twitter poster is talking with is now suggesting that many people will abandon their physical bodies, and those that won't will live in cylindrical space colonies. He's speaking fantasies.

<comment><USER46> Twitter OP is also arguing that there will never be human settlements off this Earth, which is bullshit.

Assuming humanity exists long enough, it will expand throughout the solar system. At very least to the moon.

We can argue about how long that might take, but not about it ever happening.

<comment><USER47> _> Assuming humanity exists long enough_

That's a big assumption.

There's also the _why_ question. What's on the moon that would make it worth all the difficulty to get there? I suppose we might have a semi-permanent research station on the moon or even Mars, but colonization? Unless we make some really unlikely discovery like unobtanium is only found on Europa and it's really super useful, we're not going to have space colonies.

<comment><USER48> The moon will be a good source of water for spacefaring endeavors of the future, due to the large quantities of ice it has at the poles. With 1/6 the gravity of earth and the appropriate infrastructure in place, it will likely be cheaper to get that water off of the surface of the moon than from the Earth. The most promising use here is actually for producing methane fuel from this water. An industrial base of sorts could develop around this.

The other potential industry will be moon tourism. It could become something like the new Mt Everest. Obviously only for the very rich at first.

Once it becomes a real possibility and not some crazy sci-fi project, governments may start competing, so as to not get "left behind", even if it is not immediately profitable.

One way or another, unless we destroy ourselves, it will happen eventually. There's a percentage of people who are just absurdly curious and adventurous, and want to go where no one has gone before, even if the cost is immense. Hell, for some, I'm sure even just desire to get away from their situation on Earth will be a big part of why they go for it. People like this will build the first settlements and bases on the moon and elsewhere in the solar system.

Edit: sorry for the constant edits. It's a bad habit — I don't always get my thoughts out on the first try.

<comment><USER47> So, going to space to the moon is useful because it enables going further out to space.

And I'm not entirely sure how you turn water (H₂O) into Methane (CH₄). Granted I barely passed freshman chemistry 33 years ago so my chemistry knowledge isn't so good, but as near as I can recall, there is no process that will turn that input into that output.

And again, even if the moon is a source of water, there's not a significant need for any water mining operation at the poles to have a colony around it or even any human staffing. Putting people there on even a semi-permanent basis would likely eliminate any gains to be had from using the moon as a source of water.

Even the space tourism doesn't call for settling the moon. No one lives on top of Mount Everest either.

<comment><USER49> Could you simply separate hydrogen from the water, using electrolysis, or other methods and then use the Sabatier reaction? [1] Carbon dioxide in bulk may be harder to come by on the moon, however.

Also, the Lunar Gateway [2] is a key part of the plans by NASA/SLS. It's not about settling on the moon, it's about making it a stop off point to refuel or pickup supplies before going on to a further off destination like Mars. Instead of having to have all your fuel and payload when taking off from Earth, you can have a lot of your supplies and weight on the Moon. This means your trip off Earth can be cheaper. Getting out of Earths gravity and getting to escape velocity is the hard part. Getting off the moon is a lot easier.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction) [2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Gateway](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Gateway)

<comment><USER47> The Sabatier reaction relies on carbon dioxide. For the concept of using it to generate rocket fuel, there's a reliance on atmospheric CO₂ which is viable on Mars but not the Moon (which is why the section in the Wikipedia article is called "Manufacturing propellant on _Mars_ "). And the Lunar Gateway is irrelevant to what I'm arguing, which is that there's not really any reason to settle off-planet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> i can't believe people are suggesting to edit this away with photoshop... you are pointing at the moon and they are looking at the finger...

<comment><USER25> That the image tweeted is a product of photoshop in the first place should be obvious to anybody who _looks up._ Go outside tonight and look up. Does the sky appear as it does in that tweet? Obviously not.

<comment><USER51> And how about that black hole photo from last year? Definitely a hoax--black holes are supposed to be _black_ , dummies!

<comment><USER25> The image being the product of a computer program processing data does not mean that it's a hoax. That's moronic, and it's not even remotely what I'm talking about.

Fixing the image is not a matter of "editing it out in photoshop". It's a matter of processing the data correctly in the first place, e.g. _not editing it in_. The author of the tweet stacked his images to show every satellite instead of removing every satellite, which is ass-backwards.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Easily solved in software by removing the small part of each frame that has a satellite in it. Satellite tracks are completely predictable. This is not novel.

<comment><USER35> Somehow I get the feeling people who do this professionally understand what's possible and what effect this has better than you.

<comment><USER52> They undoubtedly do, but this is an opinion formed by talking to people in person in the industry. Random twitter users who manage to get there tweet on HN is not even close to an unbiased sample of professionals in the industry. My sample undoubtedly also has its biases, but is not selected for sensationalist views at least.

<comment><USER35> This is "I talked to some people" vs the linked tweet from a person in the industry. I think you can understand my skepticism. I also understand you probably don't have a convenient way to prove your side of it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> How did we get to this cargo cult where sitting on our behinds taking photos of the stars and un-ironically posting on the internet supersedes mastering space.

It's mostly the media, who care's not for science at all pushing this 'we should be outraged', but we eat it up.

Starlink and others helping the world will also create a whole new genre for ground based space photography the super rich can get into, but this drama is so tiring.

</comment><comment><USER54> If you want humans to become a space faring people, you need to accept the idea that there will be at least 1000x more things in space.

People's comments here are generally insane to me.

Let's go to other planets. Let's build a Dyson swarms of O'Neil cylinders with a quadrillion humans living in luxury. Let's keep the light of consciousness alive.

Some things will change along the way, like amateur photography.

</comment><comment><USER55> How much sympathy can I really spare for a purely leisurely hobby like backyard astronomy vs. satellites, Starlink, and our space tech?

To me it's like complaining that your photography hobby is harder now that more people can afford to travel and they get in the way of your favorite tourist shots.

I'm sure there are good examples of trade-offs that matter here like the impact on terrestrial research telescopes, but a guy snapping a pic of a comet and ranting about it on Twitter frankly has the opposite effect on me.

<comment><USER56> True, because professional astronomers, lucky them, are provided a completely different sky devoid of satellites, debris and other man-made objects.

<comment><USER19> If we can make space travel cheap enough to get more Hubble-like telescopes up there, then yes, this.

I believe that's part of the goal of SpaceX

<comment><USER57> Yes, but the point is that we should do that first before polluting the night sky.

There are also reasons for humans and animals to not want new, moving stars for reasons other than pure utility. At the very least, these shiny beacons are an insulting advertisement for Musk.

Next, people will be defending a Pepsi ad on the moon or something. [https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/04/pepsi- ad...](https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/04/pepsi- advertisement-space/587608/)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Vancouver signs first agreement in Canada with Airbnb for short-term rentals - <AUTHOR> http://vancouver.ca/news-calendar/city-signs-first-mou-in-canada-with-airbnb-for-short-term-rentals.aspx <comment><USER2> This seems like reasonable regulation.

And all of this demand-side management is going to do nothing for affordability. Housing affordability is a supply-side zoning issue and can be fixed very quickly:

\- Unify/standardize zoning. The entire country of Japan only has about a dozen different zoning types. I see more than a dozen zoning types from my home office window.

\- Stop going to council for spot upzoning. This should not be a council function. This should be handled by city operations.

\- Upzone Grandview-Woodland and Hastings-Sunrise from RS-1 to RM-4. RM-4 is how Kitsilano is zoned. TADA! You've just created 50,000 housing units and solved the whole problem.

Zoning visualization: [http://maps.nicholsonroad.com/zones/](http://maps.nicholsonroad.com/zones/)

<comment><USER3> Supply is part of the problem, but the real culprit is that housing has been financialized and opened up as an investment vehicle for global capital. It doesn't really matter if you change zoning laws if everything that gets built is to serve this kind of investment. Major cities in the US, such as LA and NYC, simultaneously have huge lots of vacant luxury housing stock and homelessness crises for precisely this reason.Vancouver has obviously taken steps to curb the worst excesses of this, but it's still vulnerable to this form of "market failure."

<comment><USER4> The solution to housing being used as an investment is to build so much housing supply that this investment becomes worthless.

Why SHOULDN'T we just let the Chinese build a bunch of empty buildings? It's their money and if they want to waste it building us cheap housing on an investment that will eventually go bust, I say we let them.

The solution is scorched earth, "LOL, you thought your investment was going to go up, but instead we built such a ridiculous amount of housing that houses are now free for everyone".

<comment><USER5> Why not? Because we've seen places where that basic series of events took place.

That takes a long time to play out, and other factors come in to play during that time.

<comment><USER6> Places where the building was via foreign investment, in cash, absorbing all risk?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This looks like a pretty good agreement for both parties. AirBnB continues to operate in Vancity, Vancity can set rules and governance to short term rentals.

The most important is that Vancity can deny the ability for commercial operators pretending to be residential operators and punish those that persist.

\- Short-term rentals will only be allowed in a principal residence, where the operator resides for more than 180 days of the year and receives mail \- Commercial operators or other properties that do not qualify for the short- term rental business license program will be subject to these new fines effective April 19.

The ball is really in Vancity's court here as they can enforce (or not) as necessary.

<comment><USER8> Please don't call Vancouver Vancity repeatedly. This is not a local thing. Vancity is a credit union. In local development, politics and such the city government is usually abbreviated as CoV (City of Vancouver) to distinguish it from the other similarly named entities, all of which are separate cities:

City of West Vancouver

District of North Vancouver

City of North Vancouver

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancity](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancity)

<comment><USER9> Hearing someone call it "Vancity" is the quickest way to spot an out-of-towner trying to blend in.

To us, Vancity is a credit union. The only related abbreviation I hear time to time is "Van".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Still can't get a taxi most nights unless you call an hour ahead. In fact, you'll be able to get legal weed in this city before you can hail a ride service.

<comment><USER11> On a Saturday night at dinnertime, I get cabs within 5-10 minutes, and I'm (just) outside downtown. Between the individual cab company apps and eCab, Vancouver's taxi services have shaped up a lot. One cabbie even described in detail how their company punished drivers who don't respond reliably to booking requests through the app. Same company told me one time when I called that it would be as fast to book through the app since it all goes into the same system anyway.

I'll credit the threat of Uber with triggering this systemic change, but I never recognize complaints like yours. I get cabs reliably and reasonably quickly even on peak nights.

<comment><USER10> > I'll credit the threat of Uber with triggering this systemic change

This is a really, really important caveat in your argument. Even the _threat_ of Uber was enough to improve cab services. Now let's actually have ride hailing _competition_ (provided Uber is held to the same standards as taxis.)

As for cab drivers, I've heard no shortage of complaints from friends and family about cabs (be it the money, service, availability, etc.) Living just outside downtown I suspect is much better for getting cabs than living downtown, as cab drivers are heading back downtown for more pickups anyway quite often (especially on Saturday nights.)

Never mind trying to just hail a cab off the street - I've been denied a few times based on where I was going, which I'm pretty sure is illegal. There's no legitimate argument against ride hailing services like Uber so long as they're operating with the same standards, unless you're a cabbie who stands to lose work.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> As always happens in these cases, I believe that whatever public authority (the municipality, the governement, etc.) making an "agreement" with a private company does three (IMHO) _terrible_ things:

1) undervalues its own authority (ultimately the authority of citizens/people) to simply make a Law or regulation and enforce it

2) recognizes to a private company (which big as it might be is only one of the various playes in the field) a "contractual force" that the company should not have, besides giving to it a lot of brand publicity for free

3) consequently all other companies operating in the same field are (without any particular reason) underprivileged, somehow reinforcing and helping the attempts to become a monopoly of the "big one".

</comment><comment><USER13> The rules for qualifying for a rental license are detailed, and pretty reasonable. They permit renting out a room, or your house if you live in it, but do not permit turning an apartment complex into an AirBnB hotel. In short, you can let on AirBnB, as long as you are not diminishing housing stock. [1]

It's not perfect, but it's pretty damn good.

[1] [http://vancouver.ca/doing-business/short-term- rentals.aspx](http://vancouver.ca/doing-business/short-term-rentals.aspx)

> Short-term rentals are allowed when:

> It's your principal residence, in other words, where you live most of the > year and the residential address you use for bills, identification, taxes, > and insurance

> It's a legal dwelling unit (a home with an address that complies with all > applicable regulations, including building code and fire safety)

> You have a short-term rental business licence

> If you're renting, your landlord allows you to sublet your home as a short- > term rental

> If you're in a strata, your strata bylaws support short-term rentals in your > building

<comment><USER14> Short term rentals do not diminish housing stock, and help a city get more tourism which is by all means good for the whole. Its one more case of locals that vote vs non-locals that dont, even if they are way more numerous.

If Vancouver finds itself short of houses by whatever measure, they have to look elsewhere.

<comment><USER13> When I buy an apartment, and sublet it to a long-term tenant, one unit of housing exists.

When I kick that long-term tenant out, and turn it into a AirBnB hotel, I just took one unit of housing from the market for locals, and added one unit of housing to the tourist market.

> more tourism which is by all means good for the whole

This is contentious. The city may be better off as a whole if it did not have 4,000 homeless people, many of whom were priced out of their apartments, due to tourism, foreign buyers, etc.

To many people, more tourism brings little to no benefit, while a reduced housing stock brings much direct harm.

<comment><USER14> > This is contentious. The city may be better off as a whole if it did not > have 4,000 homeless people, many of whom were priced out of their > apartments, due to tourism, foreign buyers, etc.

Homeless people existed in SF long before Airbnb existed.

> To many people, more tourism brings little to no benefit, while a reduced > housing stock brings much direct harm.

Yes, to long term renters. There is no doubt that long term renters would prefer no short term renters existed. They would also prefer for all units to be rent controlled, or that landlords and property owners gave their properties for free.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Nice, I hated feeling like I was doing something shady whenever renting AirBnBs in vancouver, they always had directions like don't talk to anyone, always mention that you were a relative from out of town, etc, so as not to attract attention.

</comment><comment><USER16> There was no definition of MOU in the article.

A memorandum of understanding (MoU) is an agreement between two (bilateral) or more (multilateral) parties. It expresses a convergence of will between the parties, indicating an intended common line of action. It is often used in cases where parties either do not imply a legal commitment or in situations where the parties cannot create a legally enforceable agreement. It is a more formal alternative to a gentlemen's agreement.

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


Go, or Ruby or ExpressJS for an API? - <AUTHOR>

I'm building out an API and I would like to know your thoughts on the benefits and pitfalls of the three language options. I'm a Ruby Pro but I am considering both express and Go for my API. <comment><USER2> We use Node.js with Express and some pretty simple but very effective middleware we wrote to make API development a little more robust, like automatic metrics collection, logging, proper error handling etc. I have 0 Ruby experience so I can't comment as to how it would compare.

I would say neither Go or Node would be a bad choice, each having their tradeoffs. Node honestly is very performant overall given the time in which it takes a developer to code, test and deploy (tradeoffs). Also IMO Node has a little more available in terms of examples and people that have already hit the issues ahead of you. So if time to completion is important, it might be faster for that purpose alone. Then if you find a hot path, work to optimize it etc.

For what it is worth too, I hear people complain about Node occasionally and it is usually when they are trying to do longer running tasks, like huge sorts etc. Node is not a good candidate for work that blocks the event loop for long periods, there are better tools for that as you probably already know. The other complaints I hear/see often are when people choose the wrong 3rd party plugins to base their systems on. npm makes it easy to install almost any module, and sometimes that low barrier makes for easy but less than stellar choices; its like anything research the module first and try real scenarios as a POC before committing.

Also there are other frameworks other than Express for Node, for example you can check out HAPI which some people have switched to for RESTful API work.

</comment><comment><USER3> I've just finished building an API in Go, and my experience was:

You have to write more actual code than in Rails (or even ASP MVC), so it takes longer to develop, but it's much more satisfying.

I'm not 'web-scale' so the speed differences didn't actually matter that much. I didn't optimise for speed and the benchmarks were still impressively exceeding our requirements.

The standard library is amazing in places, but there are some libraries (gorilla in particular) that are almost obligatory.

If you have to write 2 API's you'll re-use a lot of code... you've effectively rolled your own API framework.

If your editor can handle snippets, make one for "if err != nil{" since that's a good 25% of any go program it seems ;)

Go is deep; the tools are deceptively simple and amazingly powerful. I refactored a lot as I went along and discovered better, more elegant ways to do things I'd brute-forced on the first iteration.

It was fun! Go is a really lovely language to code in.

</comment><comment><USER4> Depends on your needs. If you need to get something up and running quickly, I would recommend you stick with Ruby.

If you can afford some extra time to learn a new framework then both Go or Express/Node.js are great options that would enhance your skill set.

Node.js and Go are both growing quickly in popularity. They're much faster on the execution side than Ruby and provide additional optimization opportunities via the ability to query more than one external resource simultaneously and combine the results into your API's response.

If you do decide to go with Node.js or Go, Node.js is currently the more popular of the two. You're more likely to be able to land a job or freelancing gig with Node.js skills today, whereas you're more able to contribute something meaningful to the Go ecosystem by getting into it now.

Personally I prefer coding in Go, but most of my client's request Node.js.

<comment><AUTHOR> Do you have any benchmarks between go and node? I'm so curious about this.

<comment><USER4> Here's a couple links that touch on Node.js vs Go performance.

[http://jaxbot.me/articles/benchmarks_nodejs_vs_go_vs_php_3_1...](http://jaxbot.me/articles/benchmarks_nodejs_vs_go_vs_php_3_14_2013)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6649606](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6649606)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Ruby if you want quick /initial/ development.

Go if you need performance, but slower development time.

ExpressJS/Node for neither. Just kidding, it might be sort of like a combination of the two, moderate development and moderate performance. Though, this sort of makes it's usefulness moot for me, but that's /just/ me. I either the fastest development time, or fastest application. Both usually ends in a clusterf*ck of some kind (IMHO).

Personally, though, I wouldn't use any of the above except Ruby and would use something JVM based. Play! is a mature framework, it's fast, and is easy to use/deploy. It also comes in both Scala and Java varieties.

I've used everything mentioned but Go, and the JVM keeps coming back to haunt me because it's fast as hell and has TONS of libs.

</comment><comment><USER6> I think the best platform to begin with is the one you are most familiar and comfortable with. Node and Go both have performance benefits over Ruby. If you are a fan of the intricacies of javascript, you can give Node a shot. I don't think Go has much of an ecosystem compared to Node yet.

</comment><comment><USER7> I've developed/am developing an API in Go.

Go's not quite mature, and it shows at times. For example, if the tcp connection underlying your database connection dies, it won't reconnect automatically.

The standard library is neat; net/http is friendly and easy to use but unless you want to spend half your time munging request.URL.Path with regexes you'll want to use a different mux / router from the standard library - there are many good ones available.

Channels make realtime (ie, websockets) quite simple, and the type system means you can iterate quickly without so much fear of introducing bugs.

I can't speak much for the performance; we haven't tested it under much load yet.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think the performance question is the one I am most interested in. Go seems to boast about its speed and efficiency. I'd be curious to know your results in the future!

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I built the Steam integration API for a semi-popular MMO using Go. It's type system, marshaling/serialization and concurrency features made it ideal. The compile & load times are faster than even just loading a Rails app.

As mentioned in another comment, yes, most Go database drivers do not reconnect for you. It's an easy enough pattern to code for yourself. Some PHP & JDBC adapters don't either.

Memory usage was under 10MB and Valve eventually called us asking to throttle our calls, as their servers couldn't keep up and exhibited race conditions. Delays needed to be added to our job queues.

</comment><comment><USER9> It seems that Go is fast, so if you expect a very high volume and want to keep the server bill low (I don't know about the developer cost comparison) it might be the way to go.

I've used Sails.js (built on top of Express.js) and can't say it's anywhere near Rails yet.

Also, Node maybe be the "wrong" tool for building APIs. By wrong I mean it's not its particular strength.

<comment><AUTHOR> Why do you consider it wrong? It seemed almost ideal especially expressjs when breezing through the dev docs

<comment><USER9> As I said, I've used Sails.js. Their ORM is subpar, doesn't even support associations yet. By wrong I meant that where Node.js shines most is in its unified approach to client/server relationships. Since you're building an API (as in server-side logic with world-facing endpoints) you may want to stick to Rails, since it's great at that out-of-the-box, for tried-and-true.

<comment><USER10> You can't judge the platform by one framework. Node.js also shines in concurrency and networking, which are valuable things for an API, and allows you to offer streaming endpoints with ease.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I would say: Go with the language you're familar with if it's a serious project (API).

In the past, I build APIs using nodeJS with restify. Here's a boilerplate made by a good friend of mine: [https://github.com/dominiklessel/restify-api- boilerplate](https://github.com/dominiklessel/restify-api-boilerplate)

</comment><comment><USER12> I am writing an API in Ruby right now, and absolutely loving it. It's quick and simple. I am using Grape framework (rack based) : [https://github.com/intridea/grape](https://github.com/intridea/grape)

</comment><comment><USER13> If you're interested in other Node options, the good folks at WalMart Labs have built this "Express for APIs" framework:

[http://spumko.github.io/](http://spumko.github.io/)

</comment><comment><USER14> If you go with Ruby, try sinatra-synchrony.</comment>


Mobile-Enabled Commerce Will Yield The Next $100B Startup - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2014/06/07/mobile-enabled-commerce-will-yield-the-next-100b-startup/

<comment><USER2> Very good big-picture article. Bold predictions - seem reasonable.</comment>


China's web censors go into overdrive as President Xi Jinping consolidates power - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/26/china-web-censors-go-into-overdrive/ <comment><USER2> I have one Chinese friend who employs a double entendre, calling him "Xitler"

In all seriousness, this is a black period for Chinese people and China's neighbors. The fledgling democracy in Hong Kong, and democratic nations around China's periphery including Taiwan, Japan, Nepal, and India should be very wary dealing with a strongman who will stop at nothing to further his power and nationalism-focused legacy.

<comment><USER3> Japan has nothing to worry about. The Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security Between the United States and Japan, signed after WWII, basically means that Japan AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA are responsible to ensure the national security of Japan (It's actually mutual with the understanding that the Japanese constitution forbids deploying armed forces abroad). In other words, if china is actually aggressive towards Japan in any way, the full force of the United States armed forces will stand with them. As one of China's main trading partners, China doesn't want to pick a fight with the united states any more than we want to pick a fight with China. Similarly, South Korea has little to fear from China (even if they're propping up North Korea to do it), since the US has a similar relationship there. Nepal and Taiwan are screwed. India... its hard to imagine things going worse for India to be honest. Lets focus on getting most of their people clean, proper toilets before we start worrying about the influence of communist dictatorships, eh?

<comment><USER2> Mutual defense treaties have a poor track record in the face of heavily armed, aggressive regimes playing up real or imagined injustices while undermining political and military obstacles. If the alliance is weak, disaster can result.

Examples abound - Poland and France both had mutual defense treaties with various allies that failed when Germany invaded. In Japan's backyard, the Philippines lost territory in the South China Sea to China after it decided to cut ties with the U.S. military. As soon as the U.S. pulled away, the Chinese PLA moved right in. An international tribunal in The Hague ruled China's actions were completely illegal, but China has since strengthened its hold by building landing strips and military fortifications on the reefs and small islets.

The Japan/U.S. alliance is strong, but relationships and power profiles can change. Xi's not going anywhere, and he can play the long game when it comes to the Diaoyutai and other territorial claims.

<comment><USER4> Minor quibble - UK entered WW2 because of their mutual defense treaty with Poland

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's amazing to me how China is so effectively creating a 1984-type situation without much stir among the rest of the world. These chat programs are _super_ important for everyday life in China. The same company that provides chatting also provides your ability to pay for everything, and a credit score that determines what you can buy, how much you pay, and more. So if you say something you shouldn't, this could very easily be something where your entire life is destroyed. If they choose, these ultimately government controlled companies can easily make it so you can't buy things anymore, you are not trusted anywhere, and even your friends all disconnect with you because your bad score could affect theirs.

Pretty scary.

It will be interesting to see how the Chinese government reacts to globally available, unfiltered internet via satellite, like the one SpaceX is making [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_(satellite_constellat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_\(satellite_constellation\))

<comment><USER6> > _It 's amazing to me how China is so effectively creating a 1984-type > situation without much stir among the rest of the world._

This is perhaps because of several things:

1) That's the way "the rest of the world's" governments and corporate interests want their own countries to go, and have been pushing towards since decades. The rest of the world's leaders (most of them) could not care less for the lip service they pay to "freedom" et al.

2) A superpower gets to do whatever it likes "without much stir from the rest of the world". Heck, France and Britain had 1/3rd of the world, outside or their national borders, enslaved "without much stir from the rest of the world" until well after WWII. And suddenly the "rest of the world" will care for what China does to its own citizens?

3) It's nobody's business really what China does to its own citizens. There are other countries with the worlds largest prison population and most police shootings (by crazy amounts, like having 25% of the worlds prisoners for 4% of the worlds population), and they continue in that path "without much stir among the rest of the world". Why would it be different here?

<comment><USER7> It's amazing to me that the argument of "don't go after those guys for what they are doing when those other guys are doing bad things too" never dies. Even with all of its blatant fallacy. It will persist until the end of time. And solve nothing.

<comment><USER8> I think it does more to illustrate hypocrisy and priorities than anything; it's like worrying about another driver's flat tire, when your own car is literally on fire. Though I do understand and agree with your overall sentiment.

<comment><USER9> Huh? No, these are simply USSR-style what-aboutisms that China has inherited.

<comment><USER6> Accusation of "what-aboutism" is the real BS cold-war trick (notice how it's also one-sided itself: it's an accusation against the other side of which the good people of our side are clear).

It amounts to "put on blinders and follow your side when it accuses the other, and never see things in perspective".

It generally means that only one side has the right to criticize (if the other side answers back, it's "whataboutism") -- and that third parties shouldn't call bot the pot and kettle black (it's whataboutism to even mention the pot), and instead should listen to the pot accusing the kettle of blackness.

Even worse when it's not bloody business of the pot what the kettle does -- but they want to make it so anyway, because they like to boss other kitchen implements around.

<comment><USER9> There is nothing different from the above what aboutisms to the ones the USSR used, they are actually almost verbatim. China throws around logical fallacies (what aboutism, red herrings, slippery slopes) all the time, it makes me wonder if chinese high schools teach their positive use in rhetoric/debate classes.

I'm one of the first ones to criticize the USA, there is plenty that is wrong to talk about! But open up a thread that is critical of the USA and you'll rarely see Americans bringing up problems in China, yet discussions about China almost always lead back to discussions about the USA! When china is ready to talk about its problems without referring to the USA, well, it will be ready to become a superpower. Right now they just come off as insecure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Many sites hosted outside of China that Chinese expats frequent (like [http://mitbbs.com](http://mitbbs.com)) have also been flooded with pro- amendment messages.

Google Translate of the site: [https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=zh- CN&tl=en&...](https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=zh- CN&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mitbbs.com%2F)

<comment><USER11> Not surprising at all. In fact, many of the Chinese expats (visitors of mitbbs.com) are pro-china in general. They become less agreeing to western values after spending years in US. (I am one of those examples myself)

<comment><USER12> One should asume "pro-China" means against dictatorship and presidents for life, right?

There is no people or culture on Earth that stands to gain from oligarchy.

<comment><USER5> I'm an American, I've had many close Chinese friends. What follows is completely anecdotal, but I've spent a lot of time trying to wrap my mind around it, for what it is worth.

Our cultures are incredibly different. At the same time our cultures are both unusually strong. And for some reason, part of American culture seems to be assuming everyone in the world is just like us, just in different circumstances. This is extremely foolish.

It took me quite a while to be able to understand some things about my Chinese friends that really confused and sometimes frustrated me. A big part of it is the American concept of freedom and personal independence is practically part of our DNA, while it is not valued very highly by many Chinese. Stability, peace and order are highly valued. Of course it would be nice to be able to do whatever you want, but it is much more important that the government is strong. Period. And you get away with what you can as an individual (I've noticed much less respect for the rule of law, much greater respect for personal relationships). And of course many (not all) are highly patriotic, as a great culture with a great history that has been under great pressure for generations, and feels that the rest of the world doesn't respect them like they should or wants to see them fail.

I guess I'd sum it up, that it seems to me an unusual amount of mainland Chinese would choose strength over freedom, and almost all mainland Chinese see themselves as part of a bigger society and a somewhat oppressive government is inevitable and it is futile to resist.

In America, we would prefer to free 10 guilty people than unjustly imprison 1 innocent person. In China, the concept is reversed, it is better to imprison 10 innocent people than let 1 guilty person go free. I actually heard someone say that. Think about it.

<comment><USER13> Alot of the opposite is true. Alot of the Chinese old timers remember the brutality they suffered under Mao and are very upset at this current event. Many of them want to sell their factories and move the money to HK (and eventually out of China).

<comment><USER14> See the difference is you are talking about people who own a factory, but in old days, the majority is those who were short on food and supplies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I could go downtown tonight, stand on the street corner, and shout "F--- the president!" at the top of my lungs. What would happen? I might get dirty looks. I might get some people shaking my hand. And I might - _might_ \- get an angry tweet from the president. I probably would not get either arrested or beaten up. (And this isn't a political statement. I could have done the same under the previous president, with the same results except for the tweet.)

China's touchiness on these matters reveals the Communist Party's insecurity.

<comment><USER16> I think it's more just because of them afraid of "losing face" like almost all Chinese people do. That's quite deep in Chinese culture.

Even the most powerful emperors in Chinese history (who would have nothing to be afraid of) still executes those who talked ill of them

<comment><USER17> It's not just China. Being able to publicly yell "Fuck the $RULER" is an anomaly in human history, not the norm.

In the US, the current party in power is always on the verge of instituting totalitarianism. My plan is to start worrying about it when people face systematic government consequences for actually mouthing off about the ruling party. Right now, to a first approximation, nobody has in a long time. Any examples that anxious partisans will rush to contradict me will simply further demonstrate my point with how minor and unsystematic they are in the US.

(If anything gets you in trouble in 2018, it's not mouthing off about the ruling party, it's pissing off the social media mob. That may yet be something we have to culturally reckon with, but it remains the case that it's not the government doing it.)

<comment><USER15> I suspect you're getting downvoted for this line:

> In the US, the current party in power is always on the verge of instituting > totalitarianism.

And I'm pretty sure that you didn't mean it like people are taking it. Let's start with, I don't know, FDR. He was on the verge of implementing totalitarianism. Really! Just ask the Republicans of 1933! Clinton was. So was Bush. So was Obama. So is Trump. Or so some vocal minority says.

I'm pretty sure jerf is dismissive of all that noise, and intends to ignore it... within limits.

> My plan is to start worrying about it when people face systematic government > consequences for actually mouthing off about the ruling party. Right now, to > a first approximation, nobody has in a long time. Any examples that anxious > partisans will rush to contradict me will simply further demonstrate my > point with how minor and unsystematic they are in the US.

Downvoters, I think you're misreading one line, and reacting based on your misread.

<comment><USER18> >> In the US, the current party in power is always on the verge of instituting totalitarianism.

> And I'm pretty sure that you didn't mean it like people are taking it.

That blanket absolutist statement is at best false, and is easily disproven with the current situation. Then the whole argument is undermined by the last paragraph about angering the social media mob.

<comment><USER17> "easily disproven with the current situation."

If you mean that the current party isn't instituting totalitarianism, I would agree with that. Trump has taken more steps to put down government power than to pick it up. A totalitarian does not lower taxes, which is a form of government power, nor does he cut regulations, which is obviously a form of power. You can argue about the effectiveness, but there's no way to argue that into an _increase_ in power.

If you mean that nobody is accusing Trump of being totalitarian... I have no idea how you could possibly have that impression. Google "Trump" and "authoritarian" together and start reading.

And if you don't fear the social media mob, poke them and see how you like it. Talk is cheap; _prove_ you aren't afraid of them, and that you get away with it, and I'll reconsider.

<comment><USER18> I understand that many people accuse Trump of being authoritarian. The American people have a very diverse range of viewpoints. Some group somewhere has always accused the sitting president of going out of bounds, being a fascist, going to take our guns away, etc.

I don't doubt that the social media mob is dangerous, but I perceive that it is mostly against the current US administration.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I hope that in my lifetime we see a revolution in China that overthrows the current authoritarian state and things like the great firewall and quasi- private/state run agencies go the way of the dodo bird.

Unfortunately I don't see big American companies doing anything but continuing to court China and their growing class of wealthy consumers.

<comment><USER20> Are you saying that you want to see 100 million dead Chinese people? Because that is what you are implying.

You will not have a revolution without spilling blood.

<comment><USER21> Don't know why you're downvoted, you're 100% correct. It's really easy to call for a revolution when it's not _your_ country thrown in to turmoil.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> My core belief has always been that as long as China has this culture of authoritarian and heavy handed internet control, it will always have a self- imposed limit on their ability to compete. I understand they have a deep rooted value of stability and that they believe they're keeping their society from running off the rails, but if they were to allow their citizens to contribute more to the direction of the government, then the end of the U.S. hegemony would not just be a possibility, but practically a foregone conclusion (some seem to think it already is inevitable, but it's been predicted for so long now, it's starting to feel like the forever predicted rise of Linux on the desktop).

However, I'd be curious to hear good reasons for China's economy to dominate the world stage even with this sort of thing constantly happening. I can kind of understand the brute-force approach of just pure production from a gigantic population, but India has a comparable population size, but not a comparable economy, so I tend to think that a large population doesn't guarantee a large economic output.

There is so much innovation I see happening in the tech of China, but their fear of their own citizenry and fear of transparency make me think they'll stay behind their potential.

This could all be my own Western bias for democracy, so I'd love to hear other thoughts on this.

<comment><USER23> I want to think like that but would like to understand the details before believing in it.

Recently, I read "China's Future" by David Shambaugh. He argues along the same lines as you. He claims that the development driven by exports and government investing is exhausted because of growing protectionism, competition from nearby countries and growing inefficiency on government companies.

Meanwhile the country still has a lot inequality to solve, between west and the east coast and rural and urban population. It is also getting old very fast and doesn't have a good welfare network.

Therefore, the only path ahead is development of internal market. He claims that for this the country needs transparency, the rule of law and diversity of ideas but I don't think he made it very clear to me, however. Truth is that autocratic countries (e.g: Russia, Turkey, Cuba, Belarus, etc) are very, very bad at creating diversified economies. Let's see if China finds a way to do it.

<comment><USER24> Really agree on the inequality point, especially in the West around Xinjiang. Some of the stories my friends have told me about growing up there were ridiculous.

I think after you travel around China a bit, it's really difficult to see it as a first world country that's at the forefront of innovation.

You can go to a city like Shenzhen and see all these cool products being launched and huge skyscrapers, which is impressive given 30 years ago it was just a fishing village overshadowed by Hong Kong. But then you travel around and see that a lot of China consists of huge cities with shoddy living conditions and very limited opportunities.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> > "Winnie the Pooh" — the Xi's online nickname

Anyone have the backstory for this?

EDIT: I see a couple of links below that compare him to Winnie the Pooh in pictures. Is the intent behind it to be derogatory or is it just poking a bit of fun?

<comment><USER26> [https://www.google.com/search?q=winnie+the+pooh+tigger+xi+ji...](https://www.google.com/search?q=winnie+the+pooh+tigger+xi+jinping)

<comment><USER27> They look really cute together

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Apparently they also banned the letter "n":

[http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=36939](http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=36939)

</comment><comment><USER29> This seems like a fun new opportunity to find new ways to avoid censors.

One way would be to seed messages or websites with pre-loaded meanings, and use new, unrelated comments to refer to them. Example of a social media feed:

8/15/2017: "Today at noon in the square."

9/15/2015: "I think it's evil and corrupt and we can not stand for it!"

10/22/2017: "The government has taken a new decision today that affects us all."

11/10/2017: "We must protest this injustice!"

2/27/2018: "10-22-2017 + 9-15-2017 + 11-10-2017 + 8/15/2017"

Obviously this is clunky, but in theory you could chain together random bits of other people's messages to post a new one, and a censorship bot would have to be written to merge them all together to filter them; if some of these were behind logins on other sites, this could be very difficult. You could also make them less literal and more made up of memes and concepts with hidden meanings.

</comment><comment><USER30> Remove everything and then let a merciful Xi Jinping give a little semblance of freedom back. The Chinese will be cheering his name in the street!

</comment><comment><USER31> > "I don't agree"...phrases banned...

Wait, so you can't say "I don't agree with term limits" in China on Weibo?

Edit: Removed comment about Google.

<comment><USER32> They don't care. Authoritarian banning of conversations that might criticize their new dictator is better than letting anything through.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> This is why the US should not worry about China as a long-term economic threat - authoritarianism has never worked. The Soviet Union, 1930s Germany and Italy, all collapsed. I think the Chinese realize this and are pessemistic about their own future. The Constitution was designed to make the US Government as weak as possible, because a strong government ultimately turns on its people.

<comment><USER34> I'm not sure why you say this. Germany and Italy didn't collapse-- they were conquered. The Soviet Union _did_ collapse, it's true, but it collapsed because of external pressures and sclerotic bureaucracy causing an inability to adjust to internal problems. In all three cases there was an external force contributing to the problem. However, there's no reason to assume that China's authoritarian rule will collapse as well. Indeed, in several Soviet successor states (including Russia), authoritarianism has reasserted itself.

Authoritarianism is easy to impose and democracy is fragile; the civic discourse required for a strong and stable democracy relies upon a considerable amount of mutual respect and rhetorical restraint.

<comment> irq-1 South Korea had decades of dictatorship with a relatively easy transition to democracy and liberal capitalism.

<comment><USER34> That's true. It's the maintenance of that democracy that's hard, though. Plus, it was by no means certain that the country would become a democracy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I wonder if any tech companies are for or against this "surprising" turn of events...

[https://phys.org/news/2017-10-china-xi-zuckerberg-cook- beiji...](https://phys.org/news/2017-10-china-xi-zuckerberg-cook-beijing.html)

</comment><comment><USER36> Western corporate types will be freaked out and the dis-investment here will accelerate

</comment><comment><USER37> From the outside looking in it seems like Xi has been doing a great job leading China. Are there any serious contenders for Chinese leadership like Navalny in Russia?

Not to mention that historically there have been many excellent leaders who rules for decades. An arbitrary term limit can be useful to prevent corruption, but it's also the reason for the fiasco that is Washington in 2018.

<comment><USER13> > From the outside looking in

Exactly, there's your problem. China is suffering from 300%+ debt, capital outflows (hidden, unreported), fake gdp growth (several provinces have claimed 20-30% fake revenue), demographics time bomb, middle income trap, shrinking population (800M estimated in 2100), corruption, pollution, belligerent behaviors against all its neighbors (Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Vietnam, Australia, India, etc), smart people wanting leave, rich people wanting to leave, etc

<comment><USER37> I can think of a number of first world nations sufferings from the same issues.

<comment><USER38> No you can't. Even Greece doesn't have that level of GDP to debt, let alone the level of potential fraud in official figures.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Block telemarketers automatically in iOS - <AUTHOR> https://callblockapp.com/ <comment><USER2> What I want even more at this point (and have told Apple as much) is a way to even prevent the phone from ringing. Yes, Airplane Mode and other hacks can do it but I want something better and OS-supported.

Maybe "making calls" was the killer app in 2007 when the iPhone was released but these days the idea of the ENTIRE DISPLAY being _taken over at random_ is too much. I am almost certainly browsing the web or using some app and the timing is always _terrible_ , shoving some unknown number in my face.

And yes, telemarketers are probably 95% of calls at this point. A huge number of people just text me or use something else. And even if you must call, leave a voice mail (which telemarketers never do).

<comment><USER3> You can just turn the ringer off and hit the "Sorry I can't talk now" message.</comment></comment>


Why Kik Let a Student Design a Major Feature - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@katherinecarras/why-kik-let-a-student-design-a-major-feature-6d9b853e280 <comment><USER2> Because their senior UX designers could veto anything they didn't like anyway, and because nobody much cares for Kik so the stakes weren't that big in the first place -- besides they could use the PR.</comment>


Remote contract jobs for developers and designers - <AUTHOR> https://wellpaid.io <comment><USER2> Big fan of this service. As an employer, we've used it extensively for sourcing great talent.</comment>