AirPods Pro - <AUTHOR> https://www.apple.com/airpods-pro/ <comment><USER2> I really struggled to take the plunge on the original AirPods and it has been one of my top 10 purchases ever in my life without a doubt. I stood there holding the little $200 box in my hand and really danced back and forth in my mind about whether or not they would really be necessary. If they broke, I would go buy a new pair immediately.

For what they are, the sound is amazing. I can't really do a phone call anymore without them. Working on my car, doing dishes, going for a jog, taking the dogs on a walk, the pods are goin' in.

My wife finally made the switch from Android (she had mulitple Samsung Galaxy devices) to iOS w/ an XS and she is also hopelessly addicted to the new ecosystem and her AirPods. We had a running joke for years that she would never switch teams but now she is 100% stoked on Apple gear.

I am not in the market for anything like this, since I have the high-end spectrum covered w/ some Sony over the ear noise cancelling cans but if I was I would give these a shot in a new york minute.

<comment><USER3> I've demoed my $25 Anker or mpow earbuds (the Airpod-likes) to many coworkers sporting Airpods and they're universally astounded by the quality of the cheaper buds. I've converted quite a few people who lost their Airpods.

The chead buds don't sound quite as good as Airpods, but they're 85% of the way there, fit better, can actually handle the rain and sweat without breaking down, can be used during exercise without falling out, and they cost a fraction of the price.

<comment><USER4> I think most of the magic is Bluetooth 5. After years and years of trying Bluetooth headphones I only found them acceptable under very specific circumstances (only certain types of exercising). AirPods really seemed to fix most of the long standing issues.

But the cost, even for people who would immediately go buy another pair, does suck. When I used <$20 headphones at the gym, it was reasonable to keep a backup on hand, or a second pair at work or in a gym bag. If I leave my AirPods somewhere unexpectedly my options are to go back and get them. Buying or borrowing a pair of wired headphones aren't even an option in most cases anymore.

Not as a counter to your story, but I know someone who was gifted knockoff AirPods and didn't know it. They were really confused why people liked them so much and returned them within a week.

<comment><USER5> > I think most of the magic is Bluetooth 5.

Doubt so, Bluetooth 5 doesn't really do anything with audio streaming. Check this out: [https://habr.com/en/post/456182/](https://habr.com/en/post/456182/), in particular:

> Only one change affected the Classic version within the specification of > Bluetooth 5: support for the Slot Availability Mask (SAM) technology, > designed to improve radio frequency sharing. All other changes affect only > Bluetooth LE (the same applies to Higher Output Power too).

> All audio devices use only Bluetooth Classic. Headphones and speakers cannot > be connected via Bluetooth Low Energy. There is no standard for transmitting > audio using LE. The A2DP standard, used to transmit high-quality audio, > works only through Bluetooth Classic, and there is no equivalent in LE.

> To sum up: buying audio devices with Bluetooth 5 only because of the new > version of the protocol is meaningless. Bluetooth 4.0/4.1/4.2 in the context > of audio transmission will work the same way.

> If the announcement of the new headphone mentions a doubled radius and > reduced power consumption thanks to Bluetooth 5, then you should know that > they either do not understand themselves or mislead you. No wonder, even the > manufacturers of Bluetooth chips confuse the difference in both standards, > and some Bluetooth 5 chips support the fifth version only for LE, and use > 4.2 for Classic.

<comment><USER4> I haven't followed the specs closely. My grievances with bluetooth weren't around audio quality. They were all around pairing, battery life, reliability during use, and how annoying and frustrating general use was. Maybe this all came from 4.2 and a combination of other tech like available chips or better implementation? For whatever reason, not long after AirPods were released I hear competing headphones improved significantly. I know often can take years and suddenly someone comes along with a clever design pattern everyone else implements on top of old hardware or existing specs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I will personally love to see someone justify spending $250 on wireless earphones whose batteries cannot be replaced.

I'm a year and a half into my normal airpods and they already need new batteries.

<comment><USER7> Why spend $100 on a nice dinner, we'll just have to eat again in 8 hours.

<comment><USER8> There used to be an expectation of longevity in the electronics we purchase. Even while Moore's law was in full effect, you could find good uses for a 6 year old computer. Today's computer hardware can easily remain fully usable for a decade. The notion of buying a laptop or phone, let alone headphones, every year is ludicrous and actively harmful to the environment.

<comment><USER9> You must have lived in a different "Used to be" than I did. I owned multiple Walkman style cassette players back in the 80s and if you got 2 years use out of those foam covered headphones, it was a small miracle. Even buying replacement foam, the cords got snagged and destroyed quickly. Also, the cheap plastic doors on the players were notoriously prone to failing. Not to mention all of them were powered by disposable batteries which powered them for just a few hours and had to be tossed out.

<comment><USER10> I agree about the headphones, but I got a full decade of use from my WM-D6 Walkman Pro and its (optional, removable) rechargeable battery pack. I replaced it with a WM-D6C which still worked the last time I tried it, a few years ago now.

High-quality gear was definitely available in the '80s, if you were willing to pay for it — and might have been cheaper in the long run.

<comment><USER9> So instead of tiny, expensive headphones last 18-24 months, you had an even more expensive cassette player which might last 5 years, with headphones that lasted less than a year, and expensive bulky rechargeable battery packs which lasted about 6 months if you were lucky.

How is this better than a set of headphones which last 18+ months? Just the NiCd battery packs were something like 20 times bulkier than the AirPods and lasted less than a third the time with careful use. Normal replacement cycle on those battery packs would be more expensive over 2 years than my AirPods, particularly if you consider inflation.

<comment><USER10> I'm not suggesting it was better overall; I'm not sure how you read me that way. I'm just saying that reliable gear was available.

(Only 6 months out of a set of NiCds??? I got multiple years out of more than one set. NiCds are very easy to take care of; just remember that they need exercise. Always drain them fully before charging, and make sure not to overcharge.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Can we talk about how smooth and beautiful the website is? I know, it's Apple and their websites are always the same, but there's always a tiny increment. This time it's the woman adjusting the ANC by holding her Airpods. The way she fades in and the scroll controls her every movement and then fades out is just so smooth.

<comment><USER12> It made it difficult for me to read the content, and lagged/stuttered on my Macbook Pro. Not to mention taking up a whole screen for a single marketing sentence is obnoxious.

As someone who buys a lot of "pro" labeled audio gear, the only thing I care about is a bullet point list of specs. I've seen enough snake oil to ignore marketing materials for consumer audio products. But I get why Apple doesn't do that off the bat, because they're not trying to sell these to people like me.

<comment><USER13> _the only thing I care about is a bullet point list of specs_

You are not the target demographic for this web page. Congratulations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> What's the word on active noise cancellation and hearing protection? I currently avoid using headphones in loud environments, and my quick test is if I can hear myself talk over the music.

This page says the active cancellation uses "anti-noise", which iirc is noise, at frequencies that drown out the outside noise. But I'm not really sure about this.

So, if we were in say a 85 db environment, would music with these be at, say 90 db, or would it actually let you play safely at a lower volume like 80mm.

I know NRR headphones are best to actually block noise. But I'm curious what these do. Specifically related to hearing damage.

<comment><USER15> That's not quite right. What the anti-noise does is generate an inverse wave to cancel out some (as much as possible) of the waveform of the noise. It's not just playing white noise louder than the external noise. The result is that your ear drum receives a smaller waveform to vibrate to.

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

<comment><USER14> Thanks! So it actually destroys the sound and it has no effect? Or does it have an effect on your hearing, but you don't perceive it?

<comment><USER16> Based on my knowledge of physics, the wave is eliminated and not in any way perceivable.

<comment><USER17> I would say it would depend on the position of the microphone, the speed of the electronics and the ability of the speaker to reproduce the negative wave at the microphone.

I don't think it could work perfectly. It would be like putting a beach-ball offshore and using it's motion to move a log closer to shore up and down to cancel all waves hitting a beach.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I love AirPods. I wear then 10+hrs a day (cycling between two due to charge). It isnt fair to judge before I've tried this, but I've never quite felt comfortable with the rubber seals

1\. It feels like you are underwater

2\. I want ambient sound coming thru, esp when i'm walking outside/etc.

<comment><USER19> These have a transparency setting to let through ambient sounds

<comment><USER20> I'm intrigued to actually try this. Turning the transparency setting on and off.

On an active phone call I can carry on a conversation in the room im in 10 feet away from the person. To have that cancelled out would be interesting to try.

<comment><USER21> Noise cancelling cancels out white noise - not people's conversations.

Also - the "transparency" mode is quite common feature of noise cancelling headphones. All of the Bose NCs have had this for years. When you seal off the ear to provide NC you need to be able to hear yourself when youre on a phone call. So its more a necessity than a "nice to have".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The lack of sound isolation is my biggest gripe with my AirPods, so it is nice to see that it has been improved with the Pro version. In the past I have had nausea when using active noise cancelling headphone (especially when used without music), so I am curious to see if any of the reviews hints at this.

<comment><USER23> I have serious reservations about these. They make big claims yet miss some important, basic design choices. For instance: you will get zero bass with an open back design and the active noise cancellation operates at 200 Hz (presumably) so you can forget about cancelling annoying whines from server fans or turbojets. The dynamic EQ based on a microphone is an interesting choice. This could have really good results if they didn't fuck up on more basics. I just hope they don't neglect phase response and do some time alignment.

<comment><USER24> _The dynamic EQ based on a microphone is an interesting choice._

I don't even know if the two are related, not being sound/audio/whatever expert, but I'm continually amazed that I can blast music on a HomePod, speak in a conversational tone or quieter (of course I've tested), and Siri still hears me. Whatever dark wizardry makes that work would come in handy here, yes? Or is your argument more that, dark magic or not, the physical hardware isn't there?

<comment><USER12> Eh not really.

The limitation on active noise reduction is mostly latency, and hardware constraints when using adaptive filtering in a small package without a large battery.

Whatever "Adaptive EQ" means it may or may not be particularly novel. I've seen worked on things similar for years - changing filter parameters in response to microphone input isn't always easy but it's not untrod ground.

Going to have to listen to it to be the judge of anything, like all audio products.

<comment><USER23> Adaptive EQ is a well established piece of jargon in telecommunications. I'm not sure if that's actually what they're doing here, but it would be interesting if they are. The ear canal makes a resonant cavity and they could notch out annoying peaks in the mid-highs that vary from each seating of the buds. This could also be used to level out the magnitude response if they hadn't made it an open cavity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I started getting severe ear issues with my normal AirPods. Due to a lack of cushioning, my ear canals started getting damaged. It got very painful eventually (swimmers ear levels of pain).

I stopped using them and went back to my Bose in ear headphones (that never gave me problems).

These new AirPods seem to have cushioning. I might consider them.

<comment><USER26> The new shape of these makes me not want them. I seem to have the exact same ears as whoever Apple has modeled their earbuds for and they're super comfortable.

Every other in-ear headphone I've tried has been super painful and falls out at the slightest bump.

<comment><USER27> I'm in the exact same boat. The AirPods just fit perfectly like no other pair before but for most of my friends it's the opposite.

I'm intrigued how the AirPods Pro will fit. We will see I guess.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Wow, that website really is something. 1559 requests serving 65.6MB in total!

<comment><USER29> You are not kidding, opening up the network tab in Chrome reveals they are loading nearly 300 images named: 0000.jpg -> 0289.jpg and stitching them together in canvas elements as scroll-able videos (Each image being ~50kb).

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I have a pair of the older ones. Say what you will, but if you have an iphone, they are incredible. Using one is great for podcasts and phone conversations. I hated on them for a while, but after trying, I'm a believer.

For me, the value of upgrading to this 'pro' model will be the quality of the noise cancelling. If as good as the recent releases from Sony and/or Bose, I will definitely get a pair.

</comment><comment><USER31> I just end up immediately closing these sites that don't work at all reasonably with a scroll wheel.

<comment><USER29> Normally I roll my eyes at these types of comments but you are totally justified. I'm in front of a desktop using a mouse and am getting scroll fatigue just trying to get to about the 1/2 way point of the web page. Literally scrolling through individual video frames is moronic.

Edit - Just noticed that the animated scroll-breaking stuff seemed to stop when using a mobile view (noticed using Chrome Dev tools) which makes it a better read.

<comment><USER31> Yeah I hate being "that guy", but I just couldn't make any progress on the site.

<comment><USER29> I was graphic designer (now developer) so I tend to give websites a lot of "artistic freedom" as long as it doesn't interfere a great deal with user- friendliness. Your comment was completely justified in this regard. This particular page when not viewed on a mobile device is painful and should be mentioned.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> This is a huge improvement. The regular airpods are the same shape as the original iphone earbuds, and my normal ritual with those was to immediately throw them in the trash as soon as I opened any Apple product because they're horribly uncomfortable. Am I the only one who notices this?

<comment><USER33> > ... horribly uncomfortable.

One persons uncomfortable is another persons perfection. I can't stand headphones like these new Pro ones that have the little rubber tips. They hurt my ears so much. The current Airpods or the wired ones you "throw in the trash" are the most comfortable in ear headphones I've ever used, personally.

<comment><USER24> And here I am smack in the middle. I can run in them, I might even try jumping jacks. But bicycle helmet straps knock them out, and when I tap them I often have to readjust them. So I have "AirPods with earhooks" called PowerBeats Pros. The innards of AirPods in a different, better-fitting (for me) package. (And the PowerBeats are water-resistant, but I guess the AirPod Pros are, too.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> People complain the Pro moniker is losing meaning on a MBP - does it mean _anything_ here?

<comment><USER35> The pro line is just the high-end line-up from Apple. The 'regular' (non-pro) line is for consumers with average spending, and the pro line is for those who are willing to spend more for a more polished experience.

Maybe except for the upcoming Mac pro, the pro line products don't offer particular features for professional use over the regular line. It's not like you can't do professional work on a non-pro Apple product.

It's just a really well chosen marketing name, which is now being diluted due because every* Apple product now has a pro version.

* except the Watch I believe?

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Been using the Beats Pro's since I lost my Airpods (later found them) and they are considerably better sound and far more comfortable to use and for workouts. I no longer have to have the volume cranked up to 11.

The original Airpods are amazing only because they work well at least 90% of the time, unlike just about every bluetooth headphone out there.

I have found the Beats Pro's generally as reliable and convenient but occasionally they flake out completely and are unable to pair properly with anything. Hours later they will work again. I've seen the a few threads online complaining about this behaviour. It is uncommon but a shockingly bad problem considering the cost.

Given what Apple is asking for, for these products they need to be pretty much perfect. I'll be interested to see how users review these.

<comment><USER37> Beats pro are over the ear cans - do you mean powerbeats pro?

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I'd buy them if they did a buyback program on the previous generation AirPods like they do for iPhones.

<comment><USER39> Would you buy a second hand pair of headphones with someone else's earwax on them?

<comment><USER38> You think they can't be sanitized + cleaned?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> You've been able to get pretty decent Bluetooth in-ear headphones for $20-40 on Amazon for a few years now, can anyone comment on whether AirPods are really 10x better to justify the price? I just have a hard time believing that's possible, but I've never tried them.

<comment><USER36> I've never found a "decent" pair of Bluetooth anything. Pairing is almost always an annoyance and never quite just "works". If I'm heading out for a walk or a run, or if I want to answer a call, it needs to pair and work immediately or I may as well throw them in the trash. Airpods were the first headphones where they just worked every single time I put them on.

<comment><USER41> These have worked flawlessly for me.

[https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07M5GFPQN/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_apa_i_h...](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07M5GFPQN/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_apa_i_hpYTDbSEBSBQB)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> This is the first time I've seen an AR experience launched from the browser. I expected to be kicked to the App Store to download Apple's shopping app when I clicked See it in AR, but instead the AirPods instantly showed up on my desk (without prompting for camera access even). When did this capability get added?

Edit: looks like this is powered by Apple and Pixar's USDZ file format for sharing compressed 3D models. I'm guessing it overlays the model over the built-in camera app, so Safari never asks for permission to use my camera.

<comment><USER43> Sometime in iOS 12, Safari was tooled to use the ARKit. I was using this to visualize the size of the iPad Pro a while ago.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Do we know how it compares to regular AirPods in term of battery life?

Would had loved a way to swipe up and down to control volume instead of the force touch for noise cancellation. Next generation I suppose.

</comment><comment><USER45> I'm going to get these as soon as I can. I've been addicted to my Bose 35 but tbh they are a bit bulky.

Also, I need noise cancellation and have been waiting for Apple to release their version of it.

A bit bold here but I'm going to assume their NC experience is beyond anything else on the market in the same form factor.

Look at Bose for example and their in-ear alternative; you have to wear a bulky necklace to get the same experience as their cabled version.

Nah, I feel like Apple is going to disrupt the entire NC market with these things

<comment><USER46> Will you try the cheaper Echo Buds ? They don't have pure ANC.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> I have no problem with the AirPods being highly integrated, nor did I inherently think dropping the 3.5mm jack was an issue. Working wireless is a lot better. But I do really wish Apple would make the W1 chips and associated stack generally available to 3rd parties, that's what really got lost in the transition and they were wrong to keep vertical. Their strategy has surely sold more AirPods, but they will never be able to match all the niches served by a functioning market and it's a bummer to have that kind of variety unnecessarily reduced. For example it's fairly of niche, but I'd love a W1-based MMCX set. That would then allow the use of a wide range of high quality earphones from Shure/Westone/UE etc.

And I wonder if Apple isn't missing a bit of a trick in areas like this, where they do something which will increase the attached revenue value of each iPhone sold but that could reduce the attractiveness of iOS as a platform in general. If Apple made their own wireless implementation generally available but it only worked at its best with iOS/Macs, would a thriving wireless headphone/earphone/music market based around that increase the sales of iDevices and Macs more than whatever AidPod sales Apple lost?

<comment><USER2> Can you elaborate a bit on the reasons for this? I don't disagree... but what capabilities are lacking in regular hardware that this chip provides?

I ask because initially the Sony WH-1000XM3 over-ears I use at home when working in my office (or on a plane) were initially using the lower quality SBC standard and with some kung fu I was able to get them working with higher quality AAC on my Mac.

<comment><USER48> There are some features of AirPods that are only available on Apple devices. Off the top of my head those are:

\- Easy Pairing (if you just open the case next to an iphone, a dialog box comes up where you can just tap 'pair' and you're done)

\- Automatic Pause (if you remove an ear, it pauses it)

\- Reassign touch gestures

\- Audio Sharing

\- Ability to choose which ear's microphone you wish to use

\- Lossless audio quality

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> The price is $250, which is what everyone expected (note: the Wireless Charging case is mandatory; for comparison, the AirPods with Wireless Charging SKU is $200).

Will have to wait and see how the reviews are, although it sounds like we'll hear sooner than later (pun intended).

<comment><USER49> Was hoping for a case that wasn't wireless charging. Save a couple of bucks for a feature I would never use.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> I have a pair of AirPods, and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't disappointed with them, the main reason being that they just don't seem to fit in my ears very well, needing constant readjustment. Further, the sound quality is no better than the pair that comes with the iPhone that can be purchased for $29. I also find the nfc pairing nice, but also frustrating when it fails, and extra annoying when trying to check battery levels. I'll never understand why the battery level doesn't show up on the top right like every other Bluetooth headphone set I have.

I do find them pretty convenient at the gym so it's not all bad.

Perhaps I should have waited for these, but I already have a Bose pair that fits my noise cancelling needs pretty well.

<comment><USER51> > the main reason being that they just don't seem to fit in my ears very well, > needing constant readjustment

It may simply be that your ears aren't a suitable shape - I've had this problem with every single pair of in-ear phones that I've ever tried _and_ fitted hearing aids. At least the aids have over-the-ear clips so I don't lose them. I would be guaranteed to lose an AirPod within a week of owning them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> 2 incremental updates to this product and still only one color, they holding the others back for the post-Christmas lull in the hopes a lot of people will double dip or something?

<comment><USER53> Hasn't white kind of been their signature since the OG iPods?

When you see white earphones, people think iPhone/iPod, etc.

Thieves used to target people with white earphones because of this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> I'd be interested if the fit is better when it comes to running. I actually don't have much of a problem with AirPods now that I got some Earhoox ($10 little silicon arms that wrap into your ear, which sounds skeevy when I type it out right now but it's really changed my whole run experience). I only use them while running, though, and maybe these would be a better fit. OTOH, I don't want noise cancelling while running in the city, so might not be worth the added dough.

</comment><comment><USER55> Bummer that this requires Catalina on the Mac. I'm not ready to take that plunge, so I guess I won't be getting Airpods Pro soon either!

<comment><USER56> Similarly, it's not compatible with iPhone 6, which is what I have. Oh well. I really want these but I'm probably better off not paying $250 for something like this.

edit: wait a minute... they say the same thing for the regular AirPods, but I use them all the time.

<comment><USER57> You might find that you can't properly configure them, enable noise canceling, auto measure your ear size, or that the built-in firmware update process introduced into iOS at some point doesn't work and thus your devices run into bugs or perform less well in certain scenarios due to their out of date firmware.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Is hearing assistance in development yet? How far out is that?

I'd shell out hundreds with a smile if these could be used to offset my hearing loss.

<comment><USER59> Live Listen is the closest they have right now. Works fine on the current AirPods, then again I don't have hearing loss.

[https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203990](https://support.apple.com/en- us/HT203990)

<comment><USER58> News to me, thank you!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> The customizable fit is all I was looking for. I bought the originals but gifted them to my parents, because my ear is messed up from years of high school wrestling without wearing headgear. I know I'm an edge case, but there have been plenty of other great earbuds (wireless and traditional) that use soft flexible tips over the past decade.

<comment><USER61> The default Apple headphones that come with the iPhones never fit in my ears properly, so I've assumed traditional Airpods don't either. They should make dummy versions of the new ones so they can be tried out.

<comment><USER62> Go in to the Apple Store after release, they usually have models available for trying them out. They keep em stashed away in the drawers of those big tables, and use alcohol wipes to clean them before you try em on. I didn't know this until I recently went in to look at the Powerbeats and one of the employees asked if I wanted to try them before buying. Good thing I did, they didn't fit my ear canal comfortably.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> I had airpods and returned them because they fell out of my head, and because I couldn't use them on the subway because of all the external noise. I think these may be the thing for me — everything else about the original airpod experience was actually super nice.

</comment><comment><USER64> It's unfortunate that the batteries in these things wear out so quickly. And the battery is glued inside, making them $200+ disposable headphones.

But even so, AirPods are one of my favorite products I've bought in years.

</comment><comment><USER65> I wonder if Bluetooth multipoint pairing works between iPhone and Mac on these. If it does, noise cancellation, wireless charging and form factor of airpods these would replace QC35 as my favorite.

</comment><comment><USER66> I like this tech but unless I buy a second pair, I don't see a reasonable way to use these on long airplane flights as they only offer 4.5 hours of battery power.

<comment><USER67> Some long flights with newer planes have USB, so that would be an option.

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> Have they fixed the stuttering issue when connecting to a MacBook Pro? My current gen ones work fine with everything except the Mac.

</comment><comment><USER69> "all day comfort" \-- isn't that posing a health risk of higher-than-average bacteria growth inside the ear?

</comment><comment><USER70> 279€ in Europe. How much if I lose one or I need to replace battery? 39€ for Applecare

</comment><comment><USER71> Wow, those might actually fit in my ear, unlike every other bud Apple ever produced.

</comment><comment><USER72> The copywriting is so mediocre in its attempts to be funny or witty in every heading.

<comment><USER73> At least they've made a new competitor to the linguistic mockery that is Carls Jr.

</comment></comment><comment><USER74> So no October event, then, and likely no iPad Pro refresh in October. Bummer.

</comment><comment><USER75> Do any of these earbuds do double duty as hearing aids?

</comment><comment><USER76> I feel like this pricing is too expensive. At this $249 price point, this is now competing against a used Bose QC 35 II and Sony WH-1000XM3. I guess if you really want an earbud.

</comment><comment><USER77> any information on specifications of frequency response, impedance, sensitivity, and drivers sizing ?

</comment><comment><USER78> An amazing product for sure, but the tagline "blocking out the world" is beyond dystopia.

</comment><comment><USER79> True to form, they haven't addressed any of the criticism.

</comment><comment> kyle-rb Kudos to Apple; they made a site that manages to reliably crash Chrome on Android (if I scroll fairly fast to the bottom, right after the page becomes interactive).

</comment><comment><USER80> I don't even want to spend $250 on a new phone, tablet or computer. The world has lost it's damn mind. I have a $10 corded earphones from Amazon, great sound quality, going to 2 years. I can think of what to do with that extra $240 AFTER TAX MONEY than give it to Apple, and here folks are ready to spend it again on a new version.

<comment><USER81> Okay great. It's obvious that (MANY) people derive value from these beyond just playing sound in your ears, but it's good to hear that you're happy with your earphones as well.</comment></comment>


A repository to monitor disinformation sources - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/MassMove/AttackVectors <comment><USER2> _> Over the past few years, hundreds of websites with innocuous-sounding names like the Arizona Monitor and The Kalamazoo Times have begun popping up. At first glance, they look like regular publications, complete with community notices and coverage of schools. But look closer and you'll find that there are often no mastheads, few if any bylines, and no addresses for local offices. Many of them are organs of Republican lobbying groups; others belong to a mysterious company called Locality Labs, which is run by a conservative activist in Illinois. Readers are given no indication that these sites have political agendas—which is precisely what makes them valuable._

 _> Many if not all of the sites were registered on June 30 and updated on the same day in August, according to online domain records. The sites say they are operated by Locality Labs, a Delaware company affiliated with networks of local websites in Maryland and Illinois, according to The Lansing State Journal._

 _> But when Twitter employees later reviewed the activity surrounding Kentucky's election, they concluded that the bots were largely based in America—a sign that political operatives here were learning to mimic [foreign tactics]._</comment>


Why I'll never take a normal cab again - <AUTHOR> http://sg.posthaven.com/why-ill-never-take-a-normal-cab-again

<comment><USER2> The Uber-Process described is pretty much how taking a normal taxi works in Sweden. What backwards country is this article referring to? ;)

<comment><USER3> Seriously, it sounds like this guy doesn't understand how to take a taxi.

Call a taxi, they'll give you an ETA of when they'll arrive. At the same time, ask for a flat rate to the airport including tolls (airports are typically flat rates from most cities), and whether or not they accept your method of payment. Or, if you're hailing a taxi on the street which typically takes a minute or two in any major city, ask the driver before you get in for a rate, and see if he accepts your card.

I've taken taxis in a dozen different countries around the world, and I never remember a taxi that was particularly dirty. I took three rides with strangers last weekend, and 2 of the 3 I had to move papers, books, bags, etc off their seat before I had room to sit down. They also had papers on the floor, and the odd empty bottle rolling back and forth under the seat. I don't mind either, but on average I find taxis to be cleaner.

Sure you can rate a taxi. The first thing I do when I arrive in an untrustworthy city is checkout taxi reviews. There are always companies that will charge you 2 or 3 times the typical rate because you're not from the area, but at the same time, there are always a couple reliable businesses that people swear by, and you save their number, of watch for their taxi when waving them down on the street.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Personally:

1\. Use app to find time of next train.

2\. Walk to station.

3\. Pay reasonable-cost, fixed fare using ticket machine.

4\. Train takes me to airport.

5\. Arrive at airport with one quarter of the carbon emissions (source: [http://www.beagleybrown.com/planes-trains-or-automobiles- car...](http://www.beagleybrown.com/planes-trains-or-automobiles-carbon- emissions-compared-for-different-forms-of-transport/) ) and without having screwed up the city further with the land take required for one-person transport.

No-brainer for me, but YMMV.

<comment><USER5> That's great unless you're loaded down with baggage and traveling in rush hour.

<comment><USER4> I travel light and find the train's advantage is actually greater in rush hour (sure, you might have to stand, but you won't get fouled up by jams like the taxi would). But yes, point taken, if you've got lots of bags it's less appealing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Except Uber is livery cars, and these have been around for ages. People regularly take them to the airport. The only difference is Uber handles the booking and billing via app instead of over the phone.

NYC cabs are well regulated and work just fine, they all accept credit cards and will take the route you ask for. If I feel like paying more for a more plush ride, fine, I can use a livery but otherwise $25 to LaGuardia is a good deal.

</comment><comment><USER7> There's very little "technology-enabled disruption" needed to have a pleasant taxi experience. Perhaps a change in the culture, yes, but that's a bigger challenge.

</comment><comment><USER8> Was half expecting Joe to roll the car into a ditch the way that first story was going

</comment><comment> martin-adams I'm guessing the ride with Malcolm would cost more than with Joe?</comment>


The Tricky World of Securing Firmware - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.intel.com/evangelists/2015/02/20/tricky-world-securing-firmware/ <comment><USER2> Dear Bryan who may never read this,

As you clearly say, your job is to serve your clients, the manufacturers who do not want their BIOSes to be replaced with something else like coreboot.

You say "Intel has to consider the needs of the system manufacturer along with the end user", but the balance is obviously slanted in one direction. The reason is simple: we end users are not your customers.

As pointed out before, the trickiest issues are with Intel ME and AMT, who can not be removed except on the X200. Otherwise, the luckiest machines will reboot every 30 minutes only. The others won't boot.

You say "Making firmware more open and more secure is an interesting balancing act, and I hope we work towards getting it right". I'm sorry but you don't. Having a backdoor that the physical owner of the machine can not remove is neither secure nor open. If there was a jumper than could be used by the knowledgeable end user to override all his, yes. There is no such things, only barriers.

This is a nice PR attempt to deflect the heat towards Lenovo (for the thinkpads), but sorry, that's vacuous.

There is a moral responsibility in a given design.

At the moment, this is at best the moral equivalent of making weapons without a safety and saying it's not your fault if they can harm the end user, and that the end user should direct the complains to whoever is selling these defective guns. Sorry, but I disagree.

<comment><USER3> Maybe write that as a comment on his blog? He's quite responsive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The really interesting bit IMHO is in the comments, where Brian quite bluntly states that Intel merely provides the tools that system manufacturers (ie. Lenovo and so on) want.

So while Intel could make a principled stand here (in favor of end-users), it's ODMs/OEMs that have to work with primarily. CPUs directly bought by end- users are probably a pretty minor part of their revenue, too.

[edit to add:] Of course, I'd still prefer them to get rid of Verified Boot, and have OEMs decide between Measured Boot or no verification at all.

</comment><comment><USER4> Ability to install alternative operating system (such as Linux) extends life expectancy of hardware. That is important for ecology, lower carbon emissions...

I can easily imagine EU to pass new law, which would require "signed bootloader bypass" switch on all newly sold laptops and workstation. Great way to milk Intel, MS, Apple and other manufactures for couple of billions euro.

<comment><USER5> "Ability to install alternative operating system (such as Linux) extends life expectancy of hardware."

Why should that be true? Source?

<comment><USER6> You can use a lighter weight OS than a recent version of Windows, which will presumably require fewer resources. Or if some of the hardware goes bad (say the screen fails) but you don't care because you're just doing SSH, you can still use it.

I have a couple of decade-old laptops that are perfectly happy to run Linux, and Windows 7 won't even install on them because they don't have enough memory.

It's also conceivable that a different OS would have a lower thermal profile, resulting in longer hardware lifetime on average.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It is the usual "since those who want more control of their systems are a small minority among a small tech-savvy minority, we really can't be arsed" excuse.

Firefox has been doing it, Chrome has been doing it, damn near everyone is doing it.

<comment><USER8> It's frustrating because the same argument could be made about any freedom. It's always a small minority that needs it.

How many individuals really need the first amendment? The Saudi kids in my undergrad PoliSci classes loved to point this out. "Who needs freedom? I'll take my mercedes."

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I like the Acer Chromebook C720(P)'s solution to this.

By default, the firmware is locked, but there's a (warranty voiding if you're outside of the EU, which I don't mind) screw on the bottom of the machine, which allows you to flash your own firmware.

This solves one of the problems(upgrading firmware when vendor support runs out). One of the things that would be nice to explore is creating "flashing keys" on first boot. Maybe put them on a password-protected USB key or cloud share that can be held on to until you want to upgrade or modify firmware.

Another solution might be the ability to take out that screw, load your own key, then reinsert the screw(tripping some sort of hardware fuse to lock it to that key, maybe).

I don't like the tone of this article, it downplays the importance of hobbyists, and presents a false dichotomy: firmware which can't be modified by the owner of the device, versus firmware that can be modified by anyone, including remote attackers.

We can have our cake and eat it too, we just need to stop giving up so early.

<comment><USER10> This only secures the firmware in the bios, correct?

Is it not the case that these days, harddisks and who-knows-what-other- subsystem have their own firmware which can be upgraded and so infected, separately, right? Infected harddisk firmware being mode of attack described for the Equations Group as far as I can tell.

<comment><USER3> And even though the article refers to Equation, Boot Guard doesn't protect from that either.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm not a low-level expert and perhaps people can clear this up but this seems to only address the overall system bios. The "genius" of the Equations Group seems to be in infecting not this bios but hard disk's own, private flash- firmware [1]. If boot-guard affected this, it would be great. I mean, it seems like a machine with a compromised disk could be compromised even if the boot- image on it was pristine (or just "looked" pristine when polled at a certain point).

[1] [http://www.networkworld.com/article/2885814/security0/has- eq...](http://www.networkworld.com/article/2885814/security0/has-equation- group-hacked-your-hard-drives-you-won-t-be-able-to-tell.html)

</comment><comment><USER11> I'm not a fan of corporations "securing" my firmware by preventing me from installing my own custom version. Currenty, I use libreboot on my X60s and Macbook2,1 with GRUB in the firmware and configured to only boot kernels signed with my own personal key.</comment>


Lending Club Can Be a Better Bank Than the Banks - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-08-27/lending-club-can-be-a-better-bank-than-the-banks <comment><USER4> I've taken out two loans with Lending Club over the last 3 or 4 years. Each time I've compared the rate with my bank (Citi) and others, and each time LC has been competitively cheaper.

Citi advertises "Get a fixed rate ranging from 8.99% APR to 20.74% APR." and my rate with LC has been typically 7.86% APR (forget exact decimal place figure). The 8.99% rate with Citi assumes they give me the best rate - <USER2> guaranteed.

Its fast, friendly, and I can repay early at no penalty.

Extremely satisfied.

<comment><USER5> Ultimately, their sustainability will depend on the cost at which they can raise funds. Banks can raise funds cheaply through deposits (and many other sources like wholesale funding which may be at a higher cost), which they lend out at slightly higher interest rates than they pay their depositors. Given that LC is not a depository institution, the only way I see them providing lower interest rates is they have figured out a cheaper source of funding - <USER3> burning investor money to do this which is not sustainable and the big banks will defeat them eventually. The moment you start taking deposits, you will be regulated like any other institution and they need to compete with other banks on the same terms. Another aspect is that banks are in the business of risk management, so it is probable that LC has figured out a better way to manage their risks than existing institutions - again, this is something where existing institutions have enough resources to catch up easily.

<comment><USER6> > Given that LC is not a depository institution, the only way I see them > providing lower interest rates is they have figured out a cheaper source of > funding - or burning investor money to do this which is not sustainable and > the big banks will defeat them eventually.

LC is peer to peer lending. I have $47k invested in LC notes. They save money by having fewer brick & mortar offices and mainly relying on credit score to assess borrowers.

<comment><USER7> If they mainly rely on credit scores, how will they remain competitive with lenders that have more information about the borrower, or has the resources to develop a business relationship with the borrower? Everybody else has access to credit scores too, you know.

<comment><USER8> it might be that credit scores are cheap enough (or rather, finding more information is expensive enough) that they're the local maximum in terms of possible profit from the transaction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > But all of the things that make banks scary don't apply. A run on Lending > Club is not possible; nobody can pull their money out of notes or > certificates. And if a lot of loans go bad, that will hurt the investors in > those notes, but Lending Club as an entity won't be insolvent or even have > any losses at all.

This is true, but one should recognize that for Lending Club to sustain itself over time, it must be able to acquire borrowers and sell notes. There are a number of events that could put a dent in both supply and demand.

On the demand side, if and when there is a recession, defaults will almost certainly rise and it's likely fewer investors (retail and institutional) will be eager to take on new credit risk. If and when interest rates rise, funding these loans may become a lot less appealing. One must also assume that at least some borrowers, particularly those who are heavily indebted, are themselves vulnerable to interest rate increases, so I wouldn't be surprised to see rising rates negatively affect the repayment performance of certain types of portfolios.

> There's another point that's a flip side of this one, which is: Equity- > funded banks are great at lending. Lending Club is perfectly able to make > loans, and apparently at cheaper rates than banks.

Lending Club is perfectly able to make loans, and apparently at cheaper rates than banks, because yield-chasing investors are currently willing to misprice risk. What happens when the music stops?

<comment><USER10> > Lending Club is perfectly able to make loans, and apparently at cheaper > rates than banks, because yield-chasing investors are currently willing to > misprice risk. What happens when the music stops?

Very much this— I've been a lending club 'lender' for a number of years now, and for the last 9 months or so have had a very hard time obtaining practically any notes.

People are hyper eagerly funding notes which my models suggest have very poor risk adjusted performance. (And, if anything, I'm concerned that my models are too conservative— since they're based on historic LC data and lending club has been reaching out to less and less credit worthy lendees).

As a result I'm slowly reducing my amount in lending club as notes return funds and I'm unable to invest it effectively. It was neat in the beginning, but it's a pain to report taxes on, and the decreasing risk adjusted returns make it much less attractive than it used to be.

<comment><USER6> > It was neat in the beginning, but it's a pain to report taxes on, and the > decreasing risk adjusted returns make it much less attractive than it used > to be.

The taxes are the biggest issue right now I think. There's no faculty in US tax code for reporting earnings on this kind of investment. If I heard right, I think some people lost _all_ of their returns in 2012 due to written-off notes? I believe all of my returns (over the past four years) were taxed at my normal income rate. People have just been guessing at how to report their earnings in TurboTax. Haven't heard of any audits thus far...

Also, as far as risk-adjusted returns go, it still beats equities, right?

<comment><USER9> > There's no faculty in US tax code for reporting earnings on this kind of > investment.

That's not true.

> Also, as far as risk-adjusted returns go, it still beats equities, right?

The S&P 500 was around 1,140 at the beginning of January 2010. It's now above 2,000.

If you had bought SPY in January 2010, you'd be sitting on a gain of around 75% not including dividends. SPY is highly liquid (more than 80 million shares trade hands on any given day) and optionable, so you can exit your position quickly if necessary and easily hedge your position if desired.

Needless to say, comparing the S&P 500 to a pure debt instrument is like comparing apples to oranges, but if your goal is to maximize risk-adjusted returns, you have to compare asset classes.

Obviously, this isn't 2010. The market today is a lot harder to navigate. On the whole, equities look expensive and with a shift in interest rate policy almost certainly coming, the debt markets are tricky. As Sam Zell recently said, "This is the first time I ever remember where having cash isn't such a terrible thing."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Lending Club will not have trouble raising capital or finding borrowers because it is a lower-cost operation than banks. As such, it can reduce the spread between the yield 'investors' earn and interest rates borrowers pay, making it more attractive to both. The growth of their total loan activity bears that out: 5 Billion in total loans over the last 5 years. 1 Billion of that in the last quarter.

The key to their business is in their ability to accurately forecast the default rate of borrowers. The more they can predict the performance of the loans, the more 'fixed' the income seems to investors and the more attractive it is. They do predict default rates for loans and inform investors what those rates are for each loan. Over time, I'd expect their statisticians and big- data analysts will be able to refine the models to be highly accurate.

I've been experimenting with LC as an investor for about a year and a half. So far, my loans are performing about 1% better than Lending Club forecast they would. I attribute that to an improving economy.

<comment><USER12> > about 1% better than Lending Club forecast they would. I attribute that to > an improving economy.

Probably just statistical variation.

<comment><USER11> It was over 120 loans. All at 17.25% with a forecast 4.95% default rate. 0.5% fees. Actual return after 18 months is 13.85% with 5 defaults.

<comment><USER12> Maybe not, I don't feel like modelling the math right now to see if it could be statistical variation.

(I don't understand your numbers though. Forecast return was higher than actual?)

<comment><USER13> Presumably because there were 5 defaults when 5.94 were predicted. On the other hand, if any of those 120 loans are still outstanding, then they could still default later.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Banks started off as lending clubs.

I ditched BofA, signed up with a credit union, and enjoyed fantastic service since. If you don't want to risk these guys in case they get screwed over by regulators, talk to your local CU!

</comment><comment><USER15> > Lending Club is not a bank. So it's not subject to banking regulation, which > means that it can do a core function of banking much more efficiently than > an actual bank can.

Are the various banking regulatory agencies in agreement with that? (FDIC, Federal Reserve, Comptroller of the Currency, Thrift Supervision, as well as the various and sundry states)

<comment><USER16> Well, LC doesn't do deposits, so it is not doing partial reserve banking. I suppose there could be extra regulation attached to what they do, but I don't think it is much different than a message board that connects buyers and lenders at its core.

<comment><USER17> While LC is not a bank -- and not subject to banking regulations -- its not at all a "message board that connects buyers to lenders". While it initially was something like that (and still has some superficial resemblance to it), lending is a tightly regulated industry, and there'd be a very narrow market if it it tried to _actually_ be that, rather than being the lender itself and selling notes tied to its loans (essentially, a key part of the service LC is providing is dealing with the regulatory compliance with regard to lending.) This is the same model as is used by other superficially "peer-to-peer" lending services (e.g., Prosper.com)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Can you invest in Lending Club if you don't live in the US? It doesn't mention anything in the terms of use but they ask what state you live in when you sign up. Can I just put a friend's state or something?

<comment><USER17> > Can you invest in Lending Club if you don't live in the US?

No. And not if you live in certain parts of the US, either. And, in the states where it is available, there are additional restrictions.

[http://blog.lendingclub.com/is-lending-club-available-in- my-...](http://blog.lendingclub.com/is-lending-club-available-in-my-state/)

[http://kb.lendingclub.com/investor/articles/Investor/What- ar...](http://kb.lendingclub.com/investor/articles/Investor/What-are-the- current-State-and-Financial-Suitability- conditions/?l=en_US&c=Investor%3AEligibility&fs=Search&pn=1)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I really liked the observation that in exchange for your deposit (investment in a note) not being liquid (secondary market notwithstanding), Lending Club is able to match the maturity of their assets and liabilities, thus eliminating this portion of risk from themselves. Theoretically, this could be one of the causes for the lower rates borrowers can obtain and the higher returns that investors get. (Obviously a portion of the higher returns come from the lack of liquidity offered by the notes)

</comment><comment><USER19> I always wondered why big banks didn't get into the business that Lending Club started. I figured that it was due to inefficiencies in the consumer credit model that made it such that "high risk" borrowers were ineligible for secured loans and that LC found a better way to accurately measure that risk. Who knew it came down to accounting?

<comment><USER17> > I always wondered why big banks didn't get into the business that Lending > Club started.

LC didn't start it, it followed a number of other generally similar "peer-to- peer" lending services (Prosper.com is the first US one I'm aware of -- about two years before LC -- and ISTR there was at least one UK one about the same time as Prosper).

And banks don't get into it because it would involve risking the resources on a new business whose _success_ outcome would be driving customers to account choices where the bank keeps less of the income from lending.

If the quasi-peer-to-peer-model becomes popular, banks will grudgingly get into it because then the choice will be between giving up _all_ of the money to competitors rather than giving _some_ of it up to investors in quasi-P2P loans, but they'd rather not stamp their imprimatur on the model while it still might fail to become a significant factor in how people invest and seek loans.

<comment><USER20> Zopa was the UK one. It launched before Prosper and is a really interesting case study for why you should launch first in the US and not your random smaller home market. As a result they were late to launch in the US and as a consequence lost the larger market, which is why lending club is IPOing first. One major reason they had to withdraw from the US was because they had an existing (working) operation in the UK they couldn't take regulatory risk: the other US operations launched with an illegal model and later got shut down while they restructured, Zopa tried to launch a legal, but less attractive to users, model and failed to gain traction as a result. Really interesting startup case study!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Interesting - so Lending Club does not actually work like BTCJam. I did not know that.

<comment><USER22> Use BTCJam and Lending Club. LC is amazing and I am happy with my returns. BTC seems like a scam as the reputation of borrowers means very little in their willingness to repay. I've seen many people build their reputation in order to borrow more and then bounce.

<comment><USER23> snapclass - although this happened a lot in the past, we are now curating the platform much more and also our repayment rates are in the 85% area. If you diversify well and go for A/B rated borrowers you can definitely make very positive returns.

We are now doing around USD 1M per month, are growing the number of borrowers rapidly - which allows for more diversification and better returns (on average)

<comment><USER21> Hi flavio87 big fan of BTCJam here - have to agree, you guys are doing a much better job on filtering out people - the idea of having borrowers pose with their passport was great. 85% seems to fit my own observations so far, maybe close to 90% depending on your level of scrutiny. Keep up the great work!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> In India we call it chit fund.</comment>


Ask HN: JavaScript code explainer? - <AUTHOR> Is there a website I can paste in a bunch of JS code and it'll go over in detail of what the code does exactly?  for example
function factorial(n) {
     var digit = 1;
     while(n > 1) {
        digit *= n;
        n--;
     }
     return digit; }
this is basic but some codes get pretty complex and want a tool to help make sense of code. <comment><USER2> Learn how to use the browser's debugger, how to plant breakpoints, how to step through the code, and how to read the scope.

[https://developer.chrome.com/devtools/docs/javascript- debugg...](https://developer.chrome.com/devtools/docs/javascript-debugging)

For snippets like above, you don't even need a web page. In place of a page and breakpoint approach, you can put a `debugger;` statement at the start of the function. Open a browser, F12, paste the code in the console, call the function, pretty-print the code _then_ step through it.

</comment><comment><USER3> Don't think so. Explaining code in a way that is useful is extremely hard to automate (read: "many have tried, nothing really works")</comment>


Poor man's profiler - <AUTHOR> http://poormansprofiler.org/

<comment><USER2> Summary: Run gdb on your program, hit control-c and run 'thread apply all bt' a few times, to understand where your program is spending time.

I've actually used this a lot in the past, it's surprisingly useful!

</comment><comment><USER3> If you can run your app on Linux, it'll probably run with little trouble on OpenSolaris or FreeBSD (even if it's just a VM). For profiling, dtrace is definitely worth the effort.</comment>


New Car Pricing Data From Offers On CarWoo - <AUTHOR> https://carwoo.com/new-car-prices

<comment><USER2> Is there anything close to CarWoo for the used car market?

I recently purchased a three year old car, and when researching how car dealerships work, it seems like the pricing for used cars is substantially different than new cars, making used cars much harder to make sense of.

With new cars, you're dealing numbers that aren't impossible to come buy -- MSRP, dealer invoice, holdback, buyer incentives, and dealer incentives. With very few assumptions, it seems like you can figure out approximately how much money a dealer stands to make off your purchase (not including upsells or finance incentives) and you can figure out their bottom line, which improves your bargaining power.

With used cars, from what I've gathered, dealers are buying these things from off-lease auctions and then use some sort of networked system that changes used-car pricing in real-time. But the pricing is still all over the place from dealer to dealer and the amount of money paid by the dealer at auction is completely unknown.

When I negotiated my car, I did a simple search of the +/\- 1 year, make and model in a 100 mile radius of real ASKING prices (not pricing guides like Edmunds or Blue Book, who, by the way, the dealer was VERY quick to start quoting because they're quoting prices in the dealer's favor). The spread was nearly $10,000 and even isolating mileage to a smaller range produced a spread of several thousand dollars.

I wanted to test out negotiating techniques when I actually went in to buy, so the first day, I negotiated through several rounds, finally landing on my bottom-line price and it was soundly rejected without the "sales manager" even bothering to meet me. During negotiations, I presented no data to back up my price, but was claiming to have done the research.

I went in the next day and I brought in actual print outs from other dealers, took a lower-end price, marked it up a bit, told them that it was a reasonable price and from my estimates they'd still be making reasonable money off of it. If that deal wasn't accepted, I had alternative dealers to work with and would also consider other brands (this tactic, I thought, was good because the brand wants to rope in younger buyers to try and turn them into lifelong customers). They accepted it without any substantial pushback and it was less than the price they had refused to accept the previous day.

<comment><USER3> It's a difficult problem to solve: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons)

<comment><USER2> Thanks for the link. I think with the substantial increased popularity of leased vehicles since the article, the idea that used cars are mostly bad cars isn't as on-point as it may have been. Most "newer" used cars, which most financial people tell you are the best deals, are cars that have come off of original leases, not vehicles that were fully purchased and traded back in.

Cars are also higher quality and many dealers offer certified pre-owned warranties that would cover most issues for some time.

But overall, the idea of information asymmetries in the used car market is dead on. There is some data like Black Book pricing, but since the costs are derived from auction prices, which I have to assume are done in the open, even with restricted access, I'm still surprised there isn't some better cost data published like with new cars.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Founder/CEO here. This data is from hundreds of thousands of offers made by dealers on CarWoo! This is likely one of the purest sources of new car pricing anywhere. Would love to answer any questions.

<comment><USER4> Can you tell me what sort of larger car/suv has the best ride comfort-to-mpg bang for the buck under 35k that can also fit a 200lb Newfoundland?

If only car sites alllowed for this sort of discovery process!

<comment><USER5> I had a 170lb St. Bernard at one point and she sort fit into a subaru outback. This was a while ago.

Fitting a 200lb dog is a matter of perspective too. What do you mean by fitting? I have a 100lb dog right now and he fits into my crv just fine, but he fits into our Odyssey a lot better. He can lie completely spread out, doesn't have to curl up, etc.

Sites that have tried to do things like this in the past have been very cumbersome and ultimately unuseful.

You need to decide if you dog can fit into a compact SUV or if you need a medium sized SUV/crossover. There is a big difference in size/mpg/and cost between those two categories of vehicle.

If you want a compact SUV look at ford edge/subaru forester or outback/mazda CX-5/toyota rav4/honda CRV or subaru tribecca on the compact, but larger size. The CRV will have your best real world mpgs there, but gives up a lot in power.

If you get into larger crossover/SUVs you should look at the honda Pilot/toyota highlander-4runner/subaru tribeca/mazda cx-9/ford explorer or flex (if you don't care about off road at all).

The problem is they all have their good and bad things and some of the stylings are way off. Also, reported mpgs and real life mpgs are sometimes very different. The best thing to do is to troll user forums for these vehicles and learn as much as you can. Good luck!

<comment><USER6> Here are user-collected mpg reports: [https://www.fuelly.com/](https://www.fuelly.com/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I recently used Car Woo as part of my car buying process. I wouldn't rely upon these numbers or those from TrueCar, Edmunds, etc. I have been using my bank's car buying service, TrueCar, and direct emailing of dealers. New Car pricing is highly variable on the dealer, dealer's stock, sales, per-dealer deals from, hold back, quota-bonuses, per salesman specific bonuses etc.

It is important to remember that a middleman service operates either on a flat fee or a commission. This is money the dealer cannot use to negotiate down with you. I do not know CarWoo's sales structure, but TrueCar makes 300-400[1][2] per sale. So if this is data based on CarWoo deals it will not reflect the best deals, because the cars all had to include this price. Now, that said most people are not prepared or comfortable buying a car or negotiating. Given that you get some degree of anonymity and can haggle back and forth online is nice and you are paying for the convenience. Many people will likely save more money than if they tried to do it on their own.

This is an application of the wisdom of crowds to determine a market price. It is a good indication of what the market is willing to pay, but not the best deal you can get. Savings as a representation of MSRP are misleading; think about how many things you buy off the shelf and the price is usually much less than MSRP for any number of per-store pricing or sales, coupons, etc. Car buying is no different.

In the case of the model I am looking for, the CarWoo price is close to the two offers I got on CarWoo, but the offers I got directly or through my bank are much lower( Best Direct quote I received was through my Bank's no haggle direct car buying service, which is about 7% lower than the CarWoo average).

Mean averages on their own are not very helpful in evaluating offers, perhaps if we saw a distribution or standard deviation? Prices over time (later in the model year should higher prices be used in the average, are they still relevant or should they at least be weighted?) would also be good for the car buyer.

I also have a hard time believing CarWoo would publish this information if it were not in the best interest of their customers (the dealers, car buyers are the product). Therefore, I would be lead to believe that this data only serves to keep buyers from trying to negotiate lower rates based on the average. Then again, maybe a tech startup has not yet considered this and just thought it would be cool to share data and be transparent.

It's a cool service and it's probably a good fit for many people. You could also just create a new email address and use a google voice number for privacy reasons. At any rate, I would advise you to do your research and try every tactic and service you can to optimize your wallet spent and time spend.

[1] [http://www.dealerelite.net/profiles/blogs/true-car-and- zag-c...](http://www.dealerelite.net/profiles/blogs/true-car-and-zag-cyber- bandits-or-good-for-the-car-business) [2] [http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/12/truecar-versus- hond...](http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/12/truecar-versus-honda-online- car-buying-challenges-hit-home/)

</comment><comment><USER8> Not trying to be negative but this data compares MSRP to carwoo price, but no one buys at MSRP anyway.

The data that would have been valuable in showing the value of carwoo is how its price compares to what non carwoo buyers who negotiate on their own pay, or even the no-haggle fleet pricing which is available via AAA, Costco and others.

<comment><AUTHOR> Great idea.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> How is it different from eBay Motors? Most of the cars have free carfax, they have cheaper pricing to get the car history and I am covered by eBay buyer protection [1].

eBay Motors: [http://www.ebay.com/itm/Honda-Accord-EX-2008-honda-accord- ex...](http://www.ebay.com/itm/Honda-Accord-EX-2008-honda-accord-ex-sedan- only-32-k-mi-automatic-6-cd-roof-tint-/251359750167)

Carwoo: [http://carwoo.com/new-car-prices/T85363842-2014-mazda- mx-5-m...](http://carwoo.com/new-car-prices/T85363842-2014-mazda- mx-5-miata-2-door-convertible-manual-grand-touring)

[1]: [http://pages.ebay.com/motors/buy/purchase- protection/index.h...](http://pages.ebay.com/motors/buy/purchase- protection/index.html)

<comment><USER10> CarWoo is for new cars.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Nice - I tried it out and love the idea.

Looks like the "I prefer to be contacted through email" selection is broken...

Or

NYC area car dealers are extremely pushy and brazenly ignore said request...

;)

</comment><comment><USER4> Site layout is clean and effective. The "Most Discounted X" takes into account the largest retail to selling price differential but displays the percentage instead of the price.

This caused an immediate disconnect when I looked up the price of the Ford Explorer. The discount percentage averages out to 10.4% but the Infiniti is instead shown on the front page at with a 7.1% discount.

Also, I would add a "by Discount %" sort to the table, since that is a sexy driving factor in how I process the page information.

Hope this helps!

<comment><AUTHOR> Sure does. Thanks for the feedback!

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Tried Car Woo for the first time a few weeks ago when we were ready to buy a new car and was quite disappointed. I thought it'd be a revolutionary way to not deal with scummy dealerships and I ended up getting 1 shitty offer (total).

That was it. No communication from CarWoo, no tips on how to get more offers. Just a scummy offer from yet another typical car sales guy.

Having now gone through the new car buying process, I can confidently say that it is "ripe for disruption" and somebody needs to level the playing field.

</comment><comment><USER13> If it says no CarWoo dealers in my area, do I get any benefit out of going through the CarWoo dealer contact interface? Or am I essentially just going through the service to give local dealers the ability to call me whenever they want?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Also, if anyone is interested we have an API into this data set. AOL Autos uses it here [http://autos.aol.com/best-deal](http://autos.aol.com/best-deal)</comment>


Google 3Q Profit Soars 46 Percent - <AUTHOR> http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/071018/earns_google.html

<comment><USER2> Profit measured in dollars, with revenue coming in across the world means part of this isn't real growth.

<comment><USER3> The profit is up 46% year over year... The Euro has risen about 18% against the dollar in the same period. Even assuming that ALL of their business was in Euros (which it isn't by far), this still represents pretty darn good growth for a company that already had the market cornered.

<comment><USER4> Profit is more heavily leveraged than revenue.

Let's do a hypothetical example. Assume that you've got a company that does $100M in revenue, 30% of which comes from Europe (so $70M from US, $30M from Europe). They spend $90M to get that revenue, all in USD, for margins of 10% and earnings of $10M.

Now say that the Euro appreciates 20% against the dollar. That $30M in Euros becomes worth $36M. Total revenue goes up to $106M, but expenses stay constant at $90M. Profit is up to $16M, a 60% increase. However, the operation of the business hasn't changed at all - it's _all_ due to currency fluctuations.

<comment><USER5> But revenues are up 57% year-over-year. So if forex played a part, it had to be negative -- if they have disproportionate oversease expenditures compared to revenues, that would make sense. Otherwise, blaming the dollar doesn't help.

<comment><USER3> Well I'm sure that forex had a slight positive effect. My point was that it wasn't the _only_ cause of the increased profits. The fact that revenues are up 57% and profit is only up 46% _with the slight forex leverage_ probably signals that they are getting big enough that their margins are falling off. I would guess that is why it is only up 1.2% (as of close of market) on such a huge increase. The other reason probably has to do with the generally bad day on the market today.

Of course, seeing it around $650 makes me wish I hadn't sold all mine at $425. ;)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Elon Musk: Vegetarians only on Mars colony - <AUTHOR> http://sustainablebusinessoregon.com/national/2013/01/elon-musk-vegetarians-only-on-mars.html <comment><USER2> This is pretty much a given. Livestock takes exponentially more energy to raise than it takes to harvest a comparable amount of plant produce. Goats eat a lot, and they chew on everything.

Mushrooms are a good choice as a staple food for a Martian colony because they can grow entirely on agricultural byproducts, with no need for any of the sure-to-be precious solar energy. You can really just put them in a dark closet with some corn husks and let them do their thing.

<comment><USER3> Energy isn't the only consideration, you also have to think about nutrients. Animal proteins have all the amino acids we need, but the same can't be said of any plant. Essential nutrients like Iron, Calcium and Zinc are also difficult to come by for vegetarians. Vitamin B12 can't even be found naturally in non-meat foods, and it's necessary for our bodies to create red blood cells.

Getting the energey _and_ nutrients _and_ having a variety of foods to choose from (so you're not eating the same thing every meal of every day) is not an easy task for vegetarians. Hopefully we'll have supplements that can compensate for that in 15 years, but it's not exactly something you can rely on when planning something of this scale.

<comment><USER4> You can combine different vegetable sources to obtain all aminoacids needed (or maybe have a transgenic methionine producing soy plant

Iron, Calcium and Zinc are easy to obtain. Vitamin B12 is harder, people would need supplements.

<comment><USER5> When the supplements run out would they need to get a new shipment from earth?

<comment><USER6> I can't imagine it would be that difficult (relatively speaking) for the colony to synthesize B12 from bacteria or fermentation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This will make a great basis for an SF story -- most likely a comedy. The kinds of people who can front $500k for an exercise like this will generally be quite rich. If it's a one-way trip (or even if they're seriously contemplating immigration) rich people will want to liquidate assets and turn them into some kind of competitive advantage on Mars, but there's this really expensive cargo pipe (presumably with a waiting list), so I can see the 50 year old single software engineer with Aspberger's sitting on $750k in investments buying a ticket (and selling $500k of stocks to do so) and then discovering that some maverick billionaire wants to buy his ticket for $5M so he can bring over a suitcase of paté de foie gras and single malt Scotch, an antique stock ticker, and a catamite.

Here's a funnier idea -- offer shipment to Mars as an alternative to the appeals process for death penalty cases. It would save us money, and make for an awesome Nicholas Cage vehicle. This is how you establish a colony, dammit!

<comment><USER8> > Here's a funnier idea -- offer shipment to Mars as an alternative to the > appeals process for death penalty cases. It would save us money, and make > for an awesome Nicholas Cage vehicle. This is how you establish a colony, > dammit!

Well, it worked for Australia.

<comment><USER7> Exactly!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "... plans to send just a small group of people who would build a transparent dome that could be pressurized so that they could _farm on Martian soil_ . . ."

 _What?_ Can you _do_ that?

<comment><USER10> I highly recommend Robert Zubrin's "The Case for Mars" - you'll be surprised what else is possible on Mars with current technology:

[http://www.amazon.com/The-Case-Mars-Settle- Planet/dp/1451608...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Case-Mars-Settle- Planet/dp/145160811X)

<comment><USER11> Also, TA Heppenheimer's _Colonies in Space_ has a dandy compilation chapter on research on agriculture in enclosed environments. ("Up on the farm")

[http://www.nss.org/settlement/ColoniesInSpace/colonies_chap0...](http://www.nss.org/settlement/ColoniesInSpace/colonies_chap09.html)

Most of what's talked about in that chapter will also be possible on Mars.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I found a more interesting tidbits:

Quoted: A ticket to the colony would cost $500,000—with a goal of raising $40 billion—and visitors would be sent into space on a rocket powered by liquid oxygen and methane.

       "The ticket price needs to be low enough that most people in advanced countries, in their mid-forties or something like that, could put together enough money to make the trip,"

Given that median wealth per family when head of household is 45-54 is ~160k this is a peculiar definition of the word 'most'.

<comment><USER13> It depends, if you're going one way and staying there you're basically selling up and going. If you're fortunate you'll probably cover it mostly from savings, plus pension pots, house sale, possessions sale and so on. Like I said, if you're fortunate. Possibly if you don't want your children to have an inheritance or don't have any.

<comment><USER11> Such children will likely become the elite of a new world. (Which is why one should build a radiation shielded underground house there.)

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5037804>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Is it possible to create farms without bugs? And if there's bugs do we need rodents to keep them in check? And with rodents running around do we need prey animals to thin the numbers, and would those prey animals be delicious to eat?

<comment><USER15> Is this a serious question? The answer is hydroponics.

<comment><USER5> Bugs would be for pollination, not plant nutrition. Some plants are self- pollinating, others not.

Labor-intensive manual pollination is certainly possible, though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I doubt Musk would use his space colony as a means of enforcing his personal moral code, but I also suspect the diversity of plants required for a healthy vegetarian diet may be just as difficult to maintain on mars as livestock, so it would be very interesting to hear the full story.

In any case, there's no explanation of his motivation, and the statement is false according to this article that links to a (now deleted) tweet from Musk: [http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/01/10/good-news-elon- musk...](http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/01/10/good-news-elon-musk-will- let-you-eat-meat-on-mars/)

<comment><USER16> I'm certain it's not an ideological goal, though perhaps it's being spun as one. Livestock simply might not be the most efficient way to produce food at least initially on a Mars colony.

Given an opportunity to live on Mars, I can't imagine any interested person who would have to think twice about becoming a vegetarian to do so, even if only out of necessity.

I'm no vegetarian, but it's pretty clear that it might be more efficient than raising livestock, or at least has the potential to be.

<comment><USER17> But there is more then just using them for food. Pigs for eaxmple can be used as a sort of biological recycling factory. In addition they produce _usable_ waste from _unusable_ waste. So your actually incurring a cost in not bringing them along that you will need some technology to replace. Then at the end you need to find a way to maintain or repair your technology while you could just mate the pigs and eat their parents. Additionally Bacon.

<comment><USER11> _> Pigs for eaxmple can be used as a sort of biological recycling factory. In addition they produce _usable_ waste from _unusable_ waste._

Given some bacteria, fungi, and earthworms, there is little that composting couldn't also recycle.

Farms are basically solar collectors. Unless you have lots of excess capacity, it only makes sense to support livestock on kitchen waste. Studies were done on this in the 70's. It turns out that chickens laying eggs are more efficient than pigs for this purpose.

<comment><USER17> This is true, but its a matter of

1\. Speed 2\. By products

Chickens might be better then pigs, but the point is those little biological machines are really good at what they do and they are are easier to take care of/maintain then some machine to serve the same purpose.

<comment><USER11> Speed is not so much an issue if you're trying to stay long term. If you can find it, look up T. A. Heppenheimer's _Colonies in Space_. The "Up on the Farm" chapter was fun to read, and it has a pretty extensive set of references.

Farmed Tilapia might also be an option, though I'm not clear on how flexible their diet is.

<comment><USER18> I'd be more concerned about how flexible their habitat is. Mars doesn't exactly have a whole lot of water.

<comment><USER11> Actually, in the context of the solar system, Mars is pretty water rich.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_Mars#Polar_ice_caps>

By Earth standards, it's drier than the Gobi desert, but for the purposes of colonization, there's plenty there to work with. The polar ice caps alone could cover the whole planet in an average depth of 16 meters of water. Also, there's the asteroids for when the population grows to a considerable size.

<comment><USER18> Absolutely. But in the more temperate regions there's not quite so much water, and shipping it in from the ice caps would be expensive.

For the first colonists, I'm guessing they'd want to make do with as little water as they could get away with - meaning there wouldn't be any raising of fish unless they couldn't get away with not raising fish.

<comment><USER11> _> in the more temperate regions there's not quite so much water, and shipping it in from the ice caps would be expensive._

I'd see if I could use the atmosphere as a shipment mechanism.

 _> For the first colonists, I'm guessing they'd want to make do with as little water as they could get away with - meaning there wouldn't be any raising of fish unless they couldn't get away with not raising fish._

Farmed Tilapia ponds could serve as a reservoir of water/hydrogen. For a population in the 10's of thousands, it would seem to be a reasonable addition. For the first hundred, not so much.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> He twittered: 'Recent articles in the press have said that I think Mars is for veggies only. Not so! Am in favor of freedom of diet.' But now he seems to have deleted that tweet: strange. (<https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/289281074188668928>).

<comment><USER20> People are going to misinterpret that to shit in order to cater to their own beliefs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I wonder if that also excludes in vitro meat? <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat>

<comment><USER22> I was wondering this as well. Though I've also wondered about the nutritional contents of test-tube meat.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I imagine this is to reduce the complexity of the mission. It would be hard enough to support a colony of humans along with a colony of chickens, roosters, goats, pigs and cows would complicate the situation. Farming animals does have some sustainability concerns and from an ideological standpoint he may want to be as close to methane and carbon neutral as possible.

<comment><USER24> There is a significant difference between "being vegetarian" and accepting that you'll have to live on a vegetarian diet due to practical logistical reasons. If I was going, I'd have no problem accepting that there obviously won't be any raising of livestock on Mars, but my last meal on earth would still be a steak.

<comment><USER23> Couldn't agree more. It's Mars I'll take the bad with the unbelievably cool.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> And the Mars Colony has its first political issue.

</comment><comment><USER26> Probably more like vegans.

</comment><comment><USER13> One view point: it's a waste of space and fuel to launch livestock with humans to a colony in the early days. Seeds and enough reserves to keep going would take up much less space.

Another view point: livestock isn't just useful for food, cultures and civilisations have been turning livestock into food, clothing, tools and other resources for centuries. It could be useful.

I know some people find it abhorrent we exploit animals as resources (not me personally), but Musk seems like a pragmatist. If it makes sense to send a bunch of meat loving carnivores to Mars with a ship hold full of livestock then that'll be the option.

On the upside, if they're using a liquid oxygen/methane rich mixture for the fuel they'd have a natural source of methane by having livestock.

<comment><USER18> I suspect it's not about transportation costs so much as ecology. The amount of biomass available to animals at the top of the food pyramid is inversely proportional to the height of the pyramid. Energy and nutrients would be an extremely precious resource in a Mars colony that has to do all its farming under domes. Far too precious to waste on cattle.

It's true that human cultures have historically relied on animals to convert inedible biomass into edible biomass, or to produce other materials. But those cultures didn't have all sorts of modern technologies such as hydroponics, engineered microbes, or chemical labs. And unlike the area where human cultures first developed, Mars isn't exactly known for its large quantities of available pasture land just sitting around waiting for grazing.

<comment><USER11> _> I suspect it's not about transportation costs so much as ecology. The amount of biomass available to animals at the top of the food pyramid is inversely proportional to the height of the pyramid._

Right on. The thing to remember here, is that, as Feynmann says, _plants make themselves out of air_! < <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1pIYI5JQLE> > (If you doubt, go back to your basic biology education and remember the formula for photosynthesis.)

So a Mars colony's farms are basically chemical solar collectors doing two things: 1) providing chemical energy to the colonists (food) and 2) Converting Martian CO2 and water into biomass. If you introduce too many warm blooded animals into the system, a lot of your energy input gets wasted as livestock body heat.

tldr - By going vegetarian at first, the Mars colony accumulates usable biomass faster.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> tldr - By going vegetarian at first, the Mars colony accumulates usable biomass faster.

(Also, the "Up on the Farm" chapter of this book is a good background read for this discussion: [http://www.nss.org/settlement/ColoniesInSpace/colonies_chap0...](http://www.nss.org/settlement/ColoniesInSpace/colonies_chap09.html) )

The thing to remember here, is that, as Feynmann says, plants make themselves out of air! < <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1pIYI5JQLE> > Go back to your basic biology education and remember the formula for photosynthesis. < <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis> >

So a Mars colony's farms are basically chemical solar collectors doing two things: 1) providing chemical energy to the colonists (food) and 2) Converting Martian CO2 and water into biomass. If you introduce too many warm blooded animals into the system, a lot of your energy input gets wasted as livestock body heat. So by going vegetarian at first, the Mars colony accumulates usable biomass faster. The faster you accumulate biomass, the faster you can make more biomass.

This is also the principle behind the tactic of mostly making construction vehicles at first in Starcraft, or concentrating early on customer acquisition in a startup.

</comment><comment><USER27> One reason for a vegetarian diet on Mars is solar efficiency: the sun is only 44% as strong, which makes raising meat less practical. Meat takes a _lot_ of energy,

Another reason is the higher ambient radiation levels on Mars, which plants are more resilient to than animals. Animals would likely have a higher cancer rate than here on Earth, and who wants to eat a cancerous steak? Not appetizing.

</comment><comment><USER24> I wonder what his reasoning for such a requirement is. Does he think that a non-vegetarian won't be able to adapt to the meat-free diet a Mars colony will probably require without several years of 'practice' or is it some bizarre ideological stance? The whole thing sounds strange to me, but since I can't find the original quote or transcript, maybe he said something different.

<comment><USER28> If you have a meat-free diet you are vegetarian, so he probably meant that meat won't be availible on Mars for the settlers for quite some time and that everyone who goes have to expect a vegetarian diet.

<comment><USER29> Requiring people to not eat meat (or at least eat very little meat) makes sense. Requiring them to do so for a couple of years before takeoff to prepare (and make sure they're happy with that diet) makes sense too. But recruiting only people who are already vegetarians seems counterproductive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Show HN: My Martian City. I'm starting a business to bring people to Mars for half the price of Mr. Musk's. Reserve your tickets now. We go in about 15 years. The savings come from not having to grow our own food and not having to build a pressurized dome. Our city will be underground! It will be called Morlock and the citizens will be ...

</comment><comment><USER17> Immediately I think this is silly. While There is an argument to be made for health benefits or moral upidityness of being a Vegetarian, it is stupid to rule out the benefits a fully working ecosystem gives you in terms of resource availability and renewability. Animals are good for more then just eating !

<comment><USER31> You need (rule-of-thumb) 10* as much energy (solar/light input) or 10* the amount of land for a none-vegetarian diet. In an early off-world colony, that might be prohibitively expensive.

<comment><USER17> This is not just about providing food. Thats my whole point. You may be able to provide sustance with less ground/light, but what about keeping the soil fertle ? How about dealing with plant waste ? What do you do with table scraps ? What do you do with human waste ?

You could say we will ship out machines and supplies to take care of all the _other_ stuff that you need to live. It is true you can have other methods to deal with some of the additional requirements of life, but animals are really good at fulfilling some roles. Additionally they are tasty.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> In other words, meat will become an ultra-luxury food stuff -- with people paying some delta for illegal raised local meat vs. frozen meat flown in from Earth.

Local cultural fads would probably determine if stringy local small mammal meat or freezer burned brisket would go for more.

</comment><comment><USER33> Be interesting to do some research on the food people eat and what happens.

The only thing I'd be gently worried about would be Omega 3 fatty acids - maybe linseed, or maybe that's something they drag out of the gravity well.

<comment><USER34> If ever there was a call for some GMO, here it is. And fortunately this is the sort of thing that's within our reach.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> so we can start farming kyrt...and psycho-probbing spatio-analysts...[1]

if only Asimov was around to see these events start to unfold.

[1] Currents of Space - Isaac Asimov

</comment><comment><USER36> His own words:

"Recent Articles in the press have said that I think Mars is for veggies only. Not so! Am in favor of freedom of diet"

</comment><comment><USER37> Why are we still eating cellular food? Is anyone working on alternative nourishment?

</comment><comment><USER38> If there's no meat then what's the point of even going to Mars.

<comment><USER39> Getting rich by smuggling bacon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> It's a pity that before we've even begun creating a new civilization, we've started issuing dictates. I really hope that this policy is purely for pragmatic reasons and not the personal pollitics/ideology of one person being put upon others.

<comment><USER41> This is simply a matter of practicality. It has nothing to do with idealogy, it's simply a fact that anyone going to live on Mars (a least in the beginning) will need to become a vegetarian if they aren't one already.

Eating vegetarian is dramatically more efficient, energy wise (I'm not trying to be a vegetarian apologist here, I am quite omnivorous myself, it's just a statement of fact), and any martian colony simply won't have the resources to waste on meat.

Meat is a luxury.</comment></comment>


After a century on ice, a notebook sheds light on an Antarctic disaster - <AUTHOR> http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2014/1027/After-a-century-on-ice-a-notebook-sheds-light-on-an-Antarctic-disaster-video

<comment><USER2> Too bad the article doesn't say what light is shed.

</comment><comment><USER3> Does anyone know if the raw text of the page scans is available yet?</comment>