The Hidden Sexism of How We Think About Risk - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/issue/48/chaos/the-hidden-sexism-of-how-we-think-about-risk <comment><USER2> Sexism? This is fundamental evolutionary psychology.

A male who takes greater risks has a chance to mate with many more partners and produce substantially more offspring. Women don't have the same sort of payoff opportunity. There's evolutionary pressure for men to take greater risk than women.

Think Genghis Khan or [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358654/The- worlds-b...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358654/The-worlds- biggest-family-Ziona-Chan-39-wives-94-children-33-grandchildren.html).

<comment><USER3> And this article cites various studies that call into question just how "fundamental" it is.

Did you even read it?

<comment><USER2> Didn't make it far enough :) Thank you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> 1\. If white males are at fault, why do Chinese men exhibit more risk taking behavior than Chinese women? This is the example used in the story, yet the author ignores this obvious contradiction. A country that had minimal western intervention for thousands of years cannot have a culture caused by Westerners.

2\. What if economic incentives, not culture effects, are at fault? This would explain why countries with higher inequality have higher violcence and risk taking -- being "passive" could mean death. That is, people will act risky when the economic incentives reward them for it and avoid acting risky when there's only downside potential. This would make culture a result of, and not the cause of, differences in perceived risk.

Anyway this is a good first draft of an article, I look forward to seeing revisions in which the author makes a good faith attempt to represent the opposing view.

<comment><USER5> >If white males are at fault

At no point does this talk about "fault", all its saying is white men rightly perceive greater benefits from risk taking. Stop moralizing.

<comment><USER4> I do not mention anything about morality, I'm pointing serious flaws in the author's analysis.

The article blames culture for the difference, when it is likely caused by economic incentives. My comment pointed this out.

(your comment assumes it's caused by economic incentives as well. The author of the linked article does not.)

<comment><USER5> The article doesn't "blame" anything. The author literally says exactly what I said in my comment.

<comment><USER4> From the article:

Flynn and colleagues then established that it was a particular subset of white males who were particularly cavalier about risks: those who, in response to the social justice movement's currently fashionable suggestion to "check your privilege," would take significantly longer than others to complete the task. These men were well educated, rich, and politically conservative, as well as more trusting of institutions and authorities, and opposed to a "power to the people" view of the world. A number of studies have now replicated this so- called "white male effect" with other large U.S. samples, and the research points to it being "not so much a 'white male effect' as a 'white hierarchical and individualistic male effect.' "

<comment><USER5> "Blame" implies responsibility, they're describing an effect not the cause.

It all sounds very matter of fact to me so it's funny to see you throw around words like "fault" and "blame". Seems like you're taking this personally.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> In a day and age of such magnificent progress in knowledge and science, I'm flabbergasted about how much time we spend pouring over anecdotes about the idiosyncrasies of racial/gender/economic 'privilege'

<comment><USER5> You're _flabbergasted_ that we invest time in social sciences at a time when we're making great progress in science? Can't say that's very surprising to me.

<comment><USER6> Social Science is what Gary Becker did. It's an insult to real science to put anecdotal obsessions over micoragressions in the same category as Becker's work.

And no, it's not flabbergasting that you care. It's flabbergasting that a highly educated place like hacker news, in aggregate, might care enough.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "What on first inspection seemed like a sex difference was actually a difference between white males and everyone else."

Articles like this remind me that I'm having an identity crisis.

While the focus is on western civilization, it's still valid to say that the assertions can be generalized to any society. I make this point because I partly identify as a white male stereotype. I'm using the word stereotype here as something we're both told we are and also an expectation we must simultaneously live up to. Criticism of my stereotype threatens my identity, or the amalgamation of concepts I have of who I am, most of which consists of stereotypes. It's through my identity that I achieve my purpose. If you identify differently and there's a conflict between our stereotypes, then I'll at least start by acknowledging that. While there could very well be little overlap between our stereotypes, chances are there's lots more overlap between what's important to you and I. We both want food, shelter, happiness for ourselves, and the same for people we're close to.

But like, when someone says for example that it's unjust for me as a white male to earn a lot of money - I cannot accept that. Personally, my mother is on the brink of poverty and is unable to work. She doesn't qualify for disability and her social security isn't enough to sustain her. Her health expenses have been $1.5k per month. She's going into $100k worth of debt just to survive. In my immediate family, between my mom, two grandmas, one uncle, and one aunt - I'm the only one with job. When it comes to my income, someone who says that I don't need that money because I'm privileged is making enemies with me. If I loose then my whole family looses. Academics talking about class hierarchy sound smart and may even be right, but they aren't going to save my family.

My identity leads me to disagree with some of the ancillary statements in this article, such as the generalization below. Like a minority of men, a significant part of my childhood was with just a single mother. I believe that for me personally and for others who fall into the same category, "a cringingly low sense of self-worth, apathy, incompetence, and stupidity" are glaring red flags in a woman. For people like me, this is because from a young age, our parental role model has shown us these strong personality traits are important for both sexes.

``But for women, there are no such benefits to be gained from taking risks. This is because—the authors seem to try to put it as tactfully as they can—"men tend to desire women with characteristics that signal high reproductive capacity (e.g., youth) rather than characteristics that might be signaled by risk-taking." In other words, so long as the hair is glossy, the skin smooth, and the hip-to-waist ratio pleasing, then a cringingly low sense of self-worth, apathy, incompetence, and stupidity are relative trifles, more easily overlooked from the male perspective.``

This next one is also not true for me personally. Again, generally I'm trying to make sense of articles being critical of white men yet they also assume masculine traits have been fostered in these men by patriarchs. In my own opinion and experience, powerful women in the workplace are _especially_ effective.

``For example, there is a stronger expectation of women to "be nice" than there is of men. When women violate this norm in a workplace setting (by behaving in domineering ways or negotiating for better remuneration and conditions, for instance) they encounter backlash from others, who become less willing to work with them, and like them less.``

My identity is more than just a white male stereotype. In terms of ethnicity, I'm also part Indonesian, but that's not where I'm going with this. I identify partly as an effeminate male. I had a distant father figure. Not only was he distant, but for decades and because of a troubled history, I viewed him as the opposite of a role model. Other than men wearing a suit and tie, there's very little he did to reinforce for me the white male stereotype. It's the absence of a patriarch which magnifies the force of the matriarch (and vice versa). Fact is my concept of manhood and the male stereotype was dominated by the conservative ideals of my mother and her mother: My sole propose is to produce.

To the extreme white male stereotype, my small hint of femininity is "cancer" and "degeneracy" and "being a cuck". Their mantra is simply to become more like them, at which point, I shall magically become more confident, sure of myself, and successful. To the opposite ends of the many spectrums, my participation in the oppressive power structures - and by proxy my mere existence - are what damn me. It's an identity crisis, I tell you.

After a long rant what I have to say is: What this article highlights for me is identity-based division and hierarchy make the world a terrible place.

Seemingly the perfect world would be one where everyone could achieve the same things. If sexism hadn't existed, then my mother could have been better off financially, and I wouldn't have been obligated to take on the bill in her late age. If she hadn't been indoctrinated with conservative values through her religion, then maybe she'd have made a better match for my liberal father, and maybe I'd be a more well-rounded person having had grown up with a balance of matriarchal and patriarchal influences - right now I feel like something's missing. My father might also be alive today if he had stayed married to a partner who could have watched over him.

In contrast my present situation is dissatisfying and what's even scarier is that the sheer myriad of conflicting identities inside, let's say, current western civilization, ensures people will continue treating each other in what amount to terrible ways. In a sense I feel an existential crisis as well. By virtue of existing none of us can ever absolutely change the stereotypes assigned to us. Our identities may therefore always be at odds. Seems the best way to get around this is to acknowledge and focus on the common needs we all share, but what an insurmountable challenge it is when our behaviors are ruled by blindness and fear.

</comment><comment><USER8> Ah, blame everything on the white men. What an unexpected conclusion.

<comment><USER4> You're likely getting downvoted by people who havem't read the article. The article highlights the following quote not once, but twice:

"What on first inspection seemed like a sex difference was actually a difference between white males and everyone else."

<comment><USER3> If you did read it, you'd know the article claims that systemic bias leads some to be privileged over others in society, thus causing them to be more willing to take risk since they perceive less risk in the first place.

The "white male", in that case, is used because it was an American study, and in America "white males" are privileged due to socioeconomic structural biases.

The article goes on to point out that in a more egalitarian country like Sweden there is far less gender bias in risk taking, which further supports the article's claim.

The article then goes on to discuss similar biases in China, where, again, males are privileged, though obvious they aren't "white" in that case.

If one is reading this article without an intent to take offense, one would realize its conclusions would lead us to predict that, in truly matriarchal society, it would be the women who would predominantly be risk takers.</comment></comment></comment>


How can we spark the movement of research into production? - <AUTHOR> http://highscalability.com/blog/2010/7/22/how-can-we-spark-the-movement-of-research-out-of-the-ivory-t.html

<comment><AUTHOR> This is a really interesting topic, I think. I read a lot of papers on distributed systems, and while many of the systems are conceptually not terribly complicated, there's a huge leap from understanding the concept to making it work. A good example of this is "Paxos made live" - <USER2> Paxos is relatively simple, but even a top engineering team at Google had trouble implementing it well.

In the comments the point was also made that academics are simply not rewarded for making their work accessible - the theoretical work is everything. I made my first contact with a friend (and now colleague) asking him when he planned to implement a feature in the open source library based on his research. He said he had very little incentive to implement it having proved it correct. Until this changes, I think this barrier is unnecessarily high.</comment>


Toddlers Kill More People in the USA (with guns) Than Terrorists Do - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/13/the-macabre-truth-of-gun-control-in-the-us-is-that-toddlers-kill-more-people-than-terrorists-do <comment><USER2> Since this is today's gun argument thread, I'll just point out that the UK is currently commemorating the 20th anniversary of its first _and last_ "mass shooting" incident, at a school in Dunblane, Scotland.

The ensuing total ban on handguns and further restriction on gun licensing mean that mass shootings are nonexistant, firearm murders are extremely rare (about one per year in a country of 60m), shooting of suspects by police is extremely rare (police are not routinely armed, except for anti-terrorist patrols at strategic points with MP5s), and of course firearm accidents and suicides are less common as well. Sadly suicide is a problem in the farming community; farmers often have shotguns for pest control purposes and deer culling.

<comment><USER3> >> police are not routinely armed

I'm a gun owner and this is the key point for me. No politician is in a position to tell me I don't need my semi-automatic pistol if every day I see a patrol car go by my house with 2 fully automatic AR-15s locked between the front seats and my local police department owns an armoured vehicle. If you really think you have a plan for getting rid of guns for bad guys as well as me, prove it. Demilitarize the police at the same time.

edit: To be fair, I think such a plan is possible, but it requires fixing other problems that too many politicians are afraid to touch. It's obviously been done successfully elsewhere, but only when cultures and geographies were more ready for it. I enjoy shooting and prefer to own a gun, but I'd give them up for a plan I thought would work. I just haven't seen one proposed in the US yet.

<comment><USER4> Huh, what's wrong with me then. I absolutely do not need a gun, ever. Nobody needs a gun. If you think you need a gun then you have serious problems.

Let's talk about basic human needs. Food, water, Air, and to a lesser extent clothing and shelter. You don't need a gun for any of those things. Sure a gun can help with food, but guess what, you don't even need to eat meat, there are so many other sources of food.

So no, you don't need a gun, and you sure as hell don't need a "semi-automatic pistol".

<comment><USER5> Respectfully, what right do you have to determine my needs?

From a more practical perspective, what are you going to do about it? Are you proposing to take arms from the American people by force? How many deaths are acceptable to make that happen?

To be clear, I don't mean the above as a threat or anything of the sort. I'm merely pointing out the certain result of a policy of disarmament, and the hypocrisy of using force to render a population defenseless.

<comment><USER6> > Are you proposing to take arms from the American people by force

To the extent that libertarians believe that taxes are extracted by force (I usually see this written as "violence") then yes. If each gun carried a tax sufficient to mitigate it's societal cost, and if each cartridge were an order of magnitude more expensive, we would be done with this issue in 100 years.

It will take a long time, but it won't get done if we don't start.

(Preventively - yes, you can 3D print yourself a handgun, and likely blow your hand off, and reload your own bullets. At that point your personal time doing that work is a proxy for the taxes you would have payed.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Terrorism is like a mosquito in a room. Hearing its buzz will drive people nuts but the actual harm caused is negligible.

But right now people are pretty much ready to throw their basic rights and freedom away in the hope it will make the buzz go away.

The worst part is that attacks like the Paris attacks are pretty much impossible to prevent unless we transform our democracy into a totalitarian state...

<comment> saiya-jin unless it's a mosquito with malaria or dengue :) (aka terrorist with nuclear/dirty bomb).

terrorism is, above all, politically motivated theatrical act that should manipulate audience into _something_ (fear and thus irrational behavior, election choices etc). plus some stray dogs that are out of any reasonable control.

we humans are vastly irrational, and just because mankind landed on the moon doesn't mean emotions don't hold more power than reason in most of us. that's why so many people are afraid of flying, are superstitious, believe in horoscopes and so on. you know, general folks out there who have same voting power as you or me or anybody else

<comment><USER7> The problem is the more we over react to it, the more we encourage the next attack. When a plane crashes, the medias are now reasonable and repeat again and again that it is an extremely rare event and that flying is very safe. For terrorism the message is "this could happen to you!".

<comment><USER8> It would be naive to think that turning the other cheek would make these people rethink their viewpoint, if we cannot expect them to rethink their viewpoint by pacifism then what other choice do we have than to take a hard stance against such actions. There should be a good balance between not exploiting peoples fear but also realizing that at some point you have to react.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This doesn't mean toddlers are more dangerous than terrorists. It means there are more toddlers.

I don't think the internal logic of the argument works anyway. Do people react to terrorism solely because of the perception of present danger? I always thought terrorism was feared because it signalled that a group of people would prefer to dominate their host with violence than to assimilate into the predominant culture.

Increasing terrorism is a sign of increasing difficulties assimilating. The ultimate worry is that in 100 years our countries will be split into separate warring tribes.

Edit: Everybody is misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that "terrorists are more dangerous than toddlers!" or "gun control is bad!". I'm saying that people fear terrorism for different underlying reasons than its impact on fatality, and that understanding this will help communication between the right and left (perhaps allowing your arguments to be heard across political lines.)

<comment><USER10> The point of this article is not that children are more dangerous than terrorists. The point is that terrorism over-dominates national discussion of priorities.

Focus on terrorism is worrisome because it kills relatively fewer people than the top national stressors, it distracts the nation in its very limited capacity to discuss anything, it justifies extreme expenditure, and by its covert nature it is difficult to mediate in effect size.

Does terrorism warrant attention and expenditure? Yes. But it should get in line behind highly preventable or mediatable stressors like vehicle and gun related deaths.

The nation has spent trillions trying to fight terrorism, terrorism that has killed several thousand American civilians in total throughout all years. In response the nation went to war with Iraq, which itself costed thousands of lives on the American side, and over 100,000 deaths to Iraqis.

Terrorism has justified massive expansion of executive powers, it has led to opaque operations like extraordinary rendition, torture, and black sites, it has justified mass surveillance, it has led the discussion on privacy and encryption, it has led to new executive departments with budgets in the billions per year, and it justifies the use of secret courts with secret judges and secret warrants.

All in the name of fighting terrorists, while severe domestic stressors take a backseat in national priority.

<comment><USER9> I tried to explain to somebody else here [0] already - "[This establishes] a frame in which stressors are measured solely by their impact on fatality. The extra attention given to terrorism relates more to the conservative fear of losing their 'way of life'. Attempting to measure both of these things solely in relation to their impact on fatality misunderstands the reasons for fear over terrorism and creates a communication problem between the left and right."

Effectively the reason terrorism appears to over-dominate the public sphere is that it does so for different reasons than the ones that are visible to you. You can mitigate these reasons but first you have to acknowledge them (otherwise you're just preaching to the choir.)

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11289173](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11289173)

<comment><USER11> The "way of life" thing either depends on terrorism killing enough people to destroy our way of life, or it's a self-fulfilling prophecy when we destroy our own way of life by overreacting. Either way, "terrorism doesn't kill very many people, so don't worry about it so much" addresses it. Not that people will _listen_ , but it doesn't fail because it misses the point.

<comment><USER9> > depends on terrorism killing enough people to destroy our way of life

Demographic and therefore cultural shifts do not only occur when a majority population has a high number of killings. They can also occur when immigrant populations are more fertile than the majority population. Terrorism is a signal of clashing ideologies but this in itself isn't a problem for a majority culture unless they believe themselves to be in rapid decline.

If you want to convince a group of people not to be fearful, you should probably show them communities in which different cultures peacefully co- exist, and actively try to lessen their fears that their own culture is weakening as its members grow older and die. Reducing the causes of fear seems to me a better path than misunderstanding it and then calling them ignorant.

The way everybody is going I see the opposite happening, and it's only going to ramp up fear and hatred. I worry about eventual violence.

<comment><USER11> I don't see much fear of being out-bred. Maybe in some fringe, but the mainstream seems to fear foreign terrorists coming here to kill people.

For example, look at the debate over Syrian refugees. The "against" side is not talking about refusing them because they'll start breeding here and their ideologies will clash, at least not that I've seen. Their reasoning is that terrorists will hide among the legitimate refugees as a way to gain access to the country.

<comment><USER9> You are right about what you see in the mainstream but I have a different perspective.

It is my opinion that media scapegoating is a symptom of people with poor economic opportunity and declining institutions giving attention to anybody that can point at an enemy. Decline, opportunism and imperfect psychologies are the root causes.

I'm hopeful that elites will attempt to lessen the underlying causes which would make it more difficult for demagogues to capitalise. However, so far I've only seem attempts to demonise whole peoples - a mirror image of itself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> To play devil's advocate, which gun law would have prevented this person from getting shot by her toddler?

As a gun rights advocate, she presumably has been around guns for a long time and _should_ have been well versed in how to handle them safely. I doubt there's any training that could be mandated that would exceed the experience she already had. Short of banning guns entirely, which would require a constitutional amendment, I don't see what the proposed solution is.

She should definitely be facing some harsh penalties for negligence and endangering a minor if she isn't already. In general, I think it makes more sense to have laws that punish people for bad things that actually happen, not for things that might, conceivably, possibly lead to something bad happening.

No amount of legislation is going to prevent idiots from being idiots.

<comment><USER13> I live in South Africa and while our gun situation is very depressing, I've never heard of a situation like this happening here. The owner needs absolutely no common sense about how to safely store a gun. There are very specific laws about this and there are _heavy_ penalties for neglecting them. Your training is not about safety, that is merely a consequence of learning the _rules._

> No amount of legislation is going to prevent idiots from being idiots.

You can, however, swing probabilities.

> She should definitely be facing some harsh penalties for negligence and > endangering a minor if she isn't already.

This is a key point I think. One of the main arguments I hear from gun advocates is "protecting your family." For argument's sake assume that this is a valid point, play the devil's advocate. By leaving a loaded weapon lying around there is a higher probability of your family getting hurt by that weapon, than someone walking into your home and hurting your family. At this point you have become an imminent threat to everyone around you and that threat must be eliminated, possibly by preventing your whole household from ever laying their hands on a weapon (blacklisting).

In other words, by allowing Gilt to own a gun you are endangering her life and her child's life. She should not be let near one.

Settling the gun advocacy argument is clearly going to take a long time, but "common sense" laws can be put in place until a conclusion has been reached. In the short-term this would benefit both sides of the argument were they not both so belligerent.

<comment><USER8> >You can, however, swing probabilities.

This is no different than the anti (strong) crypto arguments. The overwhelming amount of law abiding citizens give up liberties in the name of reducing a probability which is less significant than the risk of eating cheese burgers every day and dying from heart disease, or entering a vehicle.

<comment><USER13> All I argued for was "common sense" gun laws. If guns were handled correctly (by law) this article or discussion wouldn't exist - gun advocacy would look good. Under the same conditions gun control advocates would have a shorter leap up to strict legislation. This is not a net step forward or back for either side.

Gun advocates see it as a step toward limitations of their freedom. Control advocates see it as not a large enough step. This is depressing because people are at risk around idiots every day. Everyone is fixated on the end-goal, instead of saving lives - which is why _both_ sides are having this argument in the first place.

<comment><USER8> >"common sense" gun laws

Considering this is america we are talking about the "common sense" is that liberty is better than government provided safety for a large portion of americans.

>If guns were handled correctly (by law) this article or discussion wouldn't exist

Cars kill more people by a large margin, if we really cared about safety then why is it that we see articles about gun control more so than car deaths, or heart disease? Sensationalization of an issue isn't some basis we should be using for arguments about how to write laws.

>Gun advocates see it as a step toward limitations of their freedom.

Every single piece of legislation which exhibits control chips away at freedom even if its imperceptible in the short term view, we just saw the FBI try and use a 200+ year old law to limit the freedom of apple to protect their customers. The thing about the US government is that once a law is written it is difficult for to go away and very easy for it to be forgotten about until conveniently needed in court. Coalescing piece by piece, legislation over time has brought us to a point where most citizens are breaking some law in some form without knowing it. Calling each step forward in gun control a small step towards limiting freedom isn't really that crazy.

>Everyone is fixated on the end-goal, instead of saving lives

If they were really concerned then their fixation is misplaced [http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of- death.htm](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> More people in the US die _every year_ from television than die from terrorism in the _last 10 years_.

I don't mean by being sedentary contributing to heart disease. I mean physically killed by a television falling on you.

[http://theweek.com/articles/469421/shocking-number-deaths- ca...](http://theweek.com/articles/469421/shocking-number-deaths-caused-by- falling-tvs)

This article is misleading. Virtually nobody dies of terrorism. Virtually nobody dies from toddler shootings.

<comment><USER15> Especially since so many people can interpret the cause of such a death in so many ways. One person says terrorism, another says work place violence. Not many people argue over describing an accidental death caused by a toddler.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> 1\. The source for this article is [http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed- americans-terrorists/](http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans- terrorists/), which says

>Broad counts indicate that 21 toddlers shot and killed themselves or others in 2015; 19 Americans died at the hands of potential or suspected Islamic terrorists.

Even taken at face value, that's 21 to 19.

That page is itself a bit confusing. They count the number of deaths by Islamic terrorists while evaluating a claim that merely says foreign terrorists. The guardian then spins that into terrorists, not specifying foreigners. Glancing over [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_J...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_January%E2%80%93June_2015) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_J...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_July%E2%80%93December_2015) turns up the following:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleston_church_shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleston_church_shooting), 9 dead [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Springs_Planned_Paren...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Springs_Planned_Parenthood_shooting), 3 dead

Neither seem to be by foreigners, so snopes is not wrong, just confusing. The guardian is flat out wrong. The numbers are 9+3+19=31 versus 21 for toddlers.

2\. The fear of terrorism is of the tail. People aren't that worried over the 10 people who die in an attack, comparatively. They're worried about the 3000 people that die for a large scale attack, even if it's less likely.

I bet if you took the last 25 years, terrorist deaths would be more than toddler gun deaths. If the latter is around 25 a year, we have a total of 625, versus 3000 from 9/11 alone.

</comment><comment><USER17> What interests me about the gun debate (if one can call it that), is that there are ways of dying that are considered acceptable risks and ways of dying that are not. If you are driving your kids across town and get t-boned by a drunk driver and everyone dies, that is considered a tragedy. But no one will advocate giving up driving. Something really bad happened, everyone move on with your lives.

Or when a relative dies because of a medical error, they might be rage at the particular doctor at fault, but there isn't a general outcry against hospitals or doctors. Everyone will still urge you to go to the ER at first signs of a serious problem.

But if a lunatic shoots a few people in a public place, then guns should just be banned altogether and there is a general outcry and the POTUS needs to visit the victims to console them.

Maybe someone can enlighten me why the risk of gun deaths is so much less acceptable (to a portion of the population) than the risk of death by automobile.

EDIT: Skiing is purely entertainment. About 41.5 people die a year in skiing accidents[1]. This, too, is considered an acceptable risk.

[1] [http://www.nsaa.org/media/68045/NSAA-Facts-About-Skiing- Snow...](http://www.nsaa.org/media/68045/NSAA-Facts-About-Skiing-Snowboarding- Safety-10-1-12.pdf)

<comment><USER18> Because guns are expressly designed to kill. They serve no other purpose (ignoring sporting uses, as those are basically a proxy for proving how well one can kill with a gun). There is no reason anybody outside of the military _needs_ a gun to carry out their day to day jobs.

That isn't true of cars or hospitals.

<comment><USER19> Knives are expressly designed to cut. They serve no Purpose (ignoring cooking, as those are basically a proxy for proving how well one can cut with a knife). There is no reason anybody outside of the kitchen needs a knife to carry out their day to day jobs.

Encryption is expressly designed to hide terrorists. It serves no purpose (ignoring privacy, as that is basically a proxy for proving how well one can hide from the government). There is no reason anybody outside of the military needs encryption to carry out their day to day jobs.

<comment><USER18> Nice throw-away. How 'bout you man up and own your opinions?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Using the argument form of this article you could make any number of outrageously nonsensical claims. The form is basically X does Y more than Z, where X occurs vastly more than Z in some population.

Examples:

1\. white caucasians commit more crime in the Canada than all other ethnic groups combined!

2\. In Sweden the common cold is more lethal than HIV!

In my opinion article exemplifies the antithesis of a decent argument or even ligitimate journalism.

<comment><USER21> I think most of these articles are trying play the emotional card and most people ignore facts like:

\- higher gun ownership rate does not cause higher gun related homicides (check Switzerland or Finland compare to US) \- lower gun ownership rate does not cause lower mass shootings ([http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201...](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/12/research_on_mass_shootings_shows_guns_do_not_make_u_s_safe.html))

I don't understand why people try to make these conclusions.

Here is the list of gun ownership broken down by countries:

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

Firearm related death by countries:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm- related_death_rate)

<comment><USER22> Not that this will change your opinion, but Switzerland is not that great of an example to support your "fact" (and even if it was - a few outliers don't prove the lack of an correlation).

For starters it has fairly strict gun laws (essentially no carry permits, gun safes, etc.).

Second the reason for the high gun ownership is the mandatory military service (no standing army) - you can purchase your service weapon at the end of your service period. And for the service weapon the ammunition is stored at the armory - not at home. And without ammunition I would think killing someone with a gun is much more difficult.

<comment><USER21> > For starters it has fairly strict gun laws...

Hmm what you are saying is that gun laws have an impact on gun related death? I totally agree. Lets create a study that tells us how can we drive down the gun related death in the US by better laws. That has all of my support.

The rest I agree.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Gun ownership is less about protecting individuals from other individuals, and more about protecting our society from governments that want to oppress it. You could make the argument that no such power exists today, but that's besides the point. Powerful, oppressive, nations have existed before and they could exist again. An armed population is our last line of defense.

<comment><USER24> That is actually an extremely weak argument. Iraq had higher gun ownership than the US, and yet they were all under an oppressive dictator. There are actually several oppressive countries with high gun ownership.

A bunch of armed citizens does not make an effective army. Untrained and uncoordinated citizens are no match against well trained soldiers.

Very few armed resistance fights have succeeded in bringing democracy or freedom anywhere. More often than not it has been non-violent resistance which has succeeded.

In most cases when violence gets involved it is the wrong kind of people who end up on the top of the pecking order and you end up with an equally bad or worse regime in the end. We've seen this in the french revolutions, south american revolutions, various revolutions and independent fights across Asia and Africa, and more lately the Arab spring.

Freedom of speech, privacy etc is more important for keeping a country free than gun laws. If you have no free press, society will have advanced too far in the wrong direction before you can make a difference with your gun.

Ironically the same right wing people supporting gun rights, seem to not care a lick about privacy, surveillance, excessive police mandates or draconian laws.

<comment><USER23> I've noticed that too. The trend of right wing gun activists to support increased survalence. It's an odd issue that seems to draw support from both political parties. President Obama has made his stance on privacy and survalence pretty clear. Ironicically it's the same stance that most of the republican candidates are taking.

<comment><USER25> I am a right wing gun nut and I am strongly pro-Snowden, for what its worth. I am a gun nut because I fear government, and the NSA revelations are proof that my fears are justified.

A lot of other gun nuts think like me. Don't assume the Republican party represents us.

<comment><USER22> How does having a gun alleviate your fear of the government?

<comment><USER25> I don't recall saying it did.

<comment><USER22> Perhaps I worded it poorly.. why have guns if you fear the government? How does being a gun nut and fearing the government relate?

<comment><USER25> An armed populace is a deterrent to the worst abuses. Even with the modern military. They can't drone strike everyone and can't carpet bomb every town. Guerrilla wars are bloody and hard to win, as Vietnam and Iraq showed.

<comment><USER22> Don't really see this happening in a modern western country to be honest. Or do you have some concrete scenario in mind? There are limits on how much the military will blindly follow orders. So either it will only affect small groups of people (in which case having the house full of weapons and explosives will be of limited help to you [2]) or it will affect enough people, that even the people in the military might start wondering if they are doing the right thing here.

Also isn't Iraq an counter example to your point (as mentioned in a parent post [1])? Since it did have a fairly high gun ownership rate and yet it had an oppressive government. Or did it simply not yet reach the necessary worst abuses level yet? Or was the gun ownership rate not high enough?

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11289520](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11289520) [2] heard some funny stories from bomb squad people, about such encounters.. really have to wonder what these people are thinking

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> This is more a reflection of how vanishingly rare either event is than a compelling argument for fewer guns.

In a population of 300m or thereabouts some people will die in some very peculiar ways. We can dig up some of the rarer ones to compare with terrorism.

That said some limitation of US gun ownership law does seem sensible. But this story is no more than gossip.

</comment><comment><USER27> This will no doubt be framed as a victory for our Pro-Gun society.

After all, ubiquitous gun ownership has so diminished the rampant terrorism problem facing the USA that fewer people in 2015 were killed by terrorists than by _small children_. Compare that to, say, 2001, when thousands of people were killed by terrorists on average each month, and you can only see a victory in todays improved pro-gun climate.

I don't hold out much hope for a return to reason any time soon.

</comment><comment><USER28> And more toddlers die in backyard swimming pools than by any terrorist. Once again, the CDC has an amazing list[1] of what kills US citizens in the USA. Violence doesn't even make the top 15 anymore. Self-harm is at position 10 and we really need to work on that. Plus, all the places with the most restrictive gun laws in the US are the most violent and have the most murders. Stop blaming an object, and start blaming the policies of government that create a cycle of crime.

1) [http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/deaths.htm](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/deaths.htm)

<comment><USER29> There's also a funny, "startling" correlation between those who would be both the largest defenders of gun rights and ownership who point to "terrrorists and the mentally ill"... who also are the heaviest lobbiers for reducing funding and services available to those same mentally ill, decrying it as 'not their problem'.

<comment><USER28> I'd ask for actual stats including citing a study that is not geographically isolated to the inner city. This is another one of those soundbite arguments in the US. Also, dig up some stats on donation to charities by party members.

Both sides in the US have reduced our services to the mentally ill. The Democrats don't like institutions and wanted in-community services to the point of cutting funding for institutions. The Republicans don't want mental treatment homes in the community and vote to cut there funding. Since they cannot agree we get a whole lot of problems.

<comment><USER29> It's a good point. Most studies show that charity giving by political affiliation to be nearly equal, or to put conservatives slightly ahead:

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/10/21/study...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/10/21/study- conservatives-and-liberals-are-equally-charitable-but-they-give-to-different- charities/)

That being said, conservatives are far more likely to give to their church as a charity, and when churches (but not 'all religious organizations') are removed from the equation, the balance dramatically shifts. It could certainly be argued that while for many churches their charitable contributions are valuable and well used, but that for others they are used more for publicity/promotional/snowballing purposes.

Certainly this is compounded too, by certain churches, of which LDS is the biggest, that mandate tithing of income, skewing the numbers substantially.

<comment><USER28> Is your argument that we give to a charity that we see the results in, that informs us where the money goes, we agree with the philosophy of the charity, and part of our beliefs might include mandatory giving, then that charity is invalid?

"but that for others they are used more for publicity/promotional/snowballing purposes"

You need proof of that.

I would also point out [https://philanthropy.com/specialreport/how-america- gives-201...](https://philanthropy.com/specialreport/how-america-gives-2014/1) \- please note the areas that vote Republican versus Democrat. It is a nice counterpoint to the MIT study.

<comment><USER29> The challenge with that is that many churches, especially the "megachurches", actively resist revealing that information.

A survey revealed a breakdown of 'senior pastor' versus other personnel relative salaries, without divulging any specifics: [http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2014/september/ho...](http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2014/september/how-727-megachurches- spend-their-money-leadership-network.html)

But it did say that most large churches spend "slightly less than half their givings on staffing costs".

"The most strategic churches we work with are realizing that a premier children's pastor/leader can become one of, if not the largest growth engines for the church. And such churches are paying accordingly. We are seeing an increasing trend of churches who pay the top person over children's ministry more and more. In some cases, the children's pastor is one of the top paid people on staff, higher than the student pastor, worship pastor or small groups pastor."

This is from a site that is specifically pro-Christianity, and goes directly to that - whilst I might not believe in a religious organization, spending money on growing the church is in no way something I'd consider 'charitable giving'.

"Elevation Church does post some financial records on its website, reporting that the church took in $33.5 million in offerings last year and gave away about $3.8 million in outreach, spent $9 million on personnel and reported $13.9 million in cash assets."

(this after their pastor purchased a 'not that great' 16,000 sq ft home on 19 acres, and said that would be 'against Christ's teachings' to disclose what he was paid) - [http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/megamansion-building- megachu...](http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/megamansion-building-megachurch- pastor-says-revealing-his-salary-would-violate-christs-teachings/)

A study by ECCU ([http://web.archive.org/web/20141019033209/https://www.eccu.o...](http://web.archive.org/web/20141019033209/https://www.eccu.org/resources/advisorypanel/2013/surveyreports20)) stated that churches use 3 percent of their budget for children's and youth programs, and 2 percent for adult programs. Local and national benevolence receives 1 percent of the typical church budget.

So I -do- place some skepticism on the idea of blanketing 'religious giving' as 'charitable contribution'.

<comment><USER28> > So I -do- place some skepticism on the idea of blanketing 'religious giving' > as 'charitable contribution'.

So, you cherry picked the megachurches without showing how much of the Church going population they make up. I could throw in an equal list[1] of all the charities (some well known) that have horrible giving records . Also, yes, staffing costs are big at churches because these people do actual pastoral work. Of course a church tries to spread the word. That is not much different than a lot of secular charities.

1) [http://www.charitynavigator.org](http://www.charitynavigator.org)

<comment><USER29> I can't help but feel like you're engaging in goalpost moving.

Me: "much money is used for publicity purposes"

You: "you need to prove that"

Me: here's some links talking about both megachurches AND a cross section of churches and how much they spend on publicity.

You: "well of course they have to spread the word, that's no different to secular charities!"

Charity Navigator is awesome. I was 'glad' to see that the Wounded Warrior Project finally ousted their leadership, who were happier spending money on parties to pat themselves on the back than they were to help soldiers.

Here's the thing. The initial discussion is about charity giving as it related to party affiliation, and how the conservative side was "ahead", only if you factored in religious giving.

Yes, there are many, many valid religious charities (and by this I mean organizations, as well as that component of church giving that factors into benevolence).

But by studies performed by religious organizations themselves (who if anything are likely to skew the numbers more positively), across the board, "Local and national benevolence receives 1 percent of the typical church budget", and an additional 5% goes to "church run programs" (be it after school care, social or group activities).

If a secular charity - and lets go back to Charity Navigator here - Top Ten Inefficient Fundraisers ([http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=topten.detail&...](http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=topten.detail&listid=10#.VuiSS8dZb8s)) we see some of the worst charities spending 15% of their donations on "program expenses" (i.e. doing what they are being given money to do).

I'm not familiar with the monitoring of 501(c)3 groups, but I suspect if charities were to regularly spend only one per cent of their givings on what they got to enjoy tax exemption to do, they'd likely have such a status revoked.

And, if you factor in this average percentage (even the six per cent combined, which is generous, as as much fun as social and youth activities are, they're not necessarily serving a critical need), and start to question 'how much money is being spent on 'spreading the word', patting themselves on the back, competitions in Texas to see who can built the world's biggest cross just down the road from where the world's previously biggest cross was built at costs of millions, there comes more and more skepticism of just how highly you can value "giving to your church" on the scale of charitable contributions.

<comment><USER28> What you call publicity is the primary purpose of churches. I consider that a purpose not an advertisement. I don't take the megachurches as a representative percentage of the church going community. Funding an actual church facility is just as valid as any other charity giving and benefits a neighborhood. Calling that administration is insulting.

> I'm not familiar with the monitoring of 501(c)3 groups, but I suspect if > charities were to regularly spend only one per cent of their givings on what > they got to enjoy tax exemption to do, they'd likely have such a status > revoked.

Well, no. You can scam 9/11 money and get away with it (e.g. Red Cross & United Way).

Also, all that giving on secular charities part does go to someones salaries and administration and supplies and stipends. Giving to A pays for group B. The grants we've received went to salaries and administration but are listed as giving.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> This link in the article is more interessting that this article himself. [http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans- terrorists/](http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/)

</comment><comment><USER31> Most things that kill people in the USA kill more people than terrorists do. The comparison is purposely sensationalistic and cheapens the argument much like 'think of the children.'

<comment><USER32> Have you perhaps considered that the treatment of terrorism is "purely sensationalistic" as well? The argument against terrorism shouldn't be "cheapened", but it should have far less value than it currently does.

There are _far_ more pressing issues, some of which will actually decrease the threat of terrorism. (for example: global access to education and healthcare, as well as moderate, tolerant leadership will decrease the ability for extremism to forment in the first place).

I know this view is unpopular, but it _is_ logical.

<comment><USER31> Terrorism is almost by definition sensationalist. The argument I referred to as cheapened was the argument being made in the article against guns.

Both sides of the gun argument are very passionate. In order for either to make headway with the other they have to avoid starting with hyperbole. Instead, all you get is both sides shouting at each other.

<comment><USER32> As an Australian I find the gun debate in the US confusing. I think there should be more attention on the middle ground's point of view, as the arguments on both extreme sides are not realistic (In current US culture). On the pro-gun side there is a resistance to the idea that gun-control will limit the number of gun-related deaths ("the criminals will just get guns on the black market") and on the anti-gun side there seems to be willful ignorance of the fact that guns seem to be already prevalent in the US culture, and many US homes.

My personal view is that guns should be controlled to a greater degree than motor vehicles, and ammunition should be even more closely monitored. In Australia we still have gun related injuries and deaths, but _they 're almost always illegal guns_ involved. We tend to not have toddler related gun crimes.

Gun control doesn't mean you can't have a gun. It means that the gun you have is subject to restrictions.

Same as car control doesn't mean you can't have a car, but you do everything you can to stop your three year old from driving it down the motorway.

EDIT: I feel like I should describe the uses of guns I feel are acceptable (given a modern agrarian viewpoint)

1: Killing any (non endangered) animal causing harm to your livelihood.

2: Killing any (non endangered) animal you are going to eat.

3: Self defense.

<comment><USER31> A reasonable thought on gun control and gun violence is not allowed the US! Either you're for the mass killings of Americans or you're for the door to door confiscation of all guns. /s

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> "If you are distressed by anything external, the pain is not due to the thing itself, but to your estimate of it; and this you have the power to revoke at any moment." - Marc Aurelius.

</comment><comment><USER34> When was the last time a toddler killing someone led to the passage of something like the Patriot Act or the creation of a department like Homeland Security. Terrorism isn't about killing as many people as possible, it's about instilling _terror_ in your enemy and all the negative stuff that goes along with that. Comparing it to accidents involving guns and toddlers is lazy.

</comment><comment><USER35> Soon as I got to "rightwing scapegoat" I stopped reading. Sorry, but if it included "leftwing wacko" it would be the same with me. If you can't get your point across without trying to be witty and calling Florida, USA's penis, you don't deserve my attention.

</comment><comment><USER36> Many people have rightly pointed out that terrorism, being a tail risk, should not have such an out-sized influence on policy or lead to the erosion of civil rights. If that is your take-away from this article, good for you.

Some people, including the article's author, then go on to argue that because of a different tail-risk (toddler's shooting people with guns) we should ban* all guns. This is a terrible argument. I am not saying there are no good arguments out there, I am saying this is not one of them.

*Yes, I said ban. Guns are already regulated, no proposed legislation would prevent this incident, and bans are the explicit end goal of most pro gun-control groups[1]

[1][http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4912](http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4912)

</comment><comment><USER37> This says more about the minuscule threat terrorists pose than the rate of firearm accidents.

</comment><comment><USER38> The statistics are always misinterpreted; they can't be considered in the same domain. Terrorists fall in the risk domain that is subject to tail events. Toddlers with guns don't. In plain English, you're not going to see a 10x increase in deaths one year from toddlers playing around with guns, while that's very possible with terrorist activity. In fat-tailed domains like terrorism, single, extreme events make up the entire mean, so just because something bad doesn't happen for a short period of time doesn't mean it's any safer. All it takes is one extreme terrorist event to do some serious damage.

</comment><comment><USER39> This gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "but think of the children!" :)

</comment><comment><USER40> How exactly do we define "terrorist"? For example, why is the San Bernandino mass shooting NOT considered terrorism? Because more people were killed in that single incident than were shot by toddlers in all of 2015.

<comment><USER41> Wait, the San Bernandino shooting is constantly referred to as terrorism by the media and by politicians... When the perpetrator isn't Muslim though, the situation is different (e.g. Dylan Roof, Anders Brevik, James Holmes) and the same people instead are much more likely to frame the violence as a mental health issue.

<comment><USER36> terrorists and lone wackos may both engage in mass shootings, but their threat profiles are different[1].

The San Bernandino shooters fit the 'terrorist' threat profile; Dylan Roof, et al., fit the profile of 'lone wacko'.

[1][http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6943](http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6943)

<comment><USER41> I see no meaningful distinction between the San Bernandino shooters and the "lone wackos". Cultural background influences how an angry, mentally ill person will brand and target their particular act of violence. For Dylan Roof it was racism, for Anders Breivik it was Christianity, and for Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, it was radical Islam. So far even the FBI says they acted alone.

It's undeniable that whether or not a person is Muslim influences how their violent act is framed by the media and politicians. Also worth noting:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik#Links_t...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik#Links_to_organizations)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Lightning Kills More People in the USA Than Terrorists Do

<comment><USER43> So does cancer, diabetes and cows... they don't do it with _firearms_ though. The operative word here is _firearms_ and that's what people are trying to discuss.

<comment><USER42> Correct, lightning kills with electricity, not firearms.

The point is both incidents are incredibly rare. Your first two examples don't really work in this context; cows on the other hand - good example. [http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5829a2.htm](http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5829a2.htm)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Another ape shit HN statistics story. How about we derive a different title?

Your odds of being killed by a terrorist and by furniture are the same.

[https://h4labs.wordpress.com/2015/10/29/youre-8-times- more-l...](https://h4labs.wordpress.com/2015/10/29/youre-8-times-more-likely- to-be-killed-by-a-police-officer-than-by-furniture/)

"Toddlers with guns kill more people than people killed by furniture."

</comment><comment><USER45> Sometimes the legal system is wrong or even miss used: ergo, lets shut down the legal system.

Sometimes a car kills: ergo, lets ban cars.

Children.

</comment><comment><USER46> You have to remember only law abiding citizens in the US follow the gun laws.

If a bad guy breaks into your house in the middle of the night, the police response time is not enough to save you and your family. If you want to protect your young child in this case, its better to lawfully own a gun and have proper training on how to use it.

<comment> k-mcgrady You're presuming that the person breaking in to your house at night wants to harm you. If they're breaking in at night they probably want to steal your stuff without you encountering them. So the best course of action is probably to stay in your bedroom, stay quiet, and call the police. Pull out your gun and that bad guy probably also has one and you've put your own life in danger and made a non-violent situation life threatening.

<comment><USER47> You're calling someone (who you say is probably armed) breaking into your home a non-violent situation?

...??

And what about in San Francisco, where that person could very likely be mentally unstable.. Should I just assume they probably won't harm me?

What about in a rural area, where police could be tens of minutes away?

This logic seems incredibly unreasonable to me.

If someone breaks into my home in the middle of the night, I'm not going to be a robot and be running probabilities in my head. I'm going to protect myself and my family to the fullest extent possible, which is eliminating the threat. I'm not going to assume anything other than the worst about the threat.

<comment> k-mcgrady >> "You're calling someone (who you say is probably armed) breaking into your home a non-violent situation?"

Yes. It's a non-violent situation until myself or the intruder decides to make it violent. I'm going to do what I can to minimise the chances of that happening.

I think this is just a different cultural attitude. In many places, the US in particular, there is a culture of fear. There is probably also a much greater chance of an intruder in the US having a gun due to the prevalence of them.

This is how I think about it:

Someone is breaking into my home. Why? They have nothing to gain by harming me unless they are insane in which case they can harm someone on the streets much more easily. They probably want my possessions. If I don't disturb them they aren't going to seek me out. If they are threatened they will, if not they will leave me alone. If you are truly scared keep your weapon in your bedroom and stay in your bedroom. If they don't come near you you have no reason to use it unless you are crazy enough to risk your like for your possessions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> The simpsons did it

</comment><comment><USER49> Any discussions of guns in America that doesn't delve into the differences between states is bound to be uninformed just like this article. You want to see what gun control looks like in America? Go to New Jersey. We have gun control. You cannot leave your house in New Jersey with a gun. The laws and their enforcement are so draconian, you cannot safely even go to the gun range with your very legal gun. This is what gun control looks like in America. We have some of the worst ghettos and gun violence in America _because_ we have gun control, because the only people stupid enough to have a gun on them in New Jersey are criminals. This isn't some hypothetical. This has been reality for decades here. So before some uninformed idiots make idiotic generalized statements about guns in America, I'd like to invite them to New Jersey and see how safe and wonderful their gun-controlled vision of America is.

No one could possibly make such arguments if they really considered the outcome of their actions, but most Americans are too stupid to do that generally and can only consider their own fantasies as reality. That's how we ended up in this situation of draconian drug and terrorism laws. Americans consider what they _want_ to happen as what _will_ and what _is_ happening, despite a flood of evidence to the contrary. Then they write idiotic articles like this without even doing research and finding out what really happens when you have gun control in America.

When there's a researched, well-thought out article on gun control, maybe there'll be something to discuss. Until then, we're wasting words on both sides. Conversation my ass.

</comment><comment><USER50> This is the latest in a line of articles (and arguments) for that matter that completely fails to address the gun culture we have in the United States. It paints a picture that people who have guns are just these crazy old hicks, ha ha look at them with their silly guns.

First of all in large areas of the country (and around the world) guns can be useful tools of survival or hobbies, including around where I live. We have shooting ranges, gun safety courses, numerous retailers that sell them, and no mass shootings either alongside a healthy and large hunting population. Guns are important here is the takeaway.

It's awfully sad what happened to Jamie Gilt and that toddler is probably going to have some serious issues to work out as they grow up, but let's be clear: she left the gun loaded in an accessible area. That was her choice and now she's paying for it.

Second of all, the problem with this article is that it's basing all of it's arguments in the rational. Guns are dangerous; yeah, we know, they're literal killing machines, that's what they're for. Guns are unnecessary; maybe where you live and we could get by without them too, but we don't want to. We LIKE the guns, that's why we spend large amounts of money on them. In Australia they made big steps in what many consider to be the right direction with a buyback program, but if that was offered here I can honestly say I wouldn't go for it. I bought my guns for a reason; I want them here.

You know a Toyota Camry would probably be much safer and much more economical and better for the environment than a Charger with a V8 engine, but the argument of safety, economy and environment completely misses the reasons I would buy the Charger; it's fun and I like it. And I feel it's an essential part of our freedom to make certain that people are allowed to choose what they WANT instead of what is necessarily the best decision FOR them.

My $0.02.

<comment><USER51> Yes, now if only the government would let me buy that cocaine I want.

<comment><USER50> Well considering how effective the War on Drugs has been, I'm honestly fine with you buying cocaine. You can't possibly do as much damage as the various District Attorney's do.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> There are more toddlers in the USA than terrorists in the USA. This is pretty inconsequential.

</comment><comment><USER52> In a world full of corporate sponsered politicians who make the laws without regard of the masses, a power mad executive branch that uses state of the art tech to monitor everything in an attempt to detect precrime, the mass incarceration of males based on balance sheet projections, and wide spread police brutality, and growing geopolitical unstability due to interventionalists refusing to allow the markets to reflect risk, it is no wonder the fourth estate and their loyal cadre of narrative worshippers want to totally eliminate gun ownership.

</comment><comment><USER53> Obvious answer: Ban toddlers rather than end-to-end encryption.

On a more serious note, the gun deaths in America are a cultural problem (being careless with weapons, not locking them away properly, etc). No ban will fix culture. There are ways of improving the world without bans. I loathe the kneejerk reactions like "someone was harmed by X - BAN IT FOR EVERYONE!". What happened to self-responsibility? Why can't we just educate people and encourage them to train in the safe handling of guns? It's not that hard.

</comment><comment><USER54> > Growing up here myself didn't prepare me for how distinctly, viscerally > frightening it would be to raise children in a gun-obsessed nation.

All arguments aside, this is just... really? I mean, come on.

<comment><USER17> I am a bit baffled by the terror-stricken tone of the article, summed up in this sentence.

I live in Appalachia. I hear shooting on almost every nice day. I am playing outside in the yard with my toddlers and the neighbors are shooting things. I don't even think about it.

<comment><USER55> Just don't piss them off while they're drunk.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> I always hate these kind of articles. As a US citizen there's only rule when it comes to firearms and that's the 2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Until a new Amendment is passed to revoke this individual right, all arguments are invalid.

<comment><USER18> So, we should all be allowed to own bazookas and nukes and aircraft carriers? Because, if this is about securing the state (either against a tyrannical government, or a 3rd party), rifles and handguns aren't going to cut it.

Or, are you limiting your interpretation to firearms in common use at the time of the Constitutional Convention? In which case, you can turn in your Glock and your AK.

Point being, we already have established restrictions on firearms. These restrictions have held up in court (for the most part).

<comment><USER57> > _So, we should all be allowed to own bazookas and nukes and aircraft > carriers?_

Most of those are prohibitively expensive, but why not? Is your argument that somehow ordinary people will be more likely to use them indiscriminately?

I mean, who is the US government, which owns bazookas and air craft carriers, but a collection of ordinary people who have done their share of indiscriminate usage of weaponry?

<comment><USER18> My argument was that the 2A isn't absolute, as the parent implied. There are restrictions placed on the ownership and use of firearms (see child comment about NFA items and the extra paperwork, fees, and licensing involved).

I'm not anti-gun, in the general sense. I am pro-gun control in a much as the current system allows too many irresponsible people to own guns for no good reason (Jamie Gilt being a prime example).</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Auto Layout Demystified - <AUTHOR> https://spin.atomicobject.com/2016/09/26/auto-layout-demystified/#.V-r21v2uWbs.hackernews <comment><USER2> I'm a huge fan of PureLayout over using Storyboard or calling the AutoLayout APIs directly.

[https://github.com/PureLayout/PureLayout](https://github.com/PureLayout/PureLayout)

<comment><USER3> I consider XCode's IB to be an abomination, I use SnapKit and I love it.

[https://github.com/SnapKit/SnapKit](https://github.com/SnapKit/SnapKit)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This really isn't the confusing part about Autolayout. The confusing part is the millions of unclear ways to accomplish a given layout. Or figuring out how to make a scroll view content height dynamic. Or move/create anything dynamically, really.

You have to bring in third party libraries to make it easier to work with the API programmatically and then pray to the constraint solver gods that your changing a height constraint constant and adding 4 new constraints into the view hierarchy doesn't throw the most useless error ever seen.

It's just unpleasant.</comment>


RBS: Brace for a full-fledged crash in global stock and credit markets over the next three months - <AUTHOR> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/06/18/cnrbs118.xml <comment><USER3> I, for one, hope this leads to a wholesale (no pun intended) reevaluation of our financial attitudes. There is plenty of blame to go around, and while a lot of it lands on predatory lenders and greedy speculation, consumers are largely responsible as well.

It's the end of a decadent age that was never good to begin with. That's the biggest shame, really. This whole mess was driven by consumer desire for shiny objects that just aren't that nice. They wanted shoddily-built mansions, as long as they were large enough to look impressive. They wanted unsafe and barely luxurious vehicles, as long as they are big and intimidating!

But, back on topic, I sure hope that the business world still sees a big need to spend on things like web applications and custom software. Otherwise, if business focuses on scaling back and being frugal, IT is in big trouble.

<comment><USER4> _if business focuses on scaling back and being frugal, IT is in big trouble._

OTOH, this could be a fantastic for the _right_ people in IT. Imagine, converting from SAP to an open source or SAAS alternative could save you $8 million per year. An entire industry could be built around this. Miss this while your competitors do it and you could be in for a world of hurt.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Nobody is immune; EVERYONE should have major back-up contingencies and savings that can be easily liquidated. Spread it internationally too, because having all of your money in one nation's markets or bank system is crazy at this point...

<comment><USER6> Money in your savings is guaranteed by the federal government (up to 100k I think).

If the fed goes down, it doesn't matter where your money is.

If you're talking about investments, that's easy. Go long energy and short everything else.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm kind of surprised that this isn't getting more activity. It seems like this is a big deal to me.

Is RBS just being overly protective?

What are some things us average joes should do to protect our well-being?

<comment><USER6> Quotes like these from "analysts" come out about 3 times a day. Generally it's just noise and nothing to trade on. It does create transaction fees for the brokers, though.

Evidence: go find quotes from Abby Cohen (permabull) and Meredith Whitney (permabear) for the past 3 weeks. They go talk smack on CNBC/bloomberg every so often and it makes headlines.

<comment><USER7> Ordinarily I dismiss these sorts of claims immediately... But the Royal Bank of Scotland seems to be a fairly reputable source to me.

<comment><USER6> You could say the same thing about the analysts at Goldman Sachs who say that crude oil is going to 200, all the while holding /CL contracts.

Or brokers from Lehman saying their subprime exposure is contained.

I'm not trying to knock on these guys... they have a hard job. But they are not the best place to get opinion.

<comment><USER7> It's not remotely the same thing. Goldman Sachs and Lehman were protecting their bottom line. RBS is making this announcement as a public service - <USER2> have nothing to gain from this at all.

<comment><USER6> Really?

"A very nasty period is soon to be upon us - be prepared," said Bob Janjuah, the bank's _credit strategist._

The guy is an investment banker. He is placing directional exposure to the downside of the market. He has plenty to gain from it (as do I).

Reports by analysts are by no means a public service.

And your original question ("What should normal people do"): you can reduce your market exposure by reducing your directional bias (delta) against your market weighted (beta) portfolio. So buy puts, sell calls, sell OTM credit spreads, buy {SDS, QID, GLD, DUG, DXD} or something like that.

<comment><USER7> Hmmm, on re-read, it would appear you are right. I stand corrected.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I have a gut feeling that they are right on this one.

</comment><comment><USER9> What about gold?</comment>


What's Wrong with Amazon's DynamoDB Pricing? - <AUTHOR> http://bailis.org/blog/whats-wrong-with-amazons-dynamodb-pricing/

<comment><USER2> When I saw the DynamoDB pricing, I assumed the setup was something along the lines of "N=3, writes go to all replicas and wait for 2 responses, consistent reads go to 2 replicas, inconsistent reads go to 1 replica". Given that DynamoDB is using SSDs, I don't see why they would need to broadcast read requests to all replicas -- that's only useful if you have high variability in your read latency.

Someone who wanted an interesting research project might be able to pull back the covers on DynamoDB a bit by issuing a large number of requests, very carefully measuring the response latency curves for consistent and inconsistent reads, and looking at what model fits them best.

<comment><AUTHOR> If the network latency is negligible, this sounds reasonable. However, the mapping of 2x IOPs to 2x cost seems tenuous to me.

>Someone who wanted an interesting research project might be able to pull back the covers on DynamoDB a bit by issuing a large number of requests, very carefully measuring the response latency curves for consistent and inconsistent reads, and looking at what model fits them best.

This is possibly interesting, but why shouldn't Amazon just provide this data? The data would useful to developers who otherwise have to guess.

And finally, why not allow users to place this cost on the write path instead? "W=3" seems like a reasonable option (given that consistent reads may be unavailable anyway).

<comment><USER2> _the mapping of 2x IOPs to 2x cost seems tenuous to me._

Well, it's not just the number of disk I/Os which increases -- you've also got the network traffic and CPU time associated with each copy of the read request you send out. Given that (a) DynamoDB is using SSDs, and (b) Amazon seems to love using slow languages, I'd guess that the CPU time is what ends up dominating their cost.

 _why shouldn't Amazon just provide this data?_

Amazon is very secretive. And I can't really blame them; after all, why would they want to subsidize their competitors' development?

 _And finally, why not allow users to place this cost on the write path instead? "W=3" seems like a reasonable option_

I'd guess they wanted to be able to tolerate partitions without sacrificing availability. (At least for the common case where "partition" means that nodes are completely offline and are both unable to communicate with other nodes and unable to receive incoming requests.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is just the tip of the iceberg with DynamoDB's pricing issues. Based on my understanding of how their pricing works, here are two more major issues:

-You have to provision throughput for each table individually, so you basically have to pay for the maximum throughput you expect for every single table all the time (you can only reduce your throughput once per day as far as I understand). This means that adding a new table can be pretty expensive (even if your total throughput isn't increasing at all).

-Each unit of throughput gives you one 1kb write/read per second. If you exceed your throughput for a second, the call fails. This means that if you want to support the ability to write 50kb (like a "notes" field or something), you need to constantly pay for 50 write units even if you won't ever realistically use that much. And you have to do that for _every single table_

As the OP points out, it's all about FUD. I'm so terrified of exceeding my throughput allotment that I'm forced to pay for an order of magnitude more resources than I will actually use. This seems to go against everything AWS is about.

</comment><comment><USER4> This post brings up this interesting divide on how you price any of these services. In particular, with software (and movies, and whatever), we know that the marginal cost of producing another copy is low if not zero, and hence in some sense intellectual property can be priced arbitrarily by creators, since there aren't nice curves to determine pricing. This is often the same argument for why IP protection is reasonable.

At the same time, clearly this is not the case for something like EC2, where the marginal cost for another machine isn't necessarily 0, but it is true for Dynamo in some sense. Are we in a world where one can't choose to mix the model?

</comment><comment><USER5> To be fair, they're not explicitly charging twice as much for consistent reads. You get consistent reads until you exceed your provisioned read amount, which unfortunately is measured in these odd units of "read capacity"). It's not clear (to me, anyway) if the 2x number represents something accurate about resource usage or if it's just a provisioning guideline.

That said, what provisioned capacity means in DynamoDB is pretty opaque. Great point about the utility of latency information for developers.

<comment><AUTHOR> For a fixed amount of throughput, if I want consistent reads, I pay x dollars. If I'm okay with eventual consistency, I can pay x/2 dollars and get the same throughput.

Conflating resource usage, pricing, and consistency using a single metric (here, price) seems confusing, especially without the right metrics to guide devs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Isn't DynamoDB backed by SSDs? Perhaps that is the reason for the increased cost.</comment>


All You Need to Know About CSS Units and Values - <AUTHOR> https://lyty.dev/css/css-unit.html <comment><AUTHOR> Nice place to learn all about CSS.</comment>


The origins of the blink HTML element - <AUTHOR> http://www.montulli.org/theoriginofthe%3Cblink%3Etag

<comment><USER2> _We had a pretty good laugh at the thought of blinking text, and talked about blinking this and that and how absurd the whole thing would be. The evening progressed pretty normally from there, with a fair amount more drinking and me meeting the girl who would later become my first wife._

Invent <blink> and meet the wife in one day. I'm pretty sure this qualifies for evil genius...

<comment><USER3> Key words being "first wife". Combine that with <blink>, it sounds like it was a bad night all around.

<comment><USER4> Didn't read the article, but did it say "first and only"? ;)

<comment><USER5> It did not. Nobody refers to their current wife as "my first wife." If he was still married to her, it would simply be "my wife"

<comment><USER6> One (admittedly rare) counterexample is the late Sir Clement Freud:

"We remain together. I call her 'my first wife' to keep her on her toes."

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/5165998/Sir-Clement- Freud...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/5165998/Sir-Clement-Freud-I-call- her-my-first-wife-to-keep-her-on-her-toes.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Given all the JavaScript- and Flash-based assaults on the eye today, the blink tag seems charmingly benign.

<comment><USER8> And animated gifs. They all have thier uses though. It's harder to think anything useful for blink.

The cops needs the blink tag for thier emergency ASCII,

           _<blink>o</blink>___
      ____/ _| _ \___
     | o           o |

<comment><USER9> Several years ago I visited a site that purported to have discovered the only acceptable use for the blink tag:

      Schrödinger's cat is <blink>not</blink> dead.

<comment><USER10> I believe that this is the origin of that joke: <http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030427>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> _the <blink> tag will probably be remembered as the most hated of all HTML tags_

I don't know... it's a pretty close race between <blink> and <marquee>...

<comment><USER12> Oh man, <marguee scroll=vertical>Item 1
Item 2
</marquee>

I had the _coolest_ news ticket on my angelfire page!

<comment><USER13> > marguee

This tague was only implemented by Netsgape Naviguator.

<comment><USER14> Which was the only browser that mattered at the time, anyway...

<comment><USER15> Your comment deserves a ___woosh_ __, but this isn't reddit. The parent post was making fun of a spelling error by making similar errors in 'tag', 'Netscape' and 'Navigator'.

Your comment is also wrong in that marquee actually originated in Internet Explorer 3. I remember when there were webpages that would blink in Netscape and marquee in Internet Explorer since each browser had its own proprietary annoying tag.

<comment><USER16> Please pardon my off-topic question. What does `woosh' mean on reddit anyway?

<comment><USER15> People will say 'woosh' if somebody took a joking comment seriously because the humor was too sophisticated. People use this word because it is the sound made when the comment goes over someone's head (here, the comment is treated like an airplane.)

Urbandictionary can be a good place to look up this kind of thing, if you read it selectively. <http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=whoosh>

Also, since I can no longer edit my earlier comment, it was actually derleth's comment that I was factually correcting (although he likely said that because it allowed the joke to work better).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Interesting that the blink tag never made it into Lynx since it should have been relatively trivial given that there is an ANSI escape sequence for it. I have fond memories of dialing up a BBS with dramatic blinking warnings and ANSI style art that had elaborate blinking designs.

</comment><comment><USER18> The guy who went and implemented is a true hacker. He deserves applause. Everyone has those conversations where people say wouldn't this be funny. That guy did it and will forever live in the annuals of HTML. I should unleash a practical joke of my own...

</comment><comment><USER19> Anyone remember animated <title> tags? You put a bunch of them into the document and the browser would render them one by one. So disturbing.

<comment><USER20> Yup, also animated status bar text.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> The <hype> tag, another undocumented easter egg, sadly didn't catch on in the same way.

<comment><USER22> What did that acutally do? JWZ teased about it[1] as part of the things he posted for Mozilla's 10th anniversary.

[1] [http://www.jwz.org/blog/2008/03/happy-run-some-old-web- brows...](http://www.jwz.org/blog/2008/03/happy-run-some-old-web-browsers- day/)

<comment><USER23> Lou Montulli says in a Slashdot comment[1] that the tag played a sound clip of Marca saying "What is Global Hypermedia?" (Now who is Marca? I'm guessing Marc Andreesen? I assume he intended this to be clear from context but I'm not familiar with these people.)

[1] [http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=507112&cid=2293...](http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=507112&cid=22931140)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Lou is my boss. I could try to get him on here to answer any questions people may have if enough interest.

</comment><comment><USER25> I worked with the engineer he mentions. Really low-key guy, a grizzled veteran of the internet.

</comment><comment><USER26> "Saturday morning rolled around and I headed into the office..."

<comment><USER27> If you watch Code Rush, which I highly recommend, you'll see that they worked crazilly hard at Netscape back in the day:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u404SLJj7ig>

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Semantically it might have been better authored as the 'pester' element, with blinking being one implementation.

<comment><USER16> Yes. But this was the age of font-tags.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Oh...the days of blink, frames and animated gif. We thought we were so creative then :)

<comment><USER30> Don't forget the "mirrored in water" Java applet, loaded 50 times, once for each image.

<comment><USER31> Somewhat relevant <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3854047>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I highly recommend you take the time to read Lou's bio. A lot of what is possible on the Web today came from his contributions:

<http://www.montulli.org/lou>

</comment><comment><USER33> Oh, well. The important thing is that humankind has evolved since then: Never embed an animation effect in our markup.Today's web designer understands separation of content, presentation, and behavior. To 'blink', create a jQuery plug-in

A second and just-as-important lesson: never use blinking animation by itself. For maximum aesthetic appeal, use blink in precise syncronicity with the other core web site building blocks-- _pulsate_ , _throb_ , _flicker_ , and _strobe_.

</comment><comment><USER34> I have to say, I find the blink tag to be quaint form of vulgar web design. I'm rather disappointed that it isn't supported by webkit. At least animated gifs still work <http://www.lingscars.com/>

<comment><USER35> It can with a bit of CSS magic: <https://gist.github.com/75603244b7e96ecb0bd2>

<comment><USER36> Truly evil.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I found the tag so offensive that I used to "emacs the binary" (Netscape) and null out the "blink" string. This was quite effective.

<comment><USER38> This was also a great way to stop GIF animations from looping. A quick mangling of the string it looked for to find the extensions would let them play through once but not repeat.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I thought it might have been inspired to mimic a cursor blink. But no.</comment>


Apple Fails When It Comes To "Basic Durable Product Design"? - <AUTHOR> http://gadgetizor.com/apple-durable-product-design/7386/

<comment><USER2> I do not find this to be true as I have had multiple connectors with the design proposed as 'durable' in the article and they have simply began to to fray some other place.

As proven in the original reddit-thread[1] you can easily find proof of other designs - broken [2].

[1]: [http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/gd2lm/apple_has_yet_to...](http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/gd2lm/apple_has_yet_to_learn_the_very_basics_of_durable/)

[2]: <http://i.imgur.com/KFIhV.jpg>

EDIT: formatting

</comment><comment><USER3> Id wager that while some of Apple's design can lead to fraying or other failure, they have done a lot in recent years to improve the quality of their products and cables.

1\. The introduction of the UniBody design and manafacturing process has made their MacBook Pro laptops much stronger than previous versions and competing plastic laptops.

2\. The introduction of the MagSafe charging cable design has been the lifesavor of accidental tugs and trips. As well the second iterative design of the cable (introduced with the MacBook Air) has even further reduced fraying.

<comment><USER4> MagSafe WAS great, and now they broke it in the new models. The cable was pointing outwards in the old design and it really was almost impossible to pull your laptop when you pull the cable in any way. Now the cable is pointing back (or forward) and its actually quite easy to pull the laptop (especially the lite air models). I almost dropped it few times because of that

<comment><USER5> I don't understand. If anything, the new MagSafe design creates a lever when you pull the cable and snaps the charger out much more easily.

Oh, do you mean you pull the cable in parallel with the body, rather than outwards?

<comment><USER6> I find that with the new 90 degree connector it is much more likely to be yanked in parallel to the machine. The metal mount is much more durable but I've had my laptop nearly pulled out of my hands a few times by someone tripping/yanking on the cord and pulling the machine straight back.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Apple products don't need durability, since they release a new version of a product by the time the current generation is no longer new. Why would you want your ipad or iphone to last more than one year, when the new iphone or ipad will make you look obsolete ? Why cling to those past inferior versions ? Just buy the newest ones !

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence>

<comment><USER8> I sense some sarcasm in your response but it's basically true, at least for portable devices (and not just Apple). Try to go into the Verizon store and buy a charger, case, or any other accessory for a phone that more than about 12 - 18 months old, they won't have them anymore... they've moved on to the next model. And WHY do device manufactures change the connectors with every generation so the old chargers you had can't be kept as spares... so if you lose your charger you can be pressured to just upgrade your whole phone. At least the Apple products are better in that regard.

The problem with the MagSafe strain relief has been addressed... all companies have these little issues and I certainly don't think you can make a blanket statement that Apple products aren't durable due to this specific issue (typing this on a 12" PowerBook G4, ca 2002).

<comment><USER9> "And WHY do device manufactures change the connectors with every generation"

Have you looked closely at the last generation of changes? Pretty much every single phone except for the iPhone now uses micro-USB. So yes, it's annoying that everybody changed in the last generation, but everybody changing to the same thing is double-plus good.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I think the Kindle connector cable gets the balance between prettiness and durability just right.

<http://www.harinair.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/111.jpg>

</comment><comment><USER11> If you don't take care of stuff, it won't take care of you. I do work with people who must torture their stuff - every cable is kinked or bent in some way, or fraying at the end. Some of this might be faulty cables - I've had a Dr. Bott ADC to DVI cable just fall apart after 3 insertions - but on the whole I tend to think it's how people treat their stuff.

On an Apple square supply for the lead to the computer rather than pulling it at an angle straight to the winding clips, you put a small loop in the wire right where it exits the block, then wrap it around. No stress on where it exits the block - I've had the same one in my bag for 4 years now. I've seen people who just yank that sucker in one direction as hard as they can then wrap it around, and yes, that will cause the wire to break there...

Also, it's worth buying an extra power supply as backup. Apple has kept compatibility with most things - the original 85W supply used from the first MacBook Pro will still work with the newest unit today.

</comment><comment><USER12> Coincidentally, I am furiously trying to read HN before my MacBook's battery runs out, as my "elegant" white connector is frayed, making it useless. As this is the second cord I'm buying, while the black industrial cords are ugly, I'll take function over form any day.

<comment><USER6> With some of the first magsafe-based macs, I was buying a new power adapter every three months or so. The cord would fray at the end of the way-too-small strain relief between the magsafe connector and the cord. I had one nearly catch on fire (melted a bunch of the plastic covering) when it wore enough that it shorted. I figured that this was the recurring part of the 'Apple tax'.

To be fair though, in the last couple years the connectors have gotten much better - I think they extended the strain relief collar so that it does not get bent at as sharp of an angle. Also the new unibody macs have a 90-degree magsafe connector which eliminates a lot of the strain. (Unfortunately I think it is also a less safe design - it takes much more force to disengage the magnets at most angles where the cord would actually get pulled)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Most durable interconnects have, by design, poor usability - they are bulky, big (also by diameter), too stiff, etc.

</comment><comment><USER14> Those cables aren't great indeed, but the newest magsafe design is a great improvement. I wouldn't be surprised if they copy that to their other cables.

(not the fact that it's vertical of course, that wouldn't be very practical.)

</comment><comment><USER15> Not only the cable issue... The most un-durable design from Apple in my opinion is the unchangeable battery for iPod, iPhones and iPads.

<comment><USER8> As Typhoon pointed out, for those devices Apple apparently have made the (reasonable IMHO) assumption that most people will be ready to upgrade to a new model by the time the battery would need to be changed, and so could use a sleeker one-piece design rather than one with an ugly battery door. For those that don't want to upgrade, it's possible to change the battery, just not convenient.

<comment><USER16> So if you want something disposable, pay a couple hundred _extra_ for a Mac.

Right.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The customer service in any Apple store is excellent though, I haven't seen similar anywhere else. Not everyone has the luxury of one nearby but the store staff seem to have a lot of personal discretion in replacing things that are out of warranty.

Of course, the huge sales margins help to make this possible. Take advantage of this if you can. I've stood in their flagship store on Oxford Street and told a passing employee that my power supply had caught fire (slight exaggeration - minor scorching around the frayed part when it shorted) and been whisked away quickly and given a replacement.

</comment><comment><USER18> All cables from all manufacturers break fast for me; doesn't really matter how they were made. I have 100s of cables + headphones, all broken like this. Maybe i'm not very careful!

</comment><comment><USER19> Anyone else have an iPod touch/iPhone that is unusable because the apple dock socket no longer works unless you push down on it while it's connected?

Great business model though, why pay $100 to get it fixed when I can put that money towards an iPad 2...

EDIT: Actually, it'd cost me $199 <http://www.apple.com/support/ipod/service/prices/>

<comment><USER20> Wow. Those repair prices are ridiculous enough to warrant an article of their own. There's really no point in fixing a broken iPod when it's cheaper to buy a new one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> It seems like the author of the piece points to a frayed connector and says "see! Their products aren't durable!" Jumping to conclusions, in other words.

That said I _am_ on my second Macbook, and I _do_ notice they don't seem to take punishment quite as gracefully as other laptops...

</comment><comment><USER22> I had this problem with the cable going into the Magsafe connector on my last Macbook, still functional but concerningly wires were visible. On the charger of my newer MBP (2009) the cable-plug join is notably bigger/thicker and hasn't given me any problems. I think they've learned and improved.

</comment><comment><USER23> Related Zed rant:

<http://zedshaw.com/essays/apple_sux.html></comment>