Strategic Consequences of Chinese Racism: Strategic Asymmetry for the USA (2013) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.gwern.net/docs/2013-anonymous-strategicconsequencesofchineseracism.pdf <comment><USER3> I'm not so certain what they're speaking of is racism as Americans know it. It may be a form of "culturism" (where a group believes "My culture is the best.")

I have a friend who was raised in Vietnam of pure mainland Chinese parents (from the diaspora). Educated in Chinese schools (there was a huge Chinese community in Saigon where the Chinese dominated business), he spoke primarily Chinese until the age of 14. In his 14th year, Chinese schools were forced by the Vietnamese government to use the Vietnamese language in all classes, so he had to learn formal Vietnamese, and to read, write and speak Vietnamese in, say, geography class.

In summary we have an individual who

\- culturally is classical Chinese,

\- was born in Vietnam,

\- is a naturalized US citizen,

\- whose Chinese cultural habits and language date from the time of his parents' migration (circa 1920's) and are classical (non-Mandarin) Chinese,

\- whose Vietnamese language and cultural skills are weaker, dating from middle school on,

\- who also took English as a foreign language beginning in middle school,

\- who also learned Mandarin so he could speak to his brother's new wife, a mainland Chinese woman.

Anyway, he worked in an office in the USA with mainland Chinese, Hong Kong Chinese, Vietnamese, Taiwanese, and the usual mishmash of other Americans. Astonishingly, each of the Chinese groups, and the Vietnamese group, treated him as an outsider. With the exception of the Vietnamese, these groups tended to promote from within and to prefer their own group in inter-office politics. He went so far as, at one point, to specifically inquire into people's beliefs and was surprised to find that there was _no_ group that accepted him as a member, except the Americans! This despite the fact that everyone liked him.

Recently, for reasons unknown to me, he has become a flaming pro-mainland Chinese proponent vis-a-vis the USA, despite having no direct ties to the current Chinese culture or government. Many times I've had to point out to him that the only thing he truly is, and the only culture that truly accepts him, is "American".

I really got his goat by pointing out that he has little in common with mainland Chinese, certainly neither language nor culture, and that he is to them, culturally the equivalent of their grandfather or even great- grandfather.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm Chinese American. I won't claim to represent everyone and everything Chinese, here are my two cents.

China is what happens when you enclose a really big population in a box. And this box is really comfortable; you have little incentive to go outside of it. You have the company of millions of other Chinese folk, and Chinese culture and its derivatives (to this day many of us see Korea and Japan as copies of Chinese culture) can entertain us indefinitely. The average Chinese has little incentive to run off and seek interaction with other races, other bits of culture. I suspect (but might be wrong) language barriers also play a role in this.

Even today in places outside China, you can notice how Chinese will naturally gravitate toward each other into little "bubble" communities. The fact that there are just so many of us makes this very easy. I know other cultures do this as well, but like I said, we have the population advantage.

Chinese are racist because we have very limited experience with other, non- East Asian cultures. Oftentimes you will see Chinese follow straightforward stereotypes regarding ethnicity. For example, Chinese attitudes toward blacks easily stem from what they see in the news or media (Movies, crime reports, etc.). Confirmation bias does play a bit in here: Chinese culture already has a pretty simple ideal in which darker-skinned people are unfortunately shafted and considered undesirable.

When it comes to history, Chinese people again suffer from the box-syndrome - many are proud and fervently study Chinese history, and thus barely scrape the surface of world history. My immigrant father could recite many Chinese emperors by name, but knows nothing about American, European, even Japanese history (except WW2, of course). One thing I found interesting was that my dad is totally fine describing the brutality of ancient and medieval Chinese rulers, but as we get closer to the present, the spotlight turns to Japan and then things get quieter. Even today he watches media pretty much exclusively on Chinese apps - no Youtube, etc. I can tell there's so much there for him, he has no incentive to look elsewhere.

<comment><USER5> You are so wrong. I am a hong king "chinese". I would say your way of thinking is what causing a lot of trouble.

You says chinese is one race. You mean Hans. If not we are not of one race. You cannot have your culture hans and fighting Mongolian, tibetian, manuchuain ... all your thousand of years literally. Then suddenly they are chinese because in the last 100 years someone decided to occupy these people's land then they are chinese.

What is china? Heard of Great Wall. Why is there a Great Wall. Has the Qing emperor thought the Hans are not enemy to be killed and contained.

We may say you are European. But let us not kid ourselves when thing boiled down you are english, French, ...

We may say we are Soviet Union. Brotherhood ...

And these we are chinese under communism is shameful.

There are more than politics. But killing culture, suppressing people, ... I am ashame to be associated with this gang.

I know more than you, I love my poems from tong down to mao. I share my many dreams that one day we will kick this communist ass out and we will ....

But who are we. That is a question.

As to chinese minge with their own. Do you know all chinese education now has a foregein language and also most top guys descendent run. They do not feel comfortable with each other over there. Or here.

Btw, Korea and japan may get a bit from us. But like china people copy apple to make little rice does not mean they are American. A lot of our vocabulary is coming from japan. Chinese do not have the word for society.

We are all human. At least for now (well we are in the hacker group). We do not deny our heritage. But not recognise who you are ... you love nazi because you are germany, do you?

Let us be human first. And do not look at a black face and then say he is africn American. He is human first. He may come from a part of Africa you do not know. But do not think first he is an African.

I am not chinese. You are not as well.

<comment><USER6> Agreed. China is imho very diverse. Not as diverse as India, but certainly more than neighbouring nations. The government just don't like to admit it, instead promoting an image of unity in all things.

<comment><USER7> Yes, it is not environment stimulating free mind and its products.. Confusing, is not it?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I know very little about China, but the report mentions in passing that racism is pervasive in Russia where I was born, whereas Western societies have done a remarkable job addressing racism.

It is not obvious to me that the American approach of racial quotas in high education (which incidentally penalizes Asians very heavily today, perhaps more than any other group) is particularly different from the Soviet approach of racial quotas in high education (which to some degree penalized ethnic Russians by reserving spots for people from the other "republics", and heavily penalized students from "overrepresented" minorities, quite similarly to penalizing whites somewhat and Asians more heavily in today's US.) It doesn't seem different from Israel's affirmative action where Arabs get preferential treatment at the expense of Jews, either. Perhaps it seems reasonable to some to blame Chinese for _not_ having racial quotas which supposedly "address" racism, but especially since Asian Americans get heavily penalized in the scheme, it's hard to respond to an argument from a Chinese person that the scheme doesn't address racism but institutionalizes it.

Nor is it obvious to me whether the average Westerner of any particular group is more or less racist than a citizen of Russia, including both ethnic Russians and those who are not. It's fairly obvious that the Westerner might be more reserved in expressing racist views, fearing repercussions, although at other times the Westerner will actually be very loudly racist if it is currently in vogue to be racist against this particular race (right now anti- white sentiment is celebrated, which, whatever its reasons, will surely produce terrible results; the broader point is that it's not obvious that being racist against one race at one time is fundamentally different than being racist against another at another time, and even if we agree that it's done for very different reasons, it does not follow that it will produce very different results.)

I'm not saying that Russian attitudes toward race are the same as Western attitudes, just that the report's claims about the Russian society and the Western societies which I kinda sorta know things about (though it's hard to summarize millions of people very precisely or to inform oneself about them fully in the first place) make me suspicious with respect to its main topics, Chinese attitudes to race. It would be interesting (though not necessarily representative of the entire Chinese population) to hear Chinese people weigh in on this.

<comment><USER9> _> I know very little about China, but the report mentions in passing that racism is pervasive in Russia where I was born, whereas Western societies have done a remarkable job addressing racism._

I don't think that the report is saying "China is racist and we aren't." It's saying that the difference between the US and China is that the US struggles with its racism whereas China doesn't. Or, at the very least, that this is a defensible enough narrative that it could form the basis for US messaging on the issue of racism in international diplomacy.

 _> It is not obvious to me that the American approach of racial quotas in high education..._

I think you may've missed the author's main point wrt Affirmative Action.

The only reason that Affirmative Action is even discussed in this report is because this is one of China's lines of offense. The party will point to affirmative action and immigration quotas on Chinese as examples that prove the US is a racist society.

But the author's thesis is that the party's _actual_ interest is in turning Chinese citizens against the US, not in proving their moral superiority to the US, and especially not in beating out the US on the racial equality front (witness: fucking eugenics...).

In other words, they have no qualms with racism -- only with racism against Han Chinese. And their focus on affirmative action (as opposed to Jim Crow or the highly racialized impacts of the WoD) betray this fact.

There are still people alive who fucking lived through Jim Crow.

The implementation of the War on Drugs is multi-decade all-but-overtly racist monstrosity.

So the US is far from guiltless, especially today. But Affirmative Action is somewhere near the mid-bottom, not the top, of a long list of very serious problems deeply rooted in racism. Focusing on it to the exclusion of these other issues -- while at the same time embracing _fucking eugenics_ \-- belies a disinterest in actual anti-racism.

That is the author's point.

 _> It doesn't seem different from Israel's affirmative action where Arabs get preferential treatment at the expense of Jews, either._

On a similar note... Yes, clearly the exemplar of racism in Israeli politicsis preferential treatment afforded to Arabs at the expense of jews in college admissions processes! /s

I get that you're just discussing affirmative action. But if China wanted to truly critique western racism via Israel, affirmative action for Arabs would be a truly mind-boggling place from which to mount that critique.

Unless they didn't actually give a shit about racism and just wanted to demonize the US on the basis of a policy that happens to harm Han Chinese, that is...

 _> Perhaps it seems reasonable to some to blame Chinese for not having racial quotas which supposedly "address" racism_

Again, the Affirmative Action stuff is really about how China frames its critique of the US to appeal to contemporary Han Chinese. Not an actual discussion of the prevelance of racism in either society.

By contrast, it seems entirely reasonable for the author to point out stuff like _ongoing 50 's style racially-driven eugenics programs_ that were _started in the mid-90 's_ as evidence of ongoing racism in Chinese policy- making.

 _> Nor is it obvious to me whether the average Westerner of any particular group is more or less racist than a citizen of Russia, including both ethnic Russians and those who are not._

Indeed. Which is why the author identifies legal protections and cultural norms, and devotes an entire section to rejecting any hypotheses about differences in underlying psychology.

<comment><USER8> > They have no qualms with racism -- only with racism against Han Chinese.

> Affirmative Action is somewhere near the mid-bottom, not the top, of a long > list of very serious problems deeply rooted in racism.

To you the fact that there are still black people who lived through Jim Crow matters more than the fact that there are Asians today who are turned down by high education institutions because of their race. Why can't a Chinese person tell you that you have no qualms with racism - only with racism against black people?

It seems to be a common viewpoint in the West that the response to racism is a hierarchy of grievances, and that for example a white person who supports preferential treatment of black people at the expense of Asians is not a racist, either because "racism" is defined to mean "disagreeing with the hierarchy of grievances", or simply because it's only "racism" when you're trying to get preferential treatment for your own race, but it's not "racism" if it's for another race. This is not however the only possible definition of racism, nor the original definition, nor the definition used in the report.

BTW I'm not sure whether a 100% color blind policy is always the best thing or not, and perhaps it depends on context. I'm just saying that I think it's a much thornier subject than people with (many different) strong positions seem to believe.

<comment><USER9> _> To you the fact that there are still black people who lived through Jim Crow matters more than the fact that there are Asians today who are turned down by high education institutions because of their race._

Yes. Absolutely.

The structural effects of 200 years of overtly racialized legal frameworks did not magically disappear with Brown v. Board. To claim that Jim Crow doesn't reverberate today in very concrete ways for millions of minorities in the US is ignorant beyond reason. And I even mentioned one concrete way that they reverberate today that is unimaginably worse than Affirmative Action (WoD).

 _> Why can't a Chinese person tell you that you have no qualms with racism - only with racism against black people?_

Well first they'd have to determine if I support Affirmative Action...

 _> ...hierarchy of grievances... This is not however the only possible definition of racism, nor the original definition, nor the definition used in the report._

This discussion is about _what the Chinese government chooses to emphasize_. So context and degree both matter, because if China were truly critiquing racism then they'd choose the strongest argument available.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Very long read. TBH I only read the beginning and end carefully, and skimmed through the middle...200? pages.

What really stuck out to me was this line that explains how racism benefits the Chinese government: "First, the Han Chinese possess a strong in group identity with a polarized and tightly defined out group. This allows the Chinese government to expect sacrifice and as well as support from the considerable majority of the Chinese people."

Perhaps a lot of these attitudes come from how in many Chinese people's eyes, their golden years were when they had very little outside influence and were able to invent some of the most useful inventions in human history (compass, paper, gunpowder). From the time that they have mixed with the West, they have had some very negative experiences, (as the report brings up, the Opium wars, burning of the palace). Perhaps their attitudes will change slowly now. In my experiences, racism is something that is slowly taught/instilled, and so I don't expect any easy reversal.

<comment><USER11> These attitudes are a direct consequence of government propaganda, and what you've described as "golden years" and "negative experiences" are pretty much the de facto spin on history spread by the Chinese state media and education system.

The ironic thing is that the exact opposite situation happened as recently as in the last 50 years. China closed itself again to have "little outside influences" and started the Cultural Revolution, which destroyed millions of lives, irreparably damaged Chinese society, and set the country back in cognitive and cultural development for several centuries. And it was foreign investment that lifted China out of severe chaos and poverty after Deng Xiaoping's Reform and Opening Up.

<comment><USER10> Those are valid points, and I admit that having close Chinese friends have probably biased my thinking on this a bit. I still believe in my main point of the Chinese needing some time/exposure to the West in order to truly change their mindset towards the West.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> As a person who has lived in China for nearly a decade, I have experienced racism first hand there. But actually it was, 99% of the time, racism that favored my white skin. Wherever I (or any other white foreigner I know) went, I had instant respect and was admired, without having to do anything to earn that respect. Why does the article, which seems well-researched, not mention this phenomenon at all?

(Or maybe I've missed it, I've only read the summary and a few paragraphs that contained the term "white")

<comment><USER13> spotted the english lackey!

try starting a real business and see how it goes.

<comment><USER14> That reads like a personal attack. We ban accounts that do that, so please don't post like this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> There is a Chinese diaspora that fled famines and wars to many parts of the world, and the current generations no longer identify with the mainland Chinese. In fact there is a strong resentment for mainland Chinese in many parts of the world where there are significant overseas Chinese precisely because of the qualities laid out in the paper (i.e. racist attitudes, overbearing smugness from the nouveau rich etc)

</comment><comment><USER16> I don't think group conflict is a very well solved problem. I don't think we are able to achieve that, either. What I can see is when there is a group conflict, after the extra energy is vented, and the groups involved are still there, they look for mutual interests and fall back to that base and go from there. Race issue is one big example of this. We do have some system works better than others. But putting it into a bottle with absolute right mark on it may not be the best way to go under current situation.

I'm probably biased since I'm Chinese. I agree with most part of this report. The author did a lot of good homework. But I think his thoughts to work out those strategies need some update to better fit in the world today and tomorrow. There are similar parts and there are different parts.

</comment><comment><USER17> Interesting how often the perceived racial equality of the USA comes up as an advantage over China in terms of their perception in the developing world - <USER2> wonder if the policies of the Trump administration are in the process of tipping that balance the other way.

<comment><USER18> Agreed. Trump and America in recent years are doing major damage to USA's soft-power advantages over China with respects to racism and racial equality:

> Fourth, the message of the United States should be: We are better than the > Chinese for Africa. We will assist you with economic aid to offset what you > receive from China. In sum, culturally, socially, and politically, the > United States is better, citizens are equal, racial equality, and civil > rights are recognized.

<comment><USER19> The message of the Chinese government to third world governments is "we're not going to try to change your government". They get along with the Islamic world and various oppressive regimes in Africa that way. The US is always nagging about human rights and corruption.

Meanwhile, China is building railroads from China to Europe.[1]

[1] [http://www.xinhuanet.com/world/newsilkway/index.htm](http://www.xinhuanet.com/world/newsilkway/index.htm)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I find it odd to that this document is on the frontpage of HN.

200+ pages, no clear summary, unclear what it is it? Other than appearantly it is confidential who has written it, seemingly academic and it is about Chinese and/or China being racists.

Where is this document from? And why was it written?

"Racist" is probably the most damning word that one can use in politics (here international politics) and can be used justify a great deal of wrong doing.

<comment><USER21> It's from the Department of Defense litigation release a few months back. Have a look here:

[http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/Reading_Room/Other/](http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/Reading_Room/Other/)

Most of these are anthropology reports commissioned by the DoD. A lot of them are super interesting. Examples:

2st Century Cultures of War [http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/Reading_Room/Other/Litigation%20...](http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/Reading_Room/Other/Litigation%20Release%20-%2021st%20Century%20Cultures%20of%20War.pdf)

Axis of Troubles: Male Youth and Factional Politics [http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/Reading_Room/Other/Litigation%20...](http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/Reading_Room/Other/Litigation%20Release%20-%20Axis%20of%20Troubles%20Male%20Youth%20Factional%20Politics%20and%20Religion%20%20200509.pdf)

The Future of Europe [http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/Reading_Room/Other/Litigation%20...](http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/Reading_Room/Other/Litigation%20Release%20-%20The%20Future%20of%20Europe- Final%20Report%20%20201304.pdf)

The Future of Africa and the Future of China in Africa [http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/Reading_Room/Other/Litigation%20...](http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/Reading_Room/Other/Litigation%20Release%20-%20The%20Future%20of%20Africa%20The%20Future%20of%20China%20in%20Africa%202035%20201406.pdf)

<comment><USER22> Thanks. These are fascinating.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Also surprising to many westerners is the extent to which Chine encourages and provides the opportunity for folks to volunteer for a eugenics programs: [https://www.edge.org/response-detail/23838](https://www.edge.org/response- detail/23838)

<comment><AUTHOR> Miller overstates his case. Aside from the total failure of the mentioned BGI project and it being beaten to the punch by the first IQ GWAS hits being released by the Western SSGAC consortium that very year (Rietveld et al 2013), Westerners practice a good deal of that 'Chinese eugenics' (look at Down rates, assortative mating, fertility rates by education level, and the practices of sperm & egg banks), and his (and Lynn's) estimate of the benefits of embryo selection of being 5-15 IQ points is considerably off because the upper bound set by heritability & average number of embryos in IVF is ~9 points and then half of them are lost to various steps, so even universal use of IVF would not deliver more than maybe 4.5 IQ points (see [https://www.gwern.net/Embryo%20selection](https://www.gwern.net/Embryo%20selection) for my more detailed analysis of limits). I don't expect Chinese women to use IVF much more than Western women - there are limits to the tiger mother thing. (CRISPR, likewise, is greatly overrated.) The real discontinuous changes would come from technologies further down the pipeline: induced pluripotency to allow creation of hundreds of embryos to select from, iterated embryo selection, and genome synthesis.

<comment><USER24> > even universal use of IVF would not deliver more than maybe 4.5 IQ points

That still doubles the number of people in your population with a 130+ IQ. Assuming baseline 100 mean and 15 std dev.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sure (I include a table of the consequences on the tail for various scenarios), but consider that the Chinese population is already more than twice the size of the US population and available measurements suggest it may have a higher starting mean as well, but that has not had a huge impact. Why would another doubling be expected to? (The US could probably easily double its 130+ numbers if it wanted to just by changing immigration policies.) At the very least, it can't be expected to have the impact of anything like an IES/synthesis scenario where the gains would be anywhere upwards of +100 points.

<comment><USER24> Oh yeah, a gain of +100 points is just insane and it would be difficult to predict what that society would even be like. I was just trying to suggest that +4.5 to the mean might also have potentially big effects.

As for why China isn't farther ahead - IQ isn't everything. They modernized pretty late in the game, and operated under a profoundly stupid economic system for a good part of the 20th century. I believe that their current government is pretty corrupt, but I'm far from an expert.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> If one substitutes United States for China and fixes geographical references, there still seems to be some truth in those statements, at least as far as I can tell from my outside perspective. One could probably also substitute still other countries or sometimes the West in general and still get some true statements.

 _In Chinese history and contemporary culture, the Chinese are seen to be unique and superior to the rest of the world. Other peoples and groups are seen to be inferior, with a sliding scale of inferiority._

 _The Chinese commonly believe that they are cleverer than others, and so may shape events in an oblique manner or through shi [势], the strategic manipulation of events. This conceit among the Chinese that they can manipulate others is supremely dangerous for Asian stability._

 _An overconfident China will continue to make the mistakes it is presently in the South China or East China Sea disputes. That is, making threats, issuing demands, heavy-handed shows of force, are generated by China's overconfidence._

 _Analysts do have insight into how China will behave in the future based on its behavior in the past, when it was the hegemon of Asia, the known world as far as China was concerned. China sees itself as the center of the universe, all others are inferior, with varying degrees of inferiority. That is not an attractive model of winning allies and influence._

 _In contrast, China portrays itself as an apolitical rising superpower that does business in your country, pays a fair price for your commodities, and builds your infrastructure with no string attached._

 _There often is considerable resentment toward the Chinese due to their ruthless business practices, which undercut and destroy African businesses._

<comment><USER26> My controversial 2 cents, which might be very wrong:

There is a major difference between the two countries: China sees itself as a single "people", in the sense that there is a clear dominating national identity linked to a certain culture and ethnicity, similar to other old world countries in the past century (some of which are still like that).

The US in this sense is closer to other "new world" countries, with a national identity not clearly tied to an ethnicity. Sure, there are groups who try to make the US a more homogeneous country (and not by intermixing to oblivion), but the US identity is largely multi-cultural and multi-ethnic.

So the Chinese who move to the US eventually become Americans, but Americans who move to China will never become Chinese. For China there's no cultural assimilation, no integration, no coexistence. There's not even "separate but equal", because there's no "equal".

<comment><USER25> I was not so much aiming at the racism point, there I would - if the paper correctly characterizes China - side with the author and say that the West is on a much better path to deal with the issue.

But you still have American exceptionalism, the desire to spread western values like democracy, individual freedom and capitalism, being the world police, interference with other countries and so.

I mean it is somewhat understandable, if you believe in something, then you have to almost by definition assume that it is true and better than the alternatives. On the other hand you can also be more restrained r modest, you can believe in something but still avoid trying to force it onto everyone else.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Not sure I would call it racism. Ethnocentrism, as others have said, born of centuries of relative isolation and periods of significant cultural and technological advances.

Not sure if USA can exploit negative perceptions of China, given our history and the histories of other white-dominated nations (e.g. GB and France) in Africa and Latin America.

For all we know, the Third World might not mind at all seeing the West taken down a peg, especially if they see no change in their status. But even if things go worse for the TW because of China, what can they do about it?

</comment><comment><USER11> Although I mostly agree with your comment, I find the subtext of it (and especially the fact that you had to put "racism" in quotes, as if Chinese prejudice towards other races isn't actually racism) quite distasteful. Racism is racism, and "limited experience with other cultures" isn't an excuse for it.

Update: I see you've reworded your post and removed the quotation marks, I appreciate it.

<comment><USER14> We detached this subthread from [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13751036](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13751036) and marked it off-topic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Empires need a reason for expanding. If the inside is the same as the outside, there is absolutely no reason at all for the empire to expand or to exist at all. Most imperialistic nations also come with a nationalistic sense of exceptionalism.

While the Chinese might have a sense of exceptionalism, Americans also do, as well as many other countries. The Chinese have objectively received many humiliations historically and it is understandable if they do not feel good about it: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_of_humiliation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_of_humiliation)

</comment><comment><USER29> Chinese people have been discriminated against for so many years since 1840s, yes, we Chinese people are racists, please keep a distance with China. Do not let China be infected by political correctness and "holy war". When extremists attack your noble Westerners, they are terrorists, but when they attack the Chinese people they become "freedom fighters". interesting, lol

<comment><USER10> From my comments earlier in the thread it's pretty clear that I understand why many Chinese have the viewpoint that outside influence is bad. However, I think your viewpoint is way too extreme. China isn't some passive country now that is just sitting around being attacked by extremists/freedom fighters, but China is actively making aggressive moves towards many other countries. For example, China has threatened Taiwan many times, which is completely unacceptable in my eyes.

<comment><USER29> yes, my viewpoint is way too extreme, I just comment about Westerners' hypocrisy as the way some of Westerners did to China people. Threantened Taiwan? lol, Please find out the economic data of China-Taiwan trade, China maintains trade deficit with Taiwan, but maintains trade surplus for most countries, including the United States, Japan, and EU. And I hope you can figure out how the Taiwanese are treated in mainland(China). By the way, Taiwan is the part of China(ROC), Taiwan is part of China, which is recognized by the UN. It's a matter of internal affairs.

<comment><USER11> Taiwan (The Republic of China) is an independent country with its own government, currency and international relations. Any deals between Mainland China and Taiwan are international affairs.

<comment><USER30> Let's wait and see.

<comment><USER31> Please elaborate.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


It's not just the poor who can't make rent - <AUTHOR> http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/its-not-just-poor-who-cant-make-rent-n478501 <comment><AUTHOR> The rent is too damn high</comment>


A system to find inhibitors of Candidatus Liberibacter transcription regulators - <AUTHOR> https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/08/15/1905149116 <comment><AUTHOR> [Why is this article important?]:

Candidatus liberibacter asiaticus is a gram negative bacteria that causes a serious disease of oranges, lemons and other citrics. The disease has no cure and reduces the harvest until eventually killing the tree.

Its impact on economy of places like Florida (largest Citrus producer in US) has been estimated in loses > 4.5 billions of dollars and -8000 jobs in the last two decades</comment>


Show HN: Real Time Traffic Grassroots Project (RFC) - <AUTHOR> http://www.sabkatraffic.com

<comment><USER2> Given the usefulness of this project, it seems like you could get a lot of local press coverage. Have you tried reaching out to anyone yet?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback. We are looking for local press coverage, but are not sure how to reach out to them. Our goal is to position ourselves as the people's choice.

<comment><USER2> You're welcome. Have you tried seeing if any of the editors of your target publications are active on Twitter or Facebook? Both can be a good starting point for building relationships.</comment></comment></comment>


Getting to Know Americans - <AUTHOR> http://www.nyu.edu/life/student-life/international-students-and-scholars/beyond-nyu/cultural-issues-/know-americans.html <comment><USER3> I have been in the US about ten times and I think one of the initial barriers is our that our perception of the US is formed through Hollywood.

Some things that did not match my expectations/assumptions:

\- The average American is much poorer than I expected. Wealth is less evenly divided, than say West-Europe.

\- Americans are extremely nice and warm. Some Europeans say it is superficial, but I really liked when eating at some place that a stranger would pass by and have a chat.

\- Apart from the West coast and North-East, Americans are pretty conservative.

\- Americans have a positive attitude towards life.

\- Americans are prepared to take risks, where Europeans are for more risk- averse. This (IMO) has a bad effect on the social system, but a positive effect on entrepreneurism.

<comment><USER4> Don't let appearances dictate your perception of wealth (well, in the midwest at least). A lot of farmers, business people in the midwest don't look the part, but have the bucks.

<comment><USER5> And as you might learn in 'The Millionaire Next Door' many doctors and lawyers have nothing but debt and the appearance of wealth. Or in Texan: "Big hat, no cattle."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "Be patient if Americans are ignorant of some aspect about your home country. Use the opportunity to educate and share, just do so in a polite and brief manner."

Citizens of other countries always like to point out how Americans are ignorant of other nations and their cultures, oftentimes failing to realize that within their own nation poverty is rampant and the majority of the population remains illiterate (yes, although I was born American my ethnic background comes from one of these such nations). Yet because of our standing in the world as a superpower, and because so many people from so many countries end up moving here - we are expected to be experts on the cultural sensitivities of all these countries. Americans are more open and willing to learn, I find, than pretty much any people anywhere in the world.

<comment><USER7> I agree with you.

My own "disappointment" is not with 'regular joe' Americans, but with educated Americans. Being from a large city in India, I know from personal experience that majority of the people with college education, especially technical education are knowledgeable about things outside their own country at least in a conversational level, if not they want to know more. I cannot assume the same with Americans. I felt astonished that people who have degrees from top technical universities have lop sided and often dated views of the rest of world.

Many time they are not even ready to acknowledge that things can and often are done better outside their own country. The sense of NIH is very strong.

<comment><USER8> America is special.

We're special for a lot of reasons, including 'soft power' (e.g., the most watched movies in the world are from America), 'hard power' (our military is more powerful and more likely to be used than any other plausible combination of nations I can think of), and economic power (our GDP is on par with the entire European Union. It is significantly larger than Brazil, Russia, India, and China's combined).

For these reasons, most every educated person in the world knows more about America than almost any other country (excluding their own and a handful of neighbors). I don't understand why a citizen of country X is surprised that most Americans don't know much more about X, than they they themselves do about Country Y (where Y is roughly of equal importance as X, but is on the other side of the world).

I've met Brits who were insulted that I only know who their Prime Minister is and what the major parties are, while they are familiar with the intricacies of American politics (upcoming elections, controversies, major players in each party, etc). Yet, they almost always know absolutely nothing about Brazilian politics (while I also know Brazil's major parties and President). Why is it so difficult to understand that, to an American, British politics are about as important as Brazilian politics are to a Brit?

<comment><USER9> I think that "country X vs Y" stuff is much of why, when an American is ignorant about facets of another country/culture, they don't default to feeling like they are in some way at fault for that ignorance. That isn't the same thing as being proud of their ignorance (which is around in America, but much less common than one might fear), it is a reasonable position to have.

Any time spent learning about the details of some other culture/country is time not spent on learning about another. Faced with the abundance of sets of details to learn, and with little to make one country/culture's set of details stand out as the one an American might want to learn, lack of self- recrimination is a pretty healthy response. Maybe it would seem more polite if American's made like they were embarrassed about the ignorance when it comes up, but that would go against being honest.

<comment><USER8> My point is that Indians (for example) aren't embarrassed by their ignorance about Brazil (for example), but expect Americans to be embarrassed by their ignorance of India.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> One thing I've heard from several Europeans I've met (who are currently living in the US, either for work or school) is that Americans have a reputation for being very friendly but making a lot of empty social promises.

One European I met at my local watering hole was a programmer and a very cool guy, so we made plans to get together for beers and nerd talk. He mentioned the whole thing about social promises and said that he's had tons of cases where an American would express an intention to hang out at some later date and then flake out.

I insisted that I totally intended to call him up the following weekend and set something up, but of course I totally forgot, and by the time I remembered it had been an awkward amount of time, so I never did call.

<comment><USER11> My Singaporean roommate complains about this very thing. He thinks it's a politeness thing, as in, Americans will say "Let's do this again sometime," to sound polite, even when they have no intention of doing so.

<comment><USER10> I know that I totally intend on following up, but starting up new friendships often seems like a lot of work. Most of my friendships come from work, friends of friends, or other regulars at the bar my friends and I all go to. It seems like less of a risk after you randomly socialize with them a few times.

<comment><USER10> Just wanted to clear up that by "them", I don't mean foreigners, I mean potential new friends.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It's hard to tell what perspective this article is written from. There are many subjective qualifiers. For example:

> Americans place considerable value on punctuality.

From a German perspective, this is wildly untrue.

<comment><USER13> I think Germans are the ONLY exception to the rule. Of course, someone will provide a counter example, I'm sure :)

<comment><USER14> Japanese.... In Japan being late is seen as seriously wrong.

<comment><USER15> Austria, Switzerland, all or most of Scandinavia...Probably most or all central/north/north western European societies.

IIRC Australia is also the same.

<comment><USER16> All of your examples are Germanic cultures. Notably, I think this is true in the German speaking part of Switzerland, but not nearly as much in Suisse Romande.

<comment><USER15> Most of Central Europe is Slavic.

I'll bet it's the same in Russia and many other Slavic countries.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> How about American irony and sarcasm? Here in Asia sarcasm is almost non- existent.

Also, Americans value humor as a way of showing affection for someone. Whereas in Asia displays of servitude are a sign of affection. For example, if I engage in a humorous conversation with you, that means I like you. Even if I don't pour your tea for you!

<comment><USER18> Actually, by British standards America appears an irony and sarcasm free zone. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, but it is _very_ noticeable.

<comment><USER3> Indeed, but Britain is probably the other extreme. I believe there is only one country that could've produced magnificent material such as Monty Python or Fawlty Towers ;).

<comment><USER19> You know, unlike English some languages have a sarcastic tense.

<comment><USER20> Fascinating. Sarcasm is inherent in the grammar? Can you give some examples?

update: searched a bit, cannot find any supporting evidence for bioh42_2's statement.

<comment><USER19> Inferential or renarrative mood: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferential_mood>

Not always intended as sarcastic, but:

 _The main body of the news report tends to use the renarrative correctly - but sometimes, again, it is intentionally avoided. (...) This is because, due to its ambiguity, the renarrative in such cases could be perceived as a passing of judgement or expression of doubt by the reporter..._

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> A shorter version would be: Americans are generally individualist Protestant technologist capitalists. Like any other culture these defining traits bring inherent strengths, and unavoidable weaknesses.

On a different note, Does anyone know the author of this essay? I've seen it around at least as far back as the early 1990's, and it's good to see it still in use.

<comment><USER22> Just curious about what weaknesses you have in mind?

<comment><USER21> Take any one of those four traits and consider its opposite, e.g. individualism vs. group/tribal orientation. Individualism confers strengths most Westerners know and prize: freedom of expression, of employment, some degree of class/social/geographical mobility, personal merit and meritocratic ideals, etc. Individualism also brings severe and frequently self-destructive liabilities/weaknesses: alienation, lack of trust, lack of social bonds and support networks - as evidenced by the high rates of broken families, mental illness (depression, anxiety), and substance abuse.

Of course, a combination of traits brings strengths that are more than the sum of their parts, and concomitant weaknesses. For example, the US is a great market for consumer goods (and thus entrepreneurs), as individuals seek their own immediate gratification and the promise of salvation/transformation through buying something new - all while supposedly contributing to the greater economic welfare (there being few if any other widespread, concrete, social goals). But it is far from a given that this way of life is at all viable, even in the course of one human lifetime, never mind a few centuries. As some scholars put it, every society confronts (and creates) large collective problems; the US has consistently chosen individualist capitalist technologist solutions, and it remains to be seen whether that approach has a long-term future.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Even as an American, I still love to read about others' views of America. A little narcissistic, maybe, but I think it's more like getting another pair of eyes on something _you_ look at everyday.

<comment><USER24> It took centuries to come to the point of introspection - <USER2> apparently label the normal American kinship system as Inuit or some such, because it wasn't until studying another culture that we recognized our own.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> _Other cultures are often evaluated as better or worse than this one rather than simply being seen as different._

True.

 _Americans tend to think that theirs is the best way to do things_

Not true. Just think about American adoption of yoga and buddhism. Certain aspects of Asian cultures, once discovered, were adopted and adapted by Yanks who thought their culture could use improving.

<comment><USER24> ...my Austrian friend is amazed at the variety of ethnic food available in America. He doesn't see that in his travels, and certainly not at home.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Is there a typo here?

 _Americans usually think of nature as something that can be altered, conquered, and controlled for people's comfort and use and in order to minimize the effects of fierce weather conditions. In contrast, many cultures accept nature as something they can change or control._

<comment><USER22> You mean that last "can" should be "can't" right? Yep pretty sure that is a typo.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I'm sure this is great for immigrants , but it's just as useful for Americans, like myself living abroad. Before living overseas, I only understood a few vague general distinctions. Knowing your own peculiarities is a good starting point for adaptation.

There's also a link from the page on 'Cultural Adaptation' with great content for anyone interfacing with a second culture.

</comment><comment><USER28> This seems a bit more accurate for New Yorkers than as a primer for Americans in general. "Observe their focus on themselves, rather on than their families" was particularly a "bwuh?" for me. In a university area (my local one is definitely like that), sure, but not in general.

<comment><USER29> By Asian standards, particularly Chinese, Americans are outrageously selfish. But it's true that Europeans (and perhaps most cultures) would find nothing unusual in Americans' value of self vs. family.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Oh, and one more item for those college students who become grad students and decide they need to do field study, if you come out to a reservation in the northern plains and decide to hold a noon meeting, then YOU are on the hook for catering lunch. If you don't, prepare for a seriously insulted crowd. This includes dinner time meetings also. Brown bagging is not acceptable.

</comment><comment><USER30> > Americans are taught that "all men are created equal." While they > continually violate that idea in some aspects of life, in others they adhere > to it.

Boy, I wish more Americans understood that.

<comment><USER31> More accurately, Americans mostly adhere to the notion that "all men are equal" when it serves the interests of the top 1%. Voting, the military, taxes, college admissions, etc.

<comment><USER32> _Americans mostly adhere to the notion that "all men are equal" when it serves the interests of the top 1%....taxes..._

Really bad example. The US has the most progressive tax system of the entire OECD. The only countries that come close are Australia, Ireland and the Netherlands.

<http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/27134.html>

Here is data on the top 1%. Specifically, they earn 20% of income in the US, but pay 38% of taxes.

<http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html>

I'm not sure why you believe the military gives preferences to the top 1%. As far as I'm aware, the military is strictly egalitarian (being based on fairly rigid performance criteria) with the sole exception of having racial and sexual preferences.

<comment><USER31> "I'm not sure why you believe the military gives preferences to the top 1%. As far as I'm aware, the military is strictly egalitarian..."

And that egalitarianism is partly used to hide the fact that the people dying, losing limbs, suffering traumatic brain injuries, etc., aren't the ones who are making billions of dollars from the war.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> > Fields and professions that were unwelcoming to women in the past have seen > remarkable growth of women in their ranks, including areas such as medicine, > police, law, and engineering.

Unless you talk to an engineer.

</comment><comment><USER34> (I'm American and) I'm most curious about the supposed "superficiality" of Americans, particularly w/respect to friendships. Can anyone enlighten me on the reason for this? Are people of other countries accustomed to dealing with people who are less mobile and more likely to stick around for a while, and therefore more willing to invest time in a relationship? Is it an overemphasis on an appearance of independence?

<comment><USER25> In my experience, Germans are more likely to retain friends from secondary school, more likely to date someone for longer, and more likely to keep a social appointment.

I would describe Germans as "slower to warm" to someone, but they "stay warm" for longer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> ... And If you see Americans in the wild, make sure to stop what you're doing immediately, turn, and walk calmly, don't run, it will only excite them. If you have some food or drink, drop it, it may distract them, and in turn give you a few extra valuable seconds to escape ...

</comment><comment><USER36> Living abroad, I can definitely see myself in a lot of this.

</comment><comment><USER37> The Xenophobe's Guide to the Americans <http://www.ovalbooks.com/xeno/Americans.html>

</comment><comment><USER38> For what it's worth, this is a very "New York" way to view American culture.

Each corner of the country is vastly different than the others.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> The page seems to have been removed from nyu.edu. Strange.

</comment><comment><USER39> "US Americans" ?!

<comment><USER40> Yes, US Americans, as opposed to US Mexicans, or Canada Americans, Brasil Americans, or Columbia Americans.

See what I did there.

<comment><USER39> "What you did there", besides beat a dead meme-horse was invent words that no one actually uses, as far as I can tell.

<comment><USER41> > a dead meme-horse

It's reassuring to know that meme-horses can die. I was afraid we were stuck with them forever...</comment></comment></comment></comment>


World population living in extreme poverty, 1820-2015 - <AUTHOR> https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-population-in-extreme-poverty-absolute <comment><USER2> So, yes, we have done a good job of combating "extreme poverty" \-- the chart shows a marvelous decrease in that. And that's a good thing.

Feel good! [https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-population-in- extre...](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-population-in-extreme- poverty-absolute?stackMode=relative)

But we've also done a horrible job of combating wealth inequality. The top 1% get 30%, the top 20% get 80%... blah blah, you should have voted for Bernie.

Feel meh! [http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/5162e54469bedd0b220...](http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/5162e54469bedd0b2200001f-1200/the- top-1-of-americans-meanwhile-own-a-staggering-40-of-the-entire-countrys- wealth.jpg)

So yeah, hooray... when you describe "extreme poverty" as like $1.90 a day the chart looks pretty good. Now... what if you were to define it as like making less than $10k / year... still feel warm and fuzzy?

<comment><USER3> > But we've also done a horrible job of combating wealth inequality. The top > 1% get 30%, the top 20% get 80%... blah blah, you should have voted for > Bernie.

What percent should the top 1% have? Same for the top 20%, and so on.

Note that unless every individual has exactly the same wealth, it is mathematically necessary that the top N% has more than N% of the wealth.

Note also that this applies within wealth groups, too, so that if the top N% has M% of the wealth, then the top, say, 10% of that N% would be expected to have more than 10% of that M%.

It doesn't take a lot of unequal distribution in the subgroups to get an overall distribution with the top 1% having 30%. All that takes is that the top 50% in each group have 83.4% of the group's wealth. That doesn't seem like an unreasonable distribution to me.

With that distribution, then overall the top 50% have 83.4%. The top 50% of the top 50% have 83.4% of 83.4%, so we have the top 25% overall has 69.6%. Applying 50/83.4 to that group, we get overall the top 12.5% has 58.1%. Do this a total of 6.64 times, and you get the top 1% with 30%.

<comment><USER2> Fine, but let's at least set it up so wealth doesn't transcend generations.

You do well, you live well... your kids live well... but it stops being capitalism when people don't have to try due to inheritance.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Sqope Health – Fax is still a thing. Trying to kill it - <AUTHOR> https://www.sqopehealth.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hi All - Founder here. The healthcare industry still uses the fax for 75% of its communication. It's like you and your friends are still passing handwritten notes in class while the rest of the school is on their iPhones.

We are trying to make the transition to modern tools as simple as possible. The reason the fax persists is because: 1) everyone uses it and 2) it meets healthcare regulations (unlike email). The Sqope app allows any professional to send a file or message to any fax number, email or registered user. We are specifically avoiding patient interactions. There are lost of solutions out there for patients and that's not where most of the fax activity happens.

I was floored at how much manual data entry, phone tag or lost work happens because of the fax. I never worked in healthcare so didn't really understand the extent until I dug into customer interviews.

I'm around for the next couple hours and would love your feedback, thoughts or just to complain about the problem.

</comment><comment><USER2> Do you know why it is like this?

Hint, it's not the reason you have. Lots of people have tried to build something better without understanding the real problem or what it will take to solve it.

<comment><USER2> One is Epic, they run a majority of systems and fight incessantly against making things better. I think the other major player (can't recall name) is not much better.

There is actual legislation in place, healthcare is just super slow to adopt things. Hospitals are saying not really until next decade.

Each hospital system uses dicom fields and values in inconsistent ways. There is significant one site code paths to handle all these cases and much development time will be spent there.

Getting new software into hospitals is super hard, because bureaucracy. I have a client in this space that is doing rather well creating results and spending way less than the typical health are company. But getting everyone on the same page and willing to buy is difficult, these people are busier than most.

Another hard thing is that you need to get HIPAA consent for each individual, and possibly cross products with the locations?

I wonder if/how much covid will change the above.

The investors will want to see you doing pilots / contracts with US healthcare providers. They don't give a damn about the rest of the world because there is no money in healthcare in other countries.</comment></comment>


Tell HN: My Start-Up Launched our iPhone App Today - Gaia GPS - <AUTHOR> http://www.gaiagps.com

<comment><AUTHOR> You can find out about all of this on the website, but basically Gaia GPS includes a GPS Recorder, topographic and road maps, waypoint search, and other cool features.

If you are a hiker, you have probably heard of MyTopo maps. Gaia GPS is the first app to provide these maps on the iPhone, and in my own travels, they are really great. You can download as many map sections as you want for no additional charge.

<http://www.gaiagps.com>

</comment><comment><USER2> Just downloaded it for myself. I figure I've read more than $3 worth of your HN posts in the past to justify buying the app regardless.

</comment><comment><USER3> Just purchased. Already like it better than MotionX. Is there a way to search for nearby trails (other than the trails on the scanned topo maps)? not just waypoints?

edit: just noticed the other posts about TrailBehind app. Awesome. Now I am all set.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry Joel, no way to search for Trails yet. However, we are thinking about further integrating the EveryTrail API so you could search their trail DB, insead of just doing uploads.

Better than Motion-X huh? You make me feel all warm and fuzzy. Feel free to say something to that effect in your review :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is fantastic work guys, thanks for doing this. It's especially useful since Topozone.com became expensive.

Anyone who's had to head to EMS to pick up paper trail maps or spend hundreds on the National Geographic map packs (me) should be equally ecstatic.

Distant, distant future feature request: a little augmented reality - let me mount it on my dash and display a 3D view of what I'm looking at.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the compliment, and let me just say... we bought the Nati-Geo map software for over $100, and MyTopo's maps have more details, more trails, and more landmarks. Just hands down better.

And were working on a game overlay for this now called Gaia Quest :)

Stay tuned!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> That seems like a great app - well done.

Minor niggle, change the tacky stock photos in the header and footer of your web page. People make subconscious judgments on the quality of your product by subtle clues they pick up on in how you present it. You've done all that hard work in the coding, seems a shame to not to maximise your potential sales by not giving your full attention to your sales page.

<comment><AUTHOR> There's not stock photos in the header, though there are in the footer :)

And I guess I just disagree. I think our designer did a great job, and the page conveys the right things.

<comment><USER6> I thought the same thing as movix- that footer is definitely the weak point of the page.

I get it- they are supposed to convey travel/adventure/situations where your app would be useful- but the images mostly communicate "hastily edited clip art" to me. (Maybe try the same gradient as the header?)

Otherwise, nicely done.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> hey, i don't know if your particular market knows all about this and i don't but you mention "kalmin filter" for improved accuracy. I doubt many users know this term, certainly not your average hiker. I think including an explanation would make the site more accessible for users

<comment><AUTHOR> I did include a description, but buried it. I was hoping people would be intrigued and Google it.

Here's is the description (from <http://www.gaiagps.com/acknowledgments>)

Kevin Lacker's Kalman Filter - Underneath the hood, Gaia GPS uses a "Kalman Filter" to get more accuracy from the iPhone GPS. The Kalman Filter code was written by Kevin Lacker, a technical advisor to the Gaia GPS team, and egineer at Google. The Kalman Filter code is now open source and available for anyone to use. You can read more about Kalman Filters on Wikipedia, and you can download the source code on GitHub.

<comment><USER8> "engineer". Otherwise, very nicely put together, I feel.

<comment><AUTHOR> Fixed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Any chance we could get some votes on our gimmick marketing post on reddit: [http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/9mr0z/ok_reddit_...](http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/9mr0z/ok_reddit_i_know_you_can_do_it_im_just_an_indie/)

</comment><comment><USER2> Andrew, I don't hike, but a buddy of mine is always hiking. I forwarded him the link. Very cool looking screenshot on the homepage. I almost want to buy the app just to see it work as I walk down the street for coffee. Good luck with the app.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey, thanks a lot!

Even if you don't hike, this app is pretty useful. I don't know if you have bought an offline maps app, but that's built into this. So you can select sections of OSM or MyTopo maps.

Taking geo-tagged photos around the city is fun too :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> the app looks great. as a hiker the topo maps excited me more than anything else. paper maps are expensive!

only other thing is i wonder why you don't use mapkit for regular maps instead of another map source. with mapkit you get the same great user experience user's expect and all the mapkit improvements coming for free.

<comment><USER10> We used route-me, since with mapkit we wouldn't have been able to draw tracks or download tiles for offline use.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Can I buy this in the UK? I clicked on the AppStore link on your web site which took me to a general iTunes splash page.

<comment><AUTHOR> No, sorry, we aren't selling this internationally right now, because the Topo maps only cover the US and Canada. We will be releasing an international version, as well as two other apps that will be available near you soon: Gaia Maps and Gaia Places.

Maps and Places are cheaper and are standalone features from Gaia GPS.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Hi Andrew,

I like it. My 2 cents:

1) Once i read your statement below I understand the app. I think you should make it plainly obvious that the app is for hiking (if that is your target market)

2) (This is based off the assumption that the target is hikers) The people who will use this are outdoors people. The app gui should be geared towards the market. I feel the app & web layout is geared for the high tech crew. Look at some legendary brands' color schemes (<http://www.coleman.com/>). Maybe partner up with a casing designer to provide rugged iphone cases (they'll be taking their iphone outdoors).

3) Why are you better than GPS motionx?

Cool app and I hope you can give me your feedback when our (phone halo) app releases.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey CGH,

Thanks for your comments. I've thought about each of these issues:

1 & 2) We want to market the app to anyone who wants to take a track. It being for hikers is a nice bonus, but in our experience, the market isn't big enough. We have a fairly successful app called TrailBehind just for hikers, but we hope people use this for cars, road-biking, etc.

Note that we did have art for this app that was for hikers - just like www.trailbehind.com - but we changed it for a broader appeal.

3\. We are better than Motion X for the following reasons:

\- we have MyTopo maps

\- we have far more complete waypoint search

\- I would argue our GUI is simpler

\- on things like track accuracy and batter consumption, we are equal if not better

<comment><USER12> Thanks for getting back on my questions. Hope to see your app in the top 20.</comment></comment></comment>