America as Texas vs. California, Part III - <AUTHOR> http://blog.american.com/?p=9120

<comment><USER2> Wait, they are holding up Texas schools as an example of great schools? This post references, along with the quote, this: "Despite this, Texas kids are one to two years of learning ahead of California kids of the same age. And blacks, whites, and Hispanics all do better in school in Texas than they do in California."

So they're two years ahead. Two years ahead of what exactly? _After three all- day meetings and a blizzard of amendments and counter-amendments, the Texas Board of Education cast its final vote Friday on state science standards. The results weren't pretty.

The board majority amended the Earth and Space Sciences standards as well as the Biology standards (TEKS) with loopholes and language that make it even easier for creationists to attack science textbooks.

For example, the revised biology standard (7B) reflects two discredited creationist ideas that "sudden appearance" and "stasis" in the fossil record somehow disprove evolution. The new standard directs students to "analyze and evaluate the sufficiency of scientific explanations concerning any data of sudden appearance, stasis and the sequential nature of groups in the fossil records." Other new standards include language such as "is thought to" or "proposed transitional fossils" to make evolutionary concepts seem more tentative.

The changes will not immediately affect curricula in Texas high schools, but "the standards will affect standardized tests and textbooks," says Rosenau. Thanks to such laws as No Child Left Behind, ubiquitous standardized tests are central to measuring student progress and proficiency. Teachers teach to the test, notes Rosenau, and textbooks have to reflect this.

"Will publishers cave in to pressure from the Texas board to include junk science in their textbooks? It has happened before," says Scott. "But textbooks that please the Texas board will be rejected in other states. Publishers will have to choose between junk science and real science."

"Let's be clear about this," cautioned Scott. "This is a setback for science education in Texas, not a draw, not a victory. The revised wording opens the door to creationism in the classroom and in the textbooks. The decisions will not only affect Texas students for the next ten years, but could result in watered-down science textbooks across the U.S. There's a reason creationists are claiming victory."_

Can't wait until all of our schools are as good as Texas' schools.

Source: [http://ncse.com/news/2009/03/science-setback-texas- schools-0...](http://ncse.com/news/2009/03/science-setback-texas- schools-004708)

Edit: Further clarification of the Texas textbook issues for all states: _Battles over textbooks are nothing new, especially in Texas, where bitter skirmishes regularly erupt over everything from sex education to phonics and new math. But never before has the board's right wing wielded so much power over the writing of the state's standards. And when it comes to textbooks, what happens in Texas rarely stays in Texas. The reasons for this are economic: Texas is the nation's second-largest textbook market and one of the few biggies where the state picks what booksschools can buy rather than leaving it up to the whims of local districts, which means publishers that get their books approved can count on millions of dollars in sales. As a result, the Lone Star State has outsized influence over the reading material used in classrooms nationwide, since publishers craft their standard textbooks based on the specs of the biggest buyers. As one senior industry executive told me, "Publishers will do whatever it takes to get on the Texas list."_ [http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1001.blake.ht...](http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1001.blake.html)

<comment><USER3> Holding up the teaching of evolution as the example of Texas education is disingenuous at best. Yes, Texas has a history of doing very odd things as it relates to topics like sex education and evolution but these things are so tiny in the broad context of a K-12 level education that they are effectively meaningless.

When it comes down to it, whether a kid is taught evolution or some far- fetched creationist theory about the creation of the world matters little in the quality of their education as it relates to their success on leaving high school. That's what kids should be compared on and if I were guessing, I'd guess that's the standard here.

It's fun to take easy potshots at Texas based on backwards beliefs in the origin of the species but in the end, kids ability to read, write and do math are far more imporant.

<comment><USER4> It's not disingenuous, it goes to the core of what people believe education should be.

Most of us believe education should be about imparting knowledge as well as "how to think".

It should _not_ be about ideological indoctrination. We're not communists. EDIT: heck, the soviets even did a better job than us of teaching math

<comment><USER5> Ideological indoctrination is an important part of the US education system. But we should be indoctrinating children to the American philosophy and not some anti-american religious ideas. This builds a stronger society and goes a long way to destroy tribalism.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Having gone through most of my K-12 schooling in SF Bay Area, I can't say I'm surprised by this decision. Being an advanced student was not encouraged by the school district, nor the schools that I attended. Accelerated programs were canceled right and left to make everything "more fair". Scheduling was always a nightmare. Talking to my husband who went through his K-12 in the Dallas-Fort Worth area was very eye-opening as it seems his district made every effort to push the advanced students forward that much more. At this point I don't consider myself disadvantaged; I was lucky enough to have parents who pushed me to excel in spite of a system that holds people back, but not all are that fortunate.

</comment><comment><USER7> The quality of schools varies greatly from county to county, city to city. North Carolina has (apparently) excellent public schools... if you are in one of the major cities.

I looked at his original article and I'm thinking there's some kind of cost of living he's not accounting for. California has higher per capita income and spends more because it's extremely expensive to buy things there, pay teacher salaries, etc., compared to Texas. Effectively, California might be spending less. Maybe he's adjusting for that behind the scenes, but it's not obvious, it sounds like he is using raw figures.

<comment><USER8> There is absolutely a cost of living problem in California, but who's fault is that? Houses in Texas cost 1/2 to 1/4 their California counterparts for a reason. The point is that Texas has held a pretty fiscally conservative line in the past decades while allowing a pretty liberal zoning policy, this allows them to afford proper education because teachers don't need crazy high pay for houses that are in short supply.

<comment><USER7> That could be very true, but it's not the point he's trying to make. He is using spending figures as if they were on equal footing:

 _Just look at Texas, which spends 12 percent less per pupil with a similar kind of population but does significantly better educating its kids._

I see no discussion of cost of living, fiscal policies, or zoning.

<comment><USER9> I don't see the original article providing any evidence for it's assertion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The real question is, why is living in California so much more desirable then living in Texas? If Texas was as desirable, would they have some of the same problems? Ultimately a state(in the US) is made up of citizens, not land or government.

<comment><USER10> Living in California is more desirable than living in Texas? That might be true for you, but is it true in general?

If we accept the cost of a one-way U-Haul as a proxy for desirability, as <http://blog.american.com/?p=9141> does, it suggests that many more people are moving from California to Texas than vice versa, which (if you believe people act on their desire) suggests that Texas is currently a more desirable place to live than California.

Anyone with time to do the work can get data on net inflows and outflows directly from the IRS, starting here:

<http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=212718,00.html>

<comment><USER5> Why do we choose U-Haul and not housing costs? It seems obvious to me that everything is more expensive in California, including U-Haul. It's cherry picking.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Sketching during meetings led me to create this book - <AUTHOR> https://www.amazon.com/dp/1727169859/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1536630776&sr=8-1&keywords=robot%20and%20puppy%20coloring%20book <comment><USER2> What happened to robotandpuppy.com ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13582719](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13582719))?

<comment><AUTHOR> It will be back. Hopefully soon.</comment></comment>


Defense industry brain drain: the Pentagon can't hire or retain engineers  - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/us/25engineercnd.html?_r=1&hp&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

<comment> daniel-cussen Supply and demand.

 _The same survey showed the average annual starting salary in finance and high-tech was more than $70,000, compared with $37,000 at the Defense Department. The average in the defense industry was $61,000._

Beyond salaries, I suspect bad workplace environments can have their toll.

<comment><USER2> I would suspect that many people object to working on projects that ultimately wind up being used to kill other people.

<comment> daniel-cussen Very true. On the other hand, it is conceivable some choose to go to work for the DoD with the defense of America in mind. That could be a compensating differential too.</comment></comment></comment>


Whom the Gods Would Destroy, They First Give Real-time Analytics - <AUTHOR> http://mcfunley.com/whom-the-gods-would-destroy-they-first-give-real-time-analytics/?HN2 <comment><USER2> I feel a lot more pessimistic about analytics. I think almost all analytics, including non-real-time analytics, are bad for business. It has everything to do with the more toxic aspects of business management culture (quite possibly MBA culture, but not necessarily). It manifests itself in the form of a Cockpit Fetish: "Give me all of the data, and I will be the wise and benevolent mastermind that will tweak and turn knobs to tune the business."

The problem is that with sufficient data engineering and analysis, you are often only a few steps away from a completely automated and mathematically provable optimality...one that "genius" business leaders can only attempt to replicate. And instead of focusing on the optimization problem, the engineers and analysts instead focus on data presentation and visualization, in order to please the demanding eyes of the genius autocrats.

Of course, not all data analytics are like this. Some are legitimately useful as warnings or alarms, some are useful as ad hoc analyses, some are useful as reporting and accountability. But far too many run into the cockpit fetish problem, and end up as a massive and suboptimal waste of time at their very best.</comment>


The trees that make Southern California shady and green are dying - <AUTHOR> http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-dying-urban-trees-20170403-story.html <comment><USER2> 'urban forests are suffering partly because "so many of the trees we grow don't belong here and aren't sustainable without plentiful supplies of imported water."

"Historic photos of the region show coastal shrubs, oaks on the foothills and sycamores along streams and rivers," he said. "Yet, we planted way too many trees from areas that get two to three times as much rain as we do."'

What may be worrying is if these drought-stressed trees are cultivating an artificially high population of pests that will then put added stress on the sustainable population of native drought-tolerant trees.

</comment><comment><USER3> Broadscale keyline design would greatly improve water retention in California:

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

I've done this in areas on my property and in two years I can already see new clovers outcompeting old cactus.

<comment><USER4> Absolutely. I've help design a few desolate properties and seen amazing results with simple keyline swales. Broad scale is definitely possible with simple machinery. Help trap and absorb some rainfall and you're off to the right start.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Less money for megabombs and more money for environment?

Sounds like the sensible way to me.

<comment><USER6> Imagine keeping the huge defence budget, but using it to plant and irrigate massive forests.

<comment><USER5> Americans would enjoy a better life and would have more money for spending in luxuries (Because their air conditioning bill in summer would be much smaller and winter is not so harsh with some extra wood and a chimney). More people buying things and travelling, less danger of recession (and more money for the people that sells hotel rooms, for example).

<comment><USER7> And the additional emissions from air conditioning, retail product manufacturing, and travel would raise CO2 levels even higher?

We need to develop an ecologically aware definition of quality of living, rather than one that prioritizes extracting value for humans from a supposedly separate source of natural resources.

<comment><USER5> Not necessarily, because more forests equals to less CO2 in the air. Is a well known fact that trees store carbon atoms and water. Army activities on the other hand release also lots of CO2 (and much worst things like deplected Uranium) to the environment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I know a few arborists. This is generally the cycle:

1\. There is a tree problem.

2\. Muni orders some sort of study after the problem has become unassailable.

3\. Arborist performs a study, finds lack of naturalized species, lack of diversity, lack of appropriately spaced trees.

4\. Muni throws their hands up in the air because money and keeps doing the wrong things.</comment>


Netflix's business opportunity - <AUTHOR> http://www.slideshare.net/reed2002/netflix-business-opportunity

<comment><USER2> Slide 21 I found particularly interesting in that they are testing micro- innovations by releasing them to specific user segments.

I'll say upfront that this is a great idea, but as a longtime Netflix subscriber I have to say the "satisfaction" polling I occasionally receive seems a bit too simple for such a purpose. For example they ask you how the quality of your stream was, and on HD content I do have to say "unwatchable", but if they are using it to triage software improvements, I wish they was also a chance to say "but I know my broadband is beyond sucky and I didn't really expect anything better than that".

In other words what matters is not just satisfaction, but satisfaction as compared to expectation.

<comment><AUTHOR> I have no direct knowledge of how we use that survey, but I suspect that an outlier such as yourself would not affect the results of the survey. If there is a wide-spread drop in quality, I think the survey would pick that up. It's hard to design the perfect survey though, but I'll see if the powers-that-be can improve the survey.

<comment><USER2> BTW one of the nice things about netflix is how well it treats its outliers :-) For example for ages I patiently filled in the "when did your DVD get to you" survey not expecting anything better being out in the boondocks (Hawaii) and them to my astonishment, Netflix opened a shipping depot in Honolulu.

And then there was the "multiple queues" incident where the company agreed to keep the feature even though only a relative small percentage of subscribers really used it.

It's a good way of doing business.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Also, we're hiring: <http://www.netflix.com/Jobs></comment>


Oliver's simple fluid dynamics simulator in Javascript - <AUTHOR> http://nerget.com/fluidSim/ <comment><USER2> Wow, that's mesmerizing.

I would love to see this on a multi-touch display. I wonder if you could make an iphone app like this. Maybe have a little paper boat that floats on the surface which you can't interact with directly but you have to use your fingers to change the flow of the water to shepherd the boat through certain obstacles?

If anybody wants to do this I'll donate my time to make the art :-P

<comment><USER3> <http://memo.tv/msafluid_for_processing>

Also ported to Flash:

<http://blog.inspirit.ru/?p=248>

I've tried it on a multi-touch display, and it is a lot of fun even without any additional things to play with. Pretty heavy on the processor with a lot of people, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It works much faster in Chrome than Firefox.

<comment><USER5> It's even faster on recent WebKit builds (the "official" editions with SquirrelFish).

Not too surprising, considering Oliver works on SquirrelFish ;)

<comment><USER6> more specifically still faster in chrome beta than firefox 3.5 beta on leopard

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Definitely something that would benefit from the new Javascript "web workers" (worker threads). <http://blog.mozbox.org/post/2009/04/10/Web-Workers-in- action>

<comment><USER8> web workers don't have DOM access.

<comment><USER7> I doubt updating the UI is real processor-intensive. The worker threads would do the math without blocking the UI.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I recommend that you don't turn it up to 512 resolution on a macbook in firefox. =(

<comment><USER10> That's why you use Google Chrome. I turned it up to 512 and that particular tab got hosed but I could easily kill it. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Broken in Chrome on Vista Ultimate 32-bit.

<comment><USER12> Working in Chrome on Windows 7 32-bit.</comment></comment>


US shutdown: Flight delays caused by staff shortages - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47006907 <comment><USER2> Bearing in mind that ~40% of american's could not come up with $400 to cover emergencies, this is going to become more prevalent in the next few days / weeks as people will simply not be able to afford gas to get to their unpaid work. I read an article today discussing how TSA workers in HI are living in their cars in the airport parking lot as they cannot afford to commute. The FBI just cancelled its internship program due to the shutdown.

An administration official recommended that all those affected simply take out loans but unfortunately banks don't lend to people without an income nor to those who have recent delinquencies on their credit due to no income.

I feel very bad for these real people being affected by political showmanship.

<comment><USER3> I've seen too many people say, "Oh, government workers should all know this stuff happens all the time, and if they don't have months or years of savings in the bank then it's just their fault".

It's really sad that instead of being compassionate, too many are focusing on what "should" be instead of what is the reality for many people. Like you point out, the reality is that most people don't have savings. They should in theory; but life rarely lines up with should.

I too feel terrible for people being hurt by these comparatively wealthy politicians playing games with their livelihood.

<comment><USER4> When I was a kid, my dad was deciding between two engineering jobs; one for the US Department of Commerce and another in the private sector for a big aerospace contractor.

The private sector one paid more, I remember, but my mother brought up to my dad something interesting: You're less likely to get laid off, and you'll always have more job security, with the stable paycheck provided by a government job.

It's weird to think about it, but at this point in time, the United States Government may be one of the worst major employers in the country. Two missed pay periods, unstable leadership, no yearly budget, massive deficits, constantly changing its mind.

<comment><USER5> If this country was _actually_ run like a business, the CEO would be fired by now.

<comment><USER6> If the country was run like a business, they wouldn't be _in_ business, they would be bankrupt.

The purpose of a business it create wealth. The purpose of government is to _take_ wealth. Government does some useful functions with the wealth it takes, but extremely inefficiently. Private enterprises which are profit motivated consistently outperform government on budget, quality and time.

<comment><USER7> It's sad seeing people actually disagreeing with you.

The US government is $21tn in debt. 21 trillion. With a constant budget deficit.

No private entity would be ever allowed to go that far.

If the Government is still taking money out of my paycheck, it simply isn't shut down enough.

<comment><USER8> >It's sad seeing people actually disagreeing with you.

It's because of a high-status meme that's gone around that "Governments Aren't Households" followed by a pedantic lecture about a few dimensions where they have interesting, but not fundamental differences. And it's true: reliable, trusted governments e.g. suffer lower costs from going into debt, and are able to recapture some of the expenses. Plus, they can default in a way that's technically legal (inflate away the debt).

But none of that changes the more important, relevant similarities:

\- There are limits to how quickly you can accumulate real resources to pay off debts.

\- There are severe consequences to being unable to pay debts.

\- There are debt levels that are dangerous to have and which prevent you from raising funds for real emergencies.

All of these are true and relevant for both governments and households.

Yes, you can debate _how close_ you are to the breaking point, but you can't simply avoid the comparison entirely just because Governments Aren't Households.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I hope not too off topic, but I'm puzzled by shutdowns.

Every other country I can think of has a system where if the finance is not agreed, the previous budget just continues. The budget sets the yearly amount for each department and it runs on until another budget changes how much everyone gets. Sometimes a new department gets created, sometimes something is abolished. Everyone gets their salary and services run on. Even if the finance bill is defeated, or even if they can't agree a government at all.

So how is it so easy for the US to simply run out? It naively seems like something both sides would want to fix pretty quickly. Is there some unseen advantage doing it this way? From news reports it seems to be all downside.

Edit: Thanks for the enlightenment!

<comment><USER10> In Canada it triggers a new election

<comment><USER11> In the US, I could see that being weaponized. One side doesn't like the results of the last election, so they force an impasse to get a new one. (In particular, I could see the Democrats trying this after the election of 2016. Perhaps the Republicans after 2018, though I think their motivation would be less strong.)

And in the US, I could see that tactic succeeding, unless the voters were willing to punish gaming the system that way. I see no evidence that US voters are responsible enough to do so, however.

<comment> a-priori Perhaps, if the people would allow it.

Theoretically you could end up in a loop where the people vote in Party A in a minority government, then Parties B+C oppose a budget bill, an election is held, Party A is re-elected into a minority government, and Parties B+C oppose a budget bill, and so on.

But it's important to recognize that blocking a budget is a risky manoeuvre. In all likelihood the above cycle would never happen more than once or twice because people find elections irritating. If people think you called an election frivolously then voters will punish you at the polls; in the above example people would eventually get pissed off at B and C and break the cycle by giving A a majority so that they can pass their budget without opposition support.

The important thing is that in the Westminster system (e.g. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK) if Parliament loses the ability to pass important bills then it results in an election. It keeps the opposition parties honest insofar that they have to be confident that they would actually gain in the polls in order for them to force an election by blocking the government. They can't just block things without repercussions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Even without the shutdown, the U.S. air traffic control system may experience greater strain in the years to come due to a generational deficit in the number of new air traffic controllers being trained and staffed: [https://www.forbes.com/sites/kathryncreedy/2016/01/28/contro...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/kathryncreedy/2016/01/28/controller- shortage-to-increase-airline-costs-delays-fares/#14e7852b5a68)

This may have been an issue with Reagan firing all members of PATCO: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Contr...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_\(1968\))

Whereas before, sufficient military air traffic controllers were willing and able to take on the job, today there is no such reserve.

One book I read recently on the topic of arbitraging the social trust was "The Fifth Risk"; it's a good read. [https://smile.amazon.com/Fifth-Risk-Michael- Lewis/dp/1324002...](https://smile.amazon.com/Fifth-Risk-Michael- Lewis/dp/1324002646?sa-no-redirect=1)

<comment><USER13> Anecdotal, but I've had several friends who went to school for air traffic control give up and find work in other industries because there weren't any openings for them in ATC.

<comment><USER14> I didn't go to school for it, but I did manage to apply for an opening, get through the initial screening, and go to the academy as a trainee. Washed out in the finals by a few points.

From what I saw of the entire process, the biggest issue they have is the strictness of their hiring process. It's very bureaucratic, in the interest of fairness, but also very harsh. They get tens of thousands of applicants, but only have enough throughput at the academy for a few thousand students per year, and they wash out around 50% of those students. Then more wash out at their respective facilities.

The kicker is that when they bring in current/retiring controllers to act as instructors at this academy, they put them through the same course, with the same final, and only about 2/3 of the instructor candidates pass. In other words, their program is so strict that a third of people actually doing the job couldn't qualify to even start the job at a trainee level.

I was told, while there, that the final exams simulate a level of traffic somewhere between a level 9 or 10 tower. Trainees who complete the academy get sent to towers below level 8, and have to succeed there before being able to transfer to a higher level tower.

If I gave them some benefit, I'd say the idea was to get the best of the best into the low level positions so that as many as possible would progress up to the top levels, but when they can't even fill their low levels because they are cutting half their hires at the academy, it seems like they might be overdoing it.

List of facilities and their levels, for those curious what kind of airport warrants a given level.

[1] [https://123atc.com/facilities](https://123atc.com/facilities)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm glad to see this. The shutdown has been too "business as usual" for most Americans, while others are expected to work without pay, which is ridiculous.

<comment><USER16> Strictly speaking, their pay is delayed - they will be paid for all the work, eventually. Still, regular employees should not be going through this, though.

<comment><USER17> There's at least two classes of employees here:

1) essentials, who are required to work and will indeed likely be repaid

2) non-essentials, who are not allowed to work and will not be repaid. They've effectively been forced into an unplanned month-long+ leave of absence. To be honest I feel worse for this group, though it sucks for everyone.

ETA: this is inaccurate, was thinking of contractors. Though I do wonder how hourly workers will be handled.

<comment><USER18> That's not quite right. We won't know how pay works out until there's an appropriation ending the shutdown, but in past shutdowns both essential and non-essential employees have been paid what they're owed (I'm not quite sure how this works for hourly workers).

Which is to say we'll have forced some people to work for no pay, and paid others for doing no work. (Yes, the pay is in fact just delayed. But "no pay" is pithier.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Federal workers should start striking. I gather that in most cases they're explicitly prevented from striking, but I think there's a good chance that it's too unpopular to actually punish them.

Also yesterday some leadership of the flight attendants union called for a general strike until it was over: [https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/could-an-unlikely- av...](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/could-an-unlikely-aviation- strike-end-the-shutdown.html)

<comment><USER20> _they 're explicitly prevented from striking_

Wow, is this true? Is this even legal (except maybe police and military)?

<comment><USER21> ATC is going to be as important economically and for public safety as police and military. You literally _cannot_ fly commercial flights without ATC. They issue the flight plans, provide the routing, provide clearances for every taxi movement on the ground and every landing and takeoff for every commercial flight in the country.

So what I mean is that whatever argument is made to make it illegal for police to strike (assuming it is), the same argument applies to ATC.

<comment><USER22> This is just wrong. Commercial flights fly all the time without ATC. The majority of airports in the USA are uncontrolled.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non- towered_airport](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-towered_airport)

<comment><USER5> Commercial airliners do _not_ take off in non-towered airports.

<comment><USER22> There are many Commercial flights every day to non-towered airports. In backcounty Alaska this is the norm. Clearly you have a big-city bias in your thinking.

<comment><USER5> OK, that's fair. Didn't consider Alaska which is known for these requirements.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> At the risk of introducing a political topic into this supposedly apolitical subject, why shouldn't any president simply make demands and then shut down the government until his/her political opponents cave? Seemingly this strategy will not work ever again for either party if proper steps are taken. It seems like a terrible abuse of executive power.

<comment><USER24> Don't blame only the president, congress has just as much blame for not passing a budget the president would agree to.

<comment><USER25> They did pass a CR back in December. Everyone thought the President would sign it. He changed his mind.

<comment><USER24> Still partially their fault for thinking the president would. Even if the president changed his mind afterwards they take some blame as their job is to figure this out in time.

<comment><USER26> > Even if the president changed his mind afterwards they take some blame as > their job is to figure this out in time.

That's the most extravagant line of reasoning I've read in this thread so far. And now my brain is in a knot. I understand you're saying parliament should have proactively made their end of the deal worse because the negotiations were a sham anyway. You realize they're still not willing to do that after negotiations have broken down?

In the end you're just blaming them for not having made a different deal earlier. But that wasn't on the table then, and isn't now. So you're just blaming them for not giving in. Which (disregarding the particulars) is a reasonable position. But somehow you've packed it up all weird.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Seems like it's just delays rather than a full stoppage.

From Newsweek: 'Flights arriving into LaGuardia Airport were delayed by about 41 minutes as of 10:15 a.m. EST and gate hold and taxi delays were between 15 and 29 minutes, although FAA said it was decreasing. Arrival traffic was experiencing airborne delays of 15 minutes or less.'

Regardless, US scoring a lot of own goals here.

<comment><USER28> The US system is highly integrated, any slowdowns causes a lot of ripples elsewhere. Plus its not like it will get better at all. Add a few snowstorms and soon nothing will move.

<comment><USER29> [https://flightaware.com/miserymap/usKEWR](https://flightaware.com/miserymap/usKEWR)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Good. People shouldn't have to work for a month without pay. The services should have been cut immediately.

<comment><USER31> The whole idea of 'essential workers' stinks. At least they ought to be paid. Otherwise, when the gov't stops, it should really _stop_. Putting continued operation on the backs of the workers is extremely un-American IMO.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Much hand-wringing is being done by well-meaning moderates and centrists here, blaming both the President and Congress, wondering why our system allows for this to happen, expressing solidarity with the furloughed workers. At least the right questions are being asked.

But the fact is that for this to end any time soon, the equivocating masses trying to stay on the sidelines, saying "oh those darned politicians...", are going to have to choose a side. The hardliners on both sides (the people who vote most often) view compromise as unacceptable, so their representatives are going to sit on their hands and vote down bill after bill.

The choice is not between building a wall or not - it is about whether we allow individual actors to use the functioning of the federal government as leverage in political negotiation. It would be the same if Democrats in the House said, "we won't pass a funding bill unless it includes universal healthcare. If you don't agree, you're shutting the government down." Absurd. Continuing government funding with no strings attached is an apolitical opinion, and it's time for centrists to speak up.

<comment><USER33> > It would be the same if Democrats in the House said, "we won't pass a > funding bill unless it includes universal healthcare. If you don't agree, > you're shutting the government down." Absurd.

That's exactly what happened 5 years ago.

<comment><USER31> Please don't be dishonest here. In 2013 the GOP was trying very specifically to defund the ACA. The Democrats were pushing clean CRs. Again, it was the GOP trying to use a gov't shutdown to force the Democrats to agree to their wishes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I believe paychecks were due today. Missing two paychecks can be very painful for a lot of people. I would expect things to cascade pretty quickly from this point.

<comment><USER35> Very painful? Why not just take out a loan? Wilbur Ross whole-heartedly recommends it!

<comment><USER30> Oh, no! That wasn't what he meant. The president clarified that he meant to say that grocery stores and banks will work with you and extend you credit.

<comment><USER36> "Banks will work with you and extend you credit" is exactly the same as "getting a loan".

<comment><USER30> No. In the context in which he said it, it means what happens in bankruptcies when debt-holders renegotiate terms and vendor contracts are restructured, something that the president is, sadly, well qualified to talk about (and commerce secretary, for different reasons)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Interesting thing I discovered when I was concerned about SFO delays is that SFO is one of the few airports in the U.S. that does not use TSA for security...it hires its own private security officers.

Edit: For those curious, these airports have private security (SFO is by far the largest as far as I can tell): [https://www.tsa.gov/for- industry/screening-partnerships](https://www.tsa.gov/for-industry/screening- partnerships)

<comment><USER38> Does this mean the airports experiencing a crippling loss of federal personnel could simply hire them onto their own payroll (the same people, even)? In such a case, all airports could keep functioning independent of government aid -- theoretically, anyway.

<comment><USER39> That is how the entire system use to operate:

> Prior to September 11, 2001, airport screening was provided in the U.S. by > private companies contracted by the airline or airport.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airport_security_repercussions...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airport_security_repercussions_due_to_the_September_11_attacks)

Leaving our airport infrastructure dependent on the dysfunctional federal government was another downside to the nationalization of most of airport security.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> On February 7th, myself and my co-workers are supposed to travel half way across the country for a major sales-call/meeting. But if the shutdown is still happening, there is no amount of money that would tempt me to get on that plane. Stuff like this worries me:

" _The delays come one day after a stark warning was issued by air industry unions about the risk to public safety. "In our risk averse industry, we cannot even calculate the level of risk currently at play, nor predict the point at which the entire system will break," air traffic, pilot and flight attendant union leaders said in a joint statement._"

I can't be the only who feels this way, and the longer the shutdown goes on, the more people are likely to be worried about air travel.

In the short term you might think my company will suffer because of a lost sales opportunity, and that is strictly our loss. But if it happens to enough companies, then it is going to hit the general economy.

Working on major projects means long lead times. The sales that are not being closed this quarter are going to show up as less economic activity in the 2nd and 3rd quarters.

Unless the shut down ends immediately, it seems likely this will have medium- term or long-term consequences.

<comment><USER41> I am travelling internationally on the 1st and I cannot avoid my trip. Will only be nervous until we cross the US airspace. Moreover, I worry about the upcoming superbowl weekend and the mayhem the airport delays will bring.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Why can't the ATC adopt a funding model like the USPS so they don't have this problem in the future relying on appropriations. Can they basically charge airlines and other traffic for their services to fund the operations. I'm mostly curious if this is actually realistic.

<comment><USER43> >Why can't the ATC adopt a funding model like the USPS so they don't have this problem in the future relying on appropriations. Can they basically charge airlines and other traffic for their services to fund the operations. I'm mostly curious if this is actually realistic.

I'm not sure if it's economically realistic but it seems politically realistic.

The right should be fine with the idea of a government agency being less tax dependent and I'm not sure what problem the left would have with it. The corporate interests should also have no problem with it because it arguably gives them slightly more control (ATCs being less accountable to the .gov for funding them makes them more accountable to customers). I'm not familiar with how ATCs work but on the surface it seems like it could be a win-win-win.

<comment><USER44> > ATCs being less accountable to the .gov for funding them makes them more > accountable to customers

That's one potential issue right there – would this arrangement put airlines or airports into a position to squeeze concessions out of ATCs that might reduce safety? At the very least, minimum ATC pay would need to be federally regulated.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> There'll be a lot of angry people if the same thing happens in Atlanta over Super Bowl weekend.

<comment><USER46> Why is Super Bowl travel such a big deal? Doesn't the stadium only seat about 50k people anyway? I understand that the game is exciting, but I don't see what travel to one venu would be news.

<comment><USER47> A lot of people come for the atmosphere and other festivities. I'm sure the actual number of people visiting town for the game is closer to 200k than it is to 50k.

<comment><USER48> Is this really true? I understand diehard fans going to tailgate parties, but don't the vast majority watch the event at a bar or at home?

<comment><USER49> This article suggests 125-150k visitors for past Superbowls: [http://www.startribune.com/a-million-super-bowl-visitors- est...](http://www.startribune.com/a-million-super-bowl-visitors-estimate- includes-many-minnesotans/470777133/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Am I the only one who thinks that air traffic controllers and the airport security personnel hold the key to the shutdown? If airports close down, the shutdown will have to stop immediately, the damage to the economy would be so catastrophic not even Republicans could ignore it.

</comment><comment><USER51> There's no way the federal shutdown lasts too much longer. The heat is on and too many people feel the hurt now, especially in a place like New York. If I were a betting man, I'd say 3-4 days max.

<comment><USER52> If the airports remain shut down, the economic cost will quickly balloon to multiples of the $5.7B requested for the wall. It's literally a rounding error in the budget.

<comment><USER53> Nobody actually cares about the $5.7 billion dollars, it's chump change for the government. This is all about appearance. The Democrats will lose face if they sign off on a budget which allows him to build his wall, and Trump will lose face if he fails to start building it (presumably in time for the next election).

(It's also notable that neither party, politically, has a good reason to end it. Trump will have a hard time holding onto even his strongest supporters come reelection if he can't start the wall, the most tangible and physical representation of his promises to his base, and the longer the shutdown persists, the better Democrats will do in Congress next election, the shutdown is a political godsend.)

<comment><USER54> > This is all about appearance.

I don't think the democrats should cave because this is a terrible precedent that far outstrips "appearance". It feels like a perversion of checks and balances where, because on side doesn't get what they want, they shut down the entire government until the other side caves. I won't be a fan of future presidents shutting down the government every time they can't come to a bipartisan agreement.

<comment><USER53> Sure, but it also means that your position is that our government should be shut down and people should be unable to feed their families to prevent giving the opposition a mostly meaningless amount of money to build a useless thing that pales in comparison to how much we've blown on the F-35 (literally like 1% of the cost), a largely useless airplane.

Which is to say, one party is certainly responsible for picking this fight, but both parties are responsible for not ending it.

<comment><USER54> Is your point that one side should cave because the numbers are meaningless? If so, I don't agree - they aren't meaningless. No one should be able to hold the American people hostage in order to get what they want - it not democratic. You shouldn't be allowed to undermine democracy by using threatening Americans as hostage - fullstop. Your suggestion is to just cave whenever one side threatens a shutdown is unacceptable

They are acting like children. If your son relentlessly bullied your other baby and in order for your baby to stop crying your son said "give me $5" (a meaningless amount to most adults) - the solution wouldn't be to give him $5 and teach him that whenever he wants money he just has to threaten throw the baby down the stairs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> When material damage begins to occur to US businesses their first call will be to certain Senators. Imagine Fedex with no flights, Disneyworld with no guests, Prime with no deliveries. It's a massive disaster in the making with lots of ripple effects. Even the mail won't move except by truck.

</comment><comment><USER21> As of approximately 15 minutes ago the LGA ground stop has been replaced with a ground delay. There are still ground delay programs in effect at PHL and EWR.

</comment><comment><USER55> I'm currently sitting in LGA waiting on a flight that was scheduled for 1:30pm. This sucks.

<comment><USER56> not getting paid sucks more

<comment><USER31> The people not getting paid mostly don't have enough political power to matter. If the airports start going offline politicians are going to very quickly hear from the constituents they actually care about.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Was the fall of Rome this embarrassing as well?

<comment><USER58> It's also interesting how a democratic Rome voted for becoming an oligarchy.

<comment><USER59> They didn't vote for oligarchy. They stabbed Caesar in the Senate.

<comment><USER60> They in effect voted for a dictatorship, initially for Pompey on the ground of a terrorism threat, and then later were supportive of Caesar. Pompey used the democratic tribune system which had been abolished by a previous generation of the aristocracy. The dictator argued past the traditions of the Roman Republic as exemplified by the aristocrats, and appealed directly to the people.

<comment><USER61> They voted when society was already a de-facto oligarchy.

<comment><USER60> Yes, I think so, they in effect chose between an oligarchy and a dictatorship.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> We keep climbing this stupid mountain and I keep wondering where the peak is.

</comment><comment><USER63> I'm not a lawyer so I'm wondering: how feasible would it be for government employees to sue the president in small claims court and get a default judgement since there's no way he'll how up all over the country? Kinda like how people did this in the Equifax data leak...

</comment><comment><USER64> If something is broken, best way to start fixing it is to stop pretending it is still working. Good move.

</comment><comment><USER65> I'm Irish. Our politics is usually boring, so we watch the east and west (UK & US) versions.

From an outside perspective, it sounds like the destructive stalemates currently causing havoc in parliament & Congress are quite similar.

Everything is political machinations. The issues at hand (brexits & border walls) are popular/opinionated with the public, but most politicians don't feel as strongly about these issues.

They are equally happy if things go well, and they get credit or they go bad, and the other side gets blamed. I know politics always has.. politics, but I don't remember it ever being so explicit.

A mental exercise I often go to is imagining a secret ballot. I suspect that the votes would be totally different, if the ballot was secret.

</comment><comment><USER66> Honestly I just don't want to fly at all until this whole thing is over. Who knows if on the day I want to fly there won't be a shortage of ATCs or TSA to man the "security" line?

We have 2 horrible years where Trump was in the White House and the GOP controlled the House and the Senate and there was no stomach for the border wall. To think there is any greater chance now that the Democrats control the House or that they could somehow be shamed into capitulating is laughable.

The public has generally not been kind to whatever party forced a shutdown. Look at Newt Gingrich's shutdown as one modern example. According to 538 it seems like people are (rightly) blaming Trump for this. Good.

My question is at what point do McConnell develop a spine and overrule the president? Because that's what it may well take. Either that or a rank-and- file revolt in the Senate.

I'm glad to see banks are trying to help out Federal workers who are hurt by this but the one question I have is: how can people live and have responsibilities and sudden expenses and not be able to come up with $500? I mean I realize this fact is the basis for the check cashing industry (which is predatory and should be outlawed) but I honestly couldn't live that way.

<comment><USER67> While ATC is of course essential, I'm unsure what different TSA not turning up would make.

<comment><USER31> An interesting question. If TSA does not show up, what happens if the airport just opens the security gates. That would be ... hilarious. Probably illegal.

<comment><USER67> I don't think it would be, providing the airport do the same 'quality' of checks.

If security instead got rid of the theatre of taking shoes off, molestation, etc, reverting to security as it was 20 years ago, but with a locked cockpit, it would be far more pleasant and wouldn't require the TSA at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> My mind is blown by how the US Federal Government can claim someone is essential and force them to work without pay.

I've read a pretty good explanation of it here:

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/11/how-can- go...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/11/how-can-government- force-people-work-without-pay-indefinitely/?utm_term=.6295e1aeb370)

Yet, I still cannot understand how it is legal to make people work without pay based on an Attorney General's thoughts on it in the 1980s.

Amazing.

</comment><comment><USER69> This is by far not the first shutdown, nor is there any indication it will be the last. I'm wondering why under these circumstances anyone would even want to work for the US government?

Obviously there are people near to their pension years who will want to complete them, but they would usually have some money.

But young people? If your boss is an asshole, just quit! Why would that be any different in the public sector?

<comment><USER70> Not everyone has the luxury of quitting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> I don't understand why congress still gets paid.

<comment><USER49> I believe the idea is that it if congress members could be compelled to accept something they disagree with to end their own personal finance issues, it would cause an inbalance benefiting the richer/better-backed members.

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> Well, I'll be damned. It looks like there's going to be a general strike primarily organized by the US Government. I guess horseshoe theory is real after all.

Seriously though, it'll be interesting to see how much disruption is necessary to force the hand of the legislative and executive branch to finally fund the government.

</comment><comment><USER73> I'm still not fully understanding what's going on here, and I'm american. Could someone who is more educated in politics of the US explain to me why this shutdown is allowed to go on for this long, and why there is no law in place for 'if the congress cannot come to an agreement, X shold happen'?

<comment><USER74> Congress can write, and rewrite, any law. Congress will virtually never be held responsible for any event, since they control the law itself.

Another thing: Trump issued a veto-threat against the bills that passed the House. Trump refuses for a budget to be passed unless it has his wall. Republicans don't want to betray their leader, so they're holding firm with Trump.

<comment><USER73> Q: Why don't republicans want to betray their leader? Is there that much republican support for Trump right now?

<comment><USER74> Republican support for Trump has dropped from 97% to like 90% this past month. Sooooo... yeah. I forget the numbers exactly, but its well above 80%.

Note: Republican Senators and House members are trapped. Literally every Republican Senator up for election 2016 to 2018 who said something bad about Trump was voted out.

Lisa Murkowski is the one exception: her next election is in 2022. And she's clearly expecting Trump to be voted out in 2020 (which is why she's willing to go against him so much). She's willing to play the long game.

All the other Republican Senators who didn't like Trump's policies (Jeff Flake, John McCain, etc. etc.) are gone. I guess Mitt Romney (new Utah Senator) is a new instigator, but the anti-Trump Republican movement is basically dead at this point.

Either a Democrat took over the seat, or a harder-leaning Republican took over.

Note that over 30% of the US Population agrees with Trump on the issue and still strongly supports him through this shutdown. If you are a Republican and in the House or Senate, you HAVE to earn the support of that 30%, because no one really will vote for you if you go against this base.

<comment><USER73> Oh, okay. Thanks for explaining. Do you know some of the reasonings around the support for the shut down?

<comment><USER74> Politics is innately emotional, and not a thing of reason.

Fundamentally, when people choose a leader, they will then follow that person. Its an innate characteristic of humans. Its not a Republican or Democrat thing, its simply a human thing.

<comment><USER73> Thank you again for explaining. I'll have to look into that. (I'm a little strange so I don't often follow leadership without also querying their reasoning constantly.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> Why can't US government give an official statement to all its employees guaranteeing future payment of the work done during shutdown? And banks should be able to give personal loan over that statement. Interest paid over that loan can be reimbursed by the govt once shutdown is over.

(I am not an economist; It is just my opinion)

<comment><USER76> (1) The US government did just that -- promised backpay for all unpaid work during the shutdown.

(2) Banks may not wish to give loans to folks who have bad/no credit, even with the assurance. Banks need a bit more than assurances that the government will pay their debtees -- they need assurances that they will get that money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> This is pretty silly. Congress thinks they can't continue to fund government activities, but they certainly don't suspend tax collection. It would be easy to solve the "shutdown" and "debt ceiling" fictions, except they are too useful as a political weapon.

</comment><comment><USER77> I feel bad for the TSA employees, as they couldn't have seen this coming.

But this is yet another reason the TSA should 100% be funded by the airlines, not the Taxpayers of the United States. Those who wish to fly will pay for their own security, those who rarely fly wouldn't.

</comment><comment><USER78> I am shocked this hasn't happened sooner. It speaks to the lack of agency the average person has even in a government job. Politics and money grant agency for people, but most Americans have limited access to either.

</comment><comment><USER79> Not surprised by this. I'm patently surprised that Houston has stayed open given the staffing issues around the TSA. Maybe this will be the forcing mechanism to end the stalemate.

<comment><USER80> The TSA is a facade, perhaps they'll disband and we'll all be better off for it (probably not but I can dream). It's ATC that's the actual necessity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER81> The US should seriously consider decoupling critical services like this from government. It is neither reliable nor necessarily to have the setup you are currently using.

</comment><comment><USER82> I can only hope that voters learn something from all this and start considering alternative parties, rather than continuing to vote democrat/republican every year.

<comment><USER83> The vast majority of Americans don't get a choice of who to vote for as districts are extremely gerrymandered nowadays. The only politicians I had a chance to vote for last election was local ones like the school board. Congress was just one name that I had to fill in the oval for.

</comment></comment><comment><USER84> Is there any way to donate or lend money to ATC/TSA workers who are struggling to make ends meet? (Ideally lend, but with as generous terms as possible...)

</comment><comment><USER85> Is it at all sensible to stress out people whose sole job is to safely keep planes in the air? This seems like a recipe for potential disaster.

</comment><comment><USER86> Why hasn't the FAA been privatized anyway? It looks like most of Europe's air controllers and even airports were long ago privatized.

<comment><USER49> I believe the most common model in Europe on country-level is that of a state- owned or at least state-controlled company, with sometimes some locations being subcontracted (but I believe the latter exists in the US too). International agreements about allowed fees probably mean you can't really make a profit, so little reason for other owners to be interested.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Do unpaid workers have cause to sue their employers for back pay with interest? What about damages?

<comment><USER87> Yes. [https://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2019/01/federal- workfor...](https://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2019/01/federal-workforces- largest-union-sues-over-unpaid-labor-during-shutdown/153886/) . They've yet to collect from the 2013 shutdown, however.

</comment></comment><comment><USER88> Might be a good general warning to not become so dependent on the federal government.

</comment><comment><USER89> How long before the shutdown actually costs more than the wall?

</comment><comment><USER36> Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world

</comment><comment><USER90> Damn. I literally landed in NYC yesterday.

This shutdown is crazy.

</comment><comment><USER91> Who eats the cost of those cancelled flights?

<comment><USER92> Depending on the cancellation terms, the airlines or the fliers, and it probably trickles down to the businesses or individuals when they have to make alternative travel arrangements.

</comment></comment><comment><USER93> What an embarrassment as a country.

</comment><comment><USER94> Good thing there's the Internet...

</comment><comment><USER95> Wouldn't be a problem if security was put in the hands of the airlines, where it belongs.

</comment><comment><USER96> This should force Trump to end it pretty soon.

The public clearly blames Trump for the shutdown, so Democrats have no reason to lift a finger to stop it while Trumps approval rating drops, and as more airports close, the situations surely becomes untenable fast.

<comment><USER96> Nailed it!

</comment></comment><comment><USER97> I was just at LGA Terminal B and can't believe how awful it is. You're stuck at those cramped gates with CNN blaring at max volume - when it's not playing stupid ads it's just non stop Trump bashing - I was there 2.5 hours and boarded my flight with a throbbing headache.

Also could not believe there's no public transport at LGA. After 60 years they have not managed to get a rail line out there. WTF?

So I really feel for people stuck there due to this shutdown nonsense.

</comment><comment><USER98> Reading Pelosi's tweet, which at-mentions the president and includes an exclamation point, depresses me as much as the shutdown. Nobody should follow Trump's example of using social media as some sort of loudspeaker.

</comment><comment><USER99> As a non US citizen, I don't understand what's that shutdown even about, seems like absurd thing to do. Is it all because of Trump or he is not the only one to blame? I remember there was some shutdown when Obama was there too? Or am I mistaken?

Edit: downvoted for asking a question?

<comment><USER60> It seems like in the US the two legislative branches and the executive branch of government have to all agree each year on a budget, or else everything shuts down? It's a curious system, I think in most countries not being able to pass a budget would bring down the government and cause a new election. It seems to rely very strongly on politicians seeking compromise, which is ambitious!

A question to American posters: could any party holding any of the branches of government unilaterally shut down the entire government if they chose, until the next scheduled congressional or presidential election?

<comment><USER31> Only the legislative branch has enough power to unilaterally shut the gov't. The executive can make them work for it, but ultimately congress holds all the cards.

The executive makes a budget, but it's just advisory. Officially the House is the source of the budget, which gets passed by the senate, then signed by the president. But as a practical matter there's much negotiation before and during the whole process, of course.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER100> It's time to automate air traffic control.

</comment><comment><USER101> Both sides are being stupid here. Trump knew the #resistance mindset makes it impossible for democrats to even trade something they supposedly care about, DACA protections, for the wall he cares about.

I just find it mind-boggling that this path was even tried when it was a big gamble on popular opinion overruling #resistance.

I find it hypocritical that the democrats are willing to spend more money on #resistance than what they could trade wall for DACA protections. Remember, real americans and children brought here illegally are effected by this inability to trade what you supposedly care for with what someone else cares for.

It is human to care more for your family than you neighbor, more for your neighbor than a stranger countryman, more for a stranger countryman than one from another country. The people already here illegally are our countrymen, but the people not here yet are not. Lets make sure our people is taken care of.

<comment><USER102> > Trump knew the #resistance mindset makes it impossible for democrats to even > trade something they supposedly care about, DACA protections, for the wall > he cares about.

Trump's offer on DACA was a temporary preservation of the status quo on DACA, which opponents of his attempt to eliminate it have already acheived through litigation.

If he offered the more comprehensive legislative solution—the DREAM Act—for which the Obama Administration implementing DACA was a stopgap alternative, maybe that would actually be something. But what he has offered is essentially nothing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER103> Actual headline: "US shutdown: Flight delays caused by staff shortages"

HN headline: "US shutdown: Flights halted into New York airport"

These two headlines suggest very different mental pictures of the situation. HN should stick to general policy and use the article's headline.</comment>


U.S. army developing encrypted radar waveform - <AUTHOR> https://thestack.com/world/2016/03/16/u-s-army-developing-encrypted-radar-waveform/ <comment><USER2> In the future military radars will increasingly look like directed white noise emissions rather than any sort of steady waveform on a particular frequency. This will make it much harder for targets to apply countermeasures, or even reliably detect when they are being illuminated. High speed signal processing makes it possible to reassemble radar returns that seem almost random into an accurate picture.

<comment><USER3> Yup. In fact, if you use a technique called spread spectrum emissions you can have your signal _below the noise floor_ but have it still be possible to pick it up because it carries so much redundant information across a massive bandwidth.

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

I can't find much information about using SS to go below the noise floor on wikipedia but it is a thing.

<comment><USER4> GPS is below the noise floor at the receiver, IIRC.

UWB radar is also a thing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Anti-radar devices will have to go the Russian route and just blast the shit out of every frequency to disrupt radar. It won't help that the radar is shifting frequencies over time if every channel and frequency is filled with strong noise from a jammer.

<comment><USER6> Well not really....

1) Jammers are a realy good target for anti-radiation missiles.

2) Jammers are also limited in power and frequency you can't make a jammer that can saturate every frequency multi-spectrum jammers allow you to jam different frequencies but usually not at the same time because you are power limited. So even if you have a jammer with say 50 different physical transmitter if you operate all of them each transmitter will operate at 1/50th of the peak transmission power. Wide spectrum jamming is usually done using timing, radars send pulses based on some specific cycle so what you do is attenuate your jammer to the cycle and frequency which allows you to "effectively" jam multiple radars because you don't have to be transmitting all the time to create false signals.

So this (#2) is what this whole new "encrypted radar" concept is supposed to combat which is cheap and effective wide spectrum radar jammers because today anyone with an SDR and a hacked TV dish can make quite an effective jammer.

<comment><USER7> _" Jammers are a realy(sic) good target for anti-radiation missiles."_

Yes, but jammers are cheap and lightweight; missiles are expensive and bulky. And there are other types of jammers that mimic a target: they listen for a radar ping and respond with the simulated target's echo. Such jammers are smarter, more difficult to ignore, and more expensive but they still cost far less than a missile (and weigh far less too).

<comment><USER8> Barrage noise jammers with sufficient power and bandwidth to effectively shut down radar systems are neither cheap nor lightweight. The ones that are both are merely a nuisance.

<comment><USER7> You're right. I spoke too soon.

I was thinking of _decoys_, which are typically cheap, light and inexpensive and provide, in the most optimistic of circumstances for the target, a multitude of other indistinguishable "targets."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This relates closely to the [Darpa Spectrum Challenge]([http://archive.darpa.mil/spectrumchallenge/](http://archive.darpa.mil/spectrumchallenge/)) that I participated in a couple years ago. The goal was to transmit information in a congested and contested RF environment. I think that they wanted to develop rapid spectrum-aware sensing as well as hard-to-jam signals.

<comment><USER10> I was literally talking about this yesterday with a friend in the context of military robotics and their control systems. He said those C&C systems would be a huge IW/EW target and my counter was that DARPA was already addressing that through things like the Spectrum Challenge.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> As soon as someone learns to detect F35 radar signal, more than half if it's stealth advantage melts away. So far U.S. has only made air-to-ground anti- radiation missiles, but the Russians have tried also air-to-air version.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti- radiation_missile](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-radiation_missile)

All this has not gone unnoticed in the Pentagon, so radars like there have probably been in the works for quite some time. F35 sales pitches are probably warming up right now, so news like this are expected.

The only surprise for me is that this comes from the army and not the air force or navy. They probably need to worry about enemy droids. And if they worry about those droids using radar, they need to worry about enemy anti- radiation missiles.

This is probably part of larger picture of U.S. armed forces to avoid using Infra Red Search and Track (IRST). Because that makes stealth planes look bit silly, when you go past ~0,07m^2 radar cross section. At that point you would get parity with detection ranges of common radars and modern IRST sensors, which would be something like 80km for fighter jet sized object. But this would mean no operations in enemy airspace, as flight ceilings are typically around 20km. F35 has RCS 0,01 and F22 RCS 0,001 which is just great for operating in enemy airspace, if the enemy can't detect their radars and lacks IRST.

Currently it seems the best USAF can do about IRST is to pretend it doesn't matter. So if there is any coordination between the branches, the army has to get their own stealth radar against enemy drones. After two decades and gazillion dollars, we probably see subsonic F40-cool-skin, with reflecting mirror finish aluminum body, that eliminates this problem. And power projection and proceed uninhibited.

Why mirror finish aluminum? Current IRST sensors can detect current fighters from tens of kilometers away from sun heated surfaces radiating at IR spectrum. Having orthogonal plates means that sun glare doesn't hit the IR sensor directly, the mirror finish prevents excessive heating and smooth aluminum has very small IR emissivity naturally. Conveniently aircraft are already made from aluminum.

Right now we don't hear about this aluminum shit, because U.S. is still funding some weaponized lasers. Airborne lasers smelled like "overspending" before, but it's really going to smell like bluff when reflecting surfaces increase power requirements some 400%. They already suffer from bad power/weight ratios. But once naval laser "close-in weapon system" has been fielded (because any chance is a good one when you're desperate) we can go back to airplane design.

Sorry, this is bit long. I've had this autistic streak about this subject for past two weeks.

<comment><USER8> > As soon as someone learns to detect F35 radar signal, more than half if it's > stealth advantage melts away.

Much of the stealth advantage of any aircraft evaporates as soon as it turns on its radar. It's not a matter of "learning to detect" anything. An aircraft that wants to be stealthy runs with radar off and relies on passive sensors. A system like this, if it could be made to work at the scale of a fighter radar, would change that.

> F35 sales pitches are probably warming up right now, so news like this are > expected.

Scaling this system up to the range and power required for a fighter radar is going to be a lot of work.

> The only surprise for me is that this comes from the army and not the air > force or navy. They probably need to worry about enemy droids. And if they > worry about those droids using radar, they need to worry about enemy anti- > radiation missiles.

I will hazard a guess that this effort grew out of the artist formerly known as Future Combat Systems. Part of the effort was the Multi-Function Radar Frequency System (MFRFS, pronounced "merrfs") which was a vehicle-mounted scan-and-warn radar that would have been part of a larger active protection system. The idea was to identify incoming ordinance, particularly RPGs, and 1) identify the shooter's location; 2) identify the specific target vehicle and warn the crew; 3) trigger an active protection system, if equipped.

All of this predates drones, and the Army has been interested in small-scale radar for decades. The concern on detectability is to keep the enemy from identifying and tracking ground forces using systems like MFRFS by using the emissions from the sensors.

> This is probably part of larger picture of U.S. armed forces to avoid using > Infra Red Search and Track (IRST). Because that makes stealth planes look > bit silly, when you go past ~0,07m^2 radar cross section. At that point you > would get parity with detection ranges of common radars and modern IRST > sensors, which would be something like 80km for fighter jet sized object. > But this would mean no operations in enemy airspace, as flight ceilings are > typically around 20km. F35 has RCS 0,01 and F22 RCS 0,001 which is just > great for operating in enemy airspace, if the enemy can't detect their > radars and lacks IRST.

I have no idea where you are getting RCS numbers from, since those are classified.

As for IRST, I have no idea from where you got the idea that the US is ignoring it. The US Navy and Air Force have been mounting IRST sensors on their fighters since Vietnam. The F-22A and F-35 carry the very sensors you say the USAF is ignoring. Also, an IRST sensor can _detect_ a fighter (ass-on) at 80km; it cannot _identify_ or _track_ that aircraft like a radar can. It needs to be much closer to do that.

> Currently it seems the best USAF can do about IRST is to pretend it doesn't > matter. So if there is any coordination between the branches, the army has > to get their own stealth radar against enemy drones. After two decades and > gazillion dollars, we probably see subsonic F40-cool-skin, with reflecting > mirror finish aluminum body, that eliminates this problem. And power > projection and proceed uninhibited.

No, you won't. First off, the primary source of heat in an aircraft is the aircraft's own power plant, not solar heating. Second, a mirror finish would be a _beautiful_ target for radar. It would be a blinding "KILL ME!" sign to even the most primitive systems. For that matter, so would a subsonic aircraft. Third, like I said, not modern air force is ignoring IRST.

> Right now we don't hear about this aluminum shit, because U.S. is still > funding some weaponized lasers. Airborne lasers smelled like "overspending" > before, but it's really going to smell like bluff when reflecting surfaces > increase power requirements some 400%. They already suffer from bad > power/weight ratios. But once naval laser "close-in weapon system" has been > fielded (because any chance is a good one when you're desperate) we can go > back to airplane design.

The airborne laser projects are intended to target ground vehicles and missiles, not aircraft. Naval CIWS is also intended primarily for targeting missiles. Current gun-based systems only have a range of ~2km, and no fighter pilot has been ballsy enough to come that close to an enemy ship in combat since the Argies bombed British landing ships at mast height in the Falklands.

> Sorry, this is bit long. I've had this autistic streak about this subject > for past two weeks.

Yeah, so am I. I worked in it for almost a decade, though.

<comment><USER12> "Third, like I said, not modern air force is ignoring IRST."

Right? I mean, just consider the B-2 and F-117 exhausts and the amount of work done to reduce their thermal signatures.

<comment><USER11> Eurofighter and Superhornet first flew in mid 90's. Eurofighter has been shipped with PIRATE IRST since 2007. At the same time dudes started thinking about equipping Super Hornet with short range IRST. That option will be available some time this year. Maybe, or it will be delayed by two years.

U.S. is not ignoring IR spectrum completely. But it's pretty low priority compared to other players.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Does anyone know what non-traditional radar could mean?

<comment><USER8> It's "non-traditional radar waveform". They are referring to waveforms and modulation techniques not traditionally applied to radar signals. Radar typically has a very regular waveform. So regular, in fact, that a receiver can tell what _type_ of radar is sending the signal by recording the overall signal pattern and deriving radar parameters from that (center frequencies, chirp bandwidths, scan patterns, and such). The type of obfuscation they are doing here is more typical of communications systems.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Interesting progress; It's like CDMA for radar.

For those who have one hour available, check out this amazing talk about the early history of silicon valley, back when the first tech sector was radars for WWII: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTC_RxWN_xo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTC_RxWN_xo)

</comment><comment><USER15> So this is spread-spectrum CDMA applied to a radar pulse?

<comment><USER8> My reading, based mainly on what they called it (Advanced Pulse Compression Noise), is no. I think what they are doing is adding an extra step that convolves the transmitted signal with a random noise signal before transmission, then deconvolves it when received as part of the normal convolution step in pulse compression.

They may also be randomly shifting the center frequency and chirp bandwidth in top of this. Frequency-hopping radar is not a new idea.

<comment><USER16> So direct sequence + frequency hopping? Interesting. Makes it hard to detect.

<comment><USER17> Sounds exactly like direct sequence to me. Pretty neat.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Nice! sounds like recent LIDAR innovations

[https://youtu.be/30Jc0GpYKYI](https://youtu.be/30Jc0GpYKYI)

</comment><comment><USER19> But does it have a back door? Hopefully not "end to end" encryption, at least.

/s

<comment><USER13> Please do not make posts like this.

<comment><USER20> Please do not make posts like this.</comment></comment></comment>


Presentations of Diffie-Helman leave out how to find g - <AUTHOR> https://blog.computationalcomplexity.org/2020/06/presentations-of-diffie-helman-leave.html <comment><USER2> I agree with the author and ran into the same problem when learning (and later teaching) D–H.

A good explanation is given in the following crypto.stackexhcange answer; the last two paragraphs in particular are the short version: [https://crypto.stackexchange.com/a/829](https://crypto.stackexchange.com/a/829).

<comment><USER3> That says

| There is no security issue with Diffie-Hellman (or DSA) if you reuse previously generated p, q and g; ...

That's... not entirely true. For small enough p an attacker can mount a precomputation attack against the group. That's something the NSA is rumored to have done for standard (now obsolete) 512-bit DH groups. For large enough primes p this is not really a concern though, so, yeah.

Also, DH is pretty much obsolete now with ECDH.

<comment><USER2> Yes, I totally agree. The qualifier "for large enough p" should be added.

For anyone reading this who's wondering about the NSA attack, some details can be found here: [https://weakdh.org/](https://weakdh.org/). Circumstantial evidence that the NSA did what that website describes is given in the research paper there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This site is totally unreadable on mobile.

</comment><comment><USER5> Multiple reasons:

      -  the challenging part of the protocol (from a security point of view) is agreeing on p and g, not finding them
      -  the interesting part of the protocol is doing interesting things with p and g, not computing them by trial and error
      -  there are solid and obvious guarantees that p and g exist and are easy to find, no reason to waste even half a paragraph

<comment><USER6> Formatting like this makes what you posted unreadable on mobile.

<comment><USER3> You have to remember to wrap text when you indent it by two or more spaces on HN.

<comment><USER7> Manual line wrapping is still not a very good solution since screen widths vary wildly.

<comment><USER3> It's the only option HN gives us. Blame HN.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>