Ultraviolet Irradiation of Blood: "The Cure That Time Forgot"? (2018) - <AUTHOR> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6122858/ <comment><USER2> The political discussion in this thread is fascinating. There are people advancing intelligent arguments about how the presidents podium remarks were flippant but basically on topic and that he wasn't telling people to actually drink bleach. While true, in my eyes it is obvious that he conflated sterilizing a surface with killing infection in a human and then started riffing on it.

It is incredibly strange and scary to me that not everyone is on the same page here. If you want to be generous you could say that the president was fatigued and had a 'brain fart' conflating the two. But this wasn't an issue with being articulate or not, or off the cuff or not, or how prescriptive he was. The man clearly thought that disinfecting surfaces relates to treating people. I find it terrifying that our leader could make such a mistake, especially at this stage of the pandemic.

<comment><USER3> He's now said that "I was asking a sarcastic — and a very sarcastic question — to the reporters in the room about disinfectant on the inside"

[https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/494519-trump- say...](https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/494519-trump-says-remarks- about-heat-light-disinfectant-were-sarcastic)

'It was just a joke, bro' has to be the lamest excuse.

<comment><USER4> Do not pity partisans, only consequence will force them to change.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "Firstly UBI is clearly an example of the well-known phenomenon called "hormesis" or "biphasic dose response'."

They're saying that the benefits are _not_ due to any germicidal effects, but in response to the oxidative stress it imposes, which is generally considered to be detrimental at higher levels.

To put it perhaps over-simply, it exercises the blood.

<comment><USER6> I recently read that COVID-19 counts decline after near infrared irradiation of body tissue. The authors thought that this is due to the resulting nitric oxide increase in the blood. Alas, I can't find the paper right now.

<comment><USER7> I recall hearing that red light therapy (shining red lights on the target area) has been used to treat restless leg syndrome. I wonder how much untapped potential light therapy has because it's a lot more fringe.

<comment><USER6> Indeed, red light therapy is very versatile. It increases the rate of stem cell maturation, helps cell to de-stress (by pushing out nitric oxide), increases energy production (by stimulating cytochrome-c-oxidase), and on top of that has systemic effects, too - the nitric oxide kills some pathogens and vasodilates (lowering high blood pressure), and, depending on where you shine the light, e.g. hormone production is increased. Those are all subtle improvements, but they add up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> IIRC, your eyes actually irradiate a significant chunk of your blood per minute. One of the trade-offs of wearing sunglasses is that you cut off this process.

Unclear how large of an effect is has, probably less than removing blood and irradiating it, since that process doesn't have to balance against eye damage.

<comment><USER9> Whoa, never thought of that. If you look at how much blood needs to be treated in the paper it's only 3.5ml per kg. So most likely enough blood is being exposed on a daily basis.

However I think the major difference is going to be the intensity of the dose. Cells get through the retina and sclera pretty quickly, less then a second, and UV from sunlight isn't actually that intense on the ground (3mW/cm^2 [0]). Dosing in the paper ranges from .1W/cm^ to 200W/cm^2 for anywhere from 10 seconds to 30 minutes. In the minimum case this is ~5 orders of magnitude more UV.

On a side note, I really dislike the default layout of NIH reports. I always have to pick the classic or PDF to be able to read them.

[0] - [https://ag.tennessee.edu/solar/Pages/What%20Is%20Solar%20Ene...](https://ag.tennessee.edu/solar/Pages/What%20Is%20Solar%20Energy/Sunlight.aspx)

<comment><USER10> The lens in your eye is also pretty opaque to UV light, which is why you can't see UV light at all. There probably is some effect, but it will be very minor.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Handy for purely/largely blood-borne diseases.

Useless for stuff that lives in the tissues, like SARS-CoV-2. Tough to irradiate the lungs.

<comment><USER12> Still super interesting. My (completely flawed) intuition was that the blood would be fried useless by any dosage enough to kill bacteria!

<comment><USER13> Ah, but as pointed out else-thread, it's not killing the bacteria. From the Conclusions section:

"Many people therefore assume that UBI must act by killing pathogens (bacteria, viruses or other microorganisms) circulating in the bloodstream. However there is no evidence that this is actually the case."

The benefits are then ascribed to homesis, much like how low-dose ionizing radiation actually seems to benefit the immune system.

<comment><USER14> My intuition as someone who has a UV light on their drinking water is also that the blood would also be too opaque for direct irradiation, anyway.

(You need to filter your water before it hits the UV light, because if it is eg cloudy or has too many minerals in it, the water treatment salesman tells me, the UV light won't actually do anything.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I've actually received a version of whole blood UV treatment about 10 years ago. For whatever reason I ended up feeling euphoric, memorably so, one of the best days of my life. It may have something to do with the fact that I was given oxygen after I started to faint after I saw the blood being withdrawn.

I collected a lot of papers about this modality and related ones. I can share them if anyone would like. I will not be able to comment on them and I am not a medical professional. Perhaps this was simply the placebo that appealed to me.

But the reason I sought out this treatment is that it is practiced by a doctor who was recommended to me by an MD PhD neurologist at Mayo Clinic. That doctor now does more with ozone gas than he does with ultraviolet blood irradiation. he considers it to be part of a class of "oxidative therapies" including very high doses of vitamin C.

<comment><USER16> Fancinating. Would like the papers you collected. Thanks in advance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Similar to this tech that uses the nasal cavity to irradiate blood at a beneficial wavelength. "The nasal cavity is saturated with blood capillaries and five major arteries connect directly to the circulatory system – making it the perfect location for non-invasive systemic photobiomodulation.

Vielight systemic photobiomodulation technology is hypothesized to boost the immune system and increase blood oxygenation levels."

[https://vielight.com/systemic- photobiomodulation/](https://vielight.com/systemic-photobiomodulation/)

<comment><USER18> Hypothesised? In Krimea they give nasal photobiomodulation as actual treatment and I was subject to it more than once.

<comment><USER17> Yeah, I think this company is very cautious in their claims. There's decades of research on this if you want to dig into it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> From the article, which I found relevant wrt. COVID:

> _These observations led to application of UBI in patients suffering from > pneumonia. In a series of 75 cases in which the diagnoses of pneumonia were > confirmed by X-rays, all patients responded well to UBI showing a rapid > decrease in temperature, disappearance of cyanosis (often within 3–5 min), > cessation of delirium if present, a marked reduction in pulse rate and a > rapid resolution of pulmonary consolidation. A shortening of the time of > hospitalizations and accelerated convalescence was regularly observed._

Of course I have no idea how this generalizes to the pneumonia you get from coronavirus...

<comment><USER11> That's from the pre-antibiotics era, to be clear.

It's likely there's good reason antibiotics supplanted it.

<comment><USER19> Yeah, clear. Reading your other comment made me realize there's of course the important distinction between viral and bacterial disease to be made, too...

<comment><USER20> No, the bacterial problem is true. COVID-19 causes massive bacterial infections in the lungs. Think of the green slime you cough out with the common cold, but deep in your lung. It's almost the same virus after all. The virus itself causes something else in the red bloodcells prohibiting the transport of oxygen, but this is unlikely the major letal problem.

<comment><USER21> Covid-19 is a coronavirus, the common cold is usually a rhinovirus. They're not 'almost the same virus' as you assert, they're completely different virus families [1].

For starters, coronaviruses are enveloped, and rhinoviruses are naked.

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

<comment><USER22> 15% of common colds are caused by coronaviruses. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_cold#Viruses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_cold#Viruses)

<comment><USER21> Sure, and that's why I said "/usually/ a rhinovirus".

But saying the common cold is "almost the same virus" as coronavirus still isn't true as a blanket statement: the vast majority of common colds (up to 85% by your stats) are a caused by completely different virus family.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> How is it we're talking about this and not the concrete steps towards the millions of daily tests needed safely end social isolation?

I've received UVA and UVB phototherapies. To treat GVHD. Works great. Last I checked, no one really knows how or why.

UV is totally worth investigating.

It's totally inappropriate (dangerous) for the POTUS to speculate on TV during a pandemic. Especially while actively thwarting or malignecting actual proven useful treatments and mitigations.

Shame on media (and us) for the ongoing attempts to divine a coherent narrative from the blather of a madman.

<comment><USER24> > It's totally inappropriate (dangerous) for the POTUS to speculate on TV > during a pandemic.

He is not speculating. Lets face it. He is a crook and a total retard. Idiocracy happend.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> There are also those proponents of nebulizing (dilute) peroxide. While I wouldn't try this myself, peroxide modulates lymphocytes and would surely result in a decrease in viral load. Peroxide is not unknown to the body, given the various endogenous peroxidases that catalyze it. Dilution would seem to be critical, though. I have wondered whether it wasn't worth some controlled studies, if they haven't happened already ( _shrug_ )

<comment><USER11> > peroxide modulates lymphocytes

This is kinda like saying "sodium is important in the body so it's fine to eat a chunk of it".

<comment><USER25> The dose makes the poison.

<comment><USER26> I'm pretty sure that consuming any amount of elemental sodium should be discouraged.

<comment><USER27> Salt in liquid water is just elemental sodium ions and chlorine ions, each surrounded by h2o.

A speck of elemental sodium is not dangerous.

A hunk of elemental sodium could be (depending on how you handle it!)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Will sunbathing or going in a tanning machine incur the same benefit?

<comment><USER29> There's an established link between Vitamin D deficiency and compromised immune system response.

Unless you live in a hot sunny country or spend a lot of time outdoors in the winter, the chances are good you're somewhat deficient.

But this is easy to check, and easy to fix with supplements.

<comment><USER30> I believe D3 specifically is needed to fix that deficiency just as an FYI.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> From Section 25 point 1, Historical Introduction

> In 1801 Johann Wilhelm Ritter, a Polish physicist working at the University > of Jena in Germany discovered a form of light beyond the violet end of the > spectrum that he called "Chemical Rays" and which later became "Ultraviolet" > light

 _Chemical Rays_

</comment><comment><USER32> Not related - but tangential: this reminds me of blue light therapy for neonatal jaundice

</comment><comment><USER33> 'However with the development of antibiotics, UBI use declined and it has now been called "the cure that time forgot".'

It says antibiotics. Is it me or UBI was used to treat bacterial infections or the OP is desperately correlating this study with the "effectiveness" of testing viruses with UBI? I feel like a lot of partisan users are getting the boot from Reddit and they are channeling out their frustrations here. Guys let's keep HN pure with tech only posts.

</comment><comment><USER34> It may be worth looking into further, but the section near the end of this very long article that recommends quack treatment websites really calls into question the quality of the rest of it and the motivations of the authors, if you ask me. E.g.:

"The web-site entitled 'Infections cured' ([http://infectionscured.com](http://infectionscured.com)) is also worth checking out."

</comment><comment><USER35> Does UV light from sitting in the sun reach the blood vessels near the surface of the skin?

<comment><USER36> It may but your eyes are definitely a path for UV exposure of blood.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Assuming that this works (which I will do for the point of this conversation, not that I believe it):

1\. You'd have to create a bunch of hemo-irradiators (which don't currently exist).

2\. You'd have to train perfusionists or nurses to use them.

3\. You'd have to place large-bore dialysis-style catheters into patients for the purpose of using these devices.

4\. You'd have to have 1:1 RN staffing to use these machines (just like we do for continuous veno-venous hemofiltration devices for renal failure patients in the ICU).

Lots of downstream things to think about beyond just whether the concept is feasible.

<comment><USER38> I assume by "works" you mean in relation to COVID19?

Sars-Cov2 is a respiratory disease. I guess it maybe present in blood, but it doesn't seem like removing it from blood would help with the respiratory issues it causes.

I can't see how you would easily get UV light into the lungs. But maybe there's a way... seems a bit far fetched.

<comment><USER39> My understanding of the article was that it doesn't need to be a blood-borne disease. The authors point out several times that, while most people would assume this works by directly killing germs (i.e. like sterilizing water with UV), this is not the mechanism. The exact mechanism is still unclear (which is one of the reasons it was never as widely adopted), but it seems more likely to be boosting the immune system.

So there would be no need to shine UV light directly into the lungs.

<comment><USER40> To expand on the unknown method of action. It could for example be removing other pathogens from the blood that lets the immune system focus on covid-19. Alternatively, random cellular damage could clause a useful immune response. Etc etc.

Medicine has often found treatments that works without any real understanding of why.

<comment><USER41> Isn't this true of Pasteur and his initial application of vaccines?

While he identified the mechanism of inoculation, my understanding is he theorized that it was due to the attenuated pathogen outcompeting the virulent one for nutrients rather than due to stimulation of the immune system.

I think I got that from a lecture by a science historian once. This idea seems to be glossed in the Wikipedia article on Pasteur here:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur#Anthrax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur#Anthrax)

Do I have that right?

<comment><USER42> >While he identified the mechanism of inoculation, my understanding is he theorized that it was due to the attenuated pathogen outcompeting the virulent one for nutrients rather than due to stimulation of the immune system.

How could it outcompete the actual virus if the actual virus isn't there yet at the time of vaccination?

<comment><USER41> Good point. Maybe the theory was the attenuated pathogen would consume available nutrients thereby depriving the real pathogen when it arrived?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I can't help thinking that this may have been the subject of the rambling, inarticulate speech recently given by POTUS? When I hear these crazy headlines, I think that he didn't come up with this stuff on his own, so did he hear this from a sane advisor or some kook on his staff? After he went to the mat for hydroxychloroquine, it's pretty natural for everyone to be skeptical, though.

<comment><USER11> > I can't help thinking that this may have been the subject of the rambling, > inarticulate speech recently given by POTUS?

Given his mention of disinfectants at the same time, it's far more likely they just told him how they disinfect surfaces like doorknobs and countertops and he ran with it.

<comment><USER44> What seems like a paradox to me is how he can be so smart at playing crowds, working the political system, etc. He beat a Clinton in a race for president - that's no mean feat.

But then he does things like this that reveal he's actually a bit on the dumb side. I don't think there's any other way to square that.

<comment><USER45> One of the women from Shark Tank described him as the single best salesperson she has ever seen. She said he could hone in on a person's weakness and use that to make a sale and it worked.

That's basically what he did during the election. He honed in on the single worst characteristic about the other candidates, "Low Energy Jeb", "Lyin' Ted", "Crooked Hillary", etc. And it worked.

The problem is that he's a salesman, he's not an intellectual. So a lot of the stuff he says is off the cuff and colloquial which is dangerous and unpresidential. He succeeded in business by bullying his opponents and using his power against them by squeezing them. But it's not something that works in politics, because his opponents are generally much smarter than he is.

<comment><USER46> > He succeeded in business by bullying his opponents and using his power > against them by squeezing them

That was my impression before the election, when I didn't pay any attention. I thought he was a successful bully, which wouldn't necessarily be the worst combination for a President.

After learning about his actual business history (Thanks, Trump Inc.! podcast) I think the 'succeeded' part is pretty arguable. He was born unbelievably wealthy, had a string of some unbelievable business failures, and was subsequently bailed out by some known (Deutsche Bank) as well as unknown shady actors and practices.

Now that I understand his business history, I wouldn't consider him to have succeeded in business. He could have been _vastly_ more wealthy today by doing nothing other than invest in index funds, which to me counts as largely unsuccessful.

<comment><USER47> > He could have been vastly more wealthy today by doing nothing other than > invest in index funds, which to me counts as largely unsuccessful.

Isn't that unknowable without knowing how much he has spent along the way?

<comment><USER48> No that's easily derivable from public information about his businesses and the performance of index funds over time. The most knowing how much he spent could tell us is whether he would have been able to spend more or less than he did.

<comment><USER47> You are comparing

\- Case A: Donald Trump runs his companies starting at year X and meanwhile leads a lavish lifestyle, ending up with N1 dollars.

\- Case B: Donald Trump puts all his money in index funds and spends nothing, ending up with N2 dollars.

As far as I can tell, you are saying N2 > N1, therefore he would have been better off investing in index funds. But you are comparing apples to oranges if you have different spending habits between the cases. It could be that running his private plane or plating things in gold or whatever would have drained his index fund investment totally.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22969986](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22969986)

</comment><comment><USER50> It's pretty interesting that as soon as a certain famous snake oil peddler starts yammering about his n-th insane theory, HN immediately jumps on it and starts serious consideration and deliberation. It's very much the same way he ended up with billions worth of free coverage during the campaign because the media could not help themselves but constantly entertain and discuss his ramblings.

Occam's Razor: He's just a senile old coot full of quack theories about everything. There's tons of people like him, you don't have to waste your time on them.

<comment><USER51> This "famous person" was selected to serve as the head of state by the citizens of the country with the second largest nuclear weapons arsenal. His pronouncements have the force of official public policy.

<comment><USER52> After he lost the popular vote. Other elected representatives selected him.

<comment><USER53> I'm confused, can you clarify you are referring to?

Edit: In what way was Trump "selected" and not elected by the rules laid out in the constitution?

Edit2: So not selected, and yes entirely by the rules we've always used.

<comment><USER54> In the US, the public doesn't vote for the president directly. They elect electors for their state who then vote for the president. This system is called the electoral college and the net result is that a candidate can win the popular vote (the majority of voters voted for them) without winning the presidency. This has happened many times in US history, and it happened most recently in 2016.

<comment><USER26> Well, only four times:

1867: Tilden (4,288,546) - Hayes (4,034,311) - Hayes wins. 1888: Harrison (5,443,892) - Cleveland (5,534,488) - Harrison wins. 2000: Bush (50,456,002) - Gore (50,999,897) - Bush wins 2016: Clinton (65,853,514) - Trump (62,984,828) - Trump wins.

To further confuse the issue, 2 Republican electors and 5 Democratic electors _voted for other candidates_ in 2016, though it wasn't significant in the end.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Oh come on. Not this nonsense here too.

Science and researchers don't "forget" things.

Things that aren't effective or practical are retired.

This is just someone trying to make the president seem less stupid but of course there is no way he's ever read anything about blood radiation and all the failed experiments over the years.

</comment><comment><USER56> Almost the entire briefing was about UV light killing viruses. Ultraviolet light is classified as a non-chemical disinfectant, and Trump was asking if we can bring it into the body. In his comment he said "The whole concept of the light that kills under one minute, thats pretty powerful". Nowhere anywhere did he suggest injecting chemicals. In fact, it was one of the dumb reporters that asked him a question about injecting bleach, not Trump. It's like people are not even watching the same press briefing. This media manipulation is getting blatant and outright mad, and I am watching people all around me hypnotized by it. What the heck is going on?

</comment><comment><USER57> So now Trump is an idiot-savant? [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/24/health/sunlight- coronavir...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/24/health/sunlight-coronavirus- trump.html)

<comment><USER58> If you look at how Trump talks you can see a pattern where he likes to repeat ideas that he's heard about and then hype them.

My hunch is that he heard about this as a _potential_ treatment from some doctor/advisor and then put his usual spin on it. This could work, it could be great, it's very promising, why don't we try it?

<comment><USER59> Benefit of the doubt for Trump: He is actually just trying to maintain a positive attitude about there being a solution.

Cynical response to Trump: He only half listens to the people around him, and genuinely believes he knows better than everyone in the world.

Not sure which of those it actually is, but I'm sure it's one of the two.

<comment><USER60> This is a good take. I'm genuinely sorry you're being downvoted. Anything remotely positive about Trump is just destroyed and it's absolutely ridiculous. There's no objectivity - people online interpret everything he does in the absolutely worst way.

<comment><USER59> Honestly. Maybe I should've put the line in there that I deleted calling him an idiot. Because apparently I need to be clear, I think this is complete idiocy. But there are always 2 sides to every coin.

<comment><USER58> Heck, I got downvoted for talking about a pattern I noticed. I never even gave an opinion good or bad about him.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> So I woke up to some "news" about said ridiculous statements and said snake oil sales. So as I do now, I went and got the actual source and not the media interprition of it.

Can you find where in this clip he says to inject Lysol or sells snake oil? [https://youtube.com/watch?v=zu60uj0_-Nw&feature=emb_title&ti...](https://youtube.com/watch?v=zu60uj0_-Nw&feature=emb_title&time_continue=1538)

Because I saw him ask questions to his medical professional and make very general statements that are objectively true but at worst impractical or irrelevant.

Can anyone time stamp the snake oil for me?

<comment><USER61> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHkzqejFKbM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHkzqejFKbM)

he is clearly talking about injecting disinfectants

<comment><USER53> Did you not see I already posted that link, except mine has more context?

I see him ask his medical professional to confirm they are indeed looking into various options. Are you perhaps looking intentionally for the worst possible take and using that in place of an objective fact?

<comment><USER61> You asked for a timestamp; I posted the specific segment. "Various options" includes injecting disinfectants.

<comment><USER53> Do you HONESTLY think the president was asking Dr. Birx to inject bleach or isopropyl alcohol into coronavirus patients? Like really honestly? Or are you just hopeful to imply that to hurt Trump?

Because that just wasn't my take watching the full stream. You are obviously free to believe whatever makes you feel good.

This wouldn't even be the first time that he's mentioned convalescent plasma therapy which it would not be unfair to describe as "injecting blood into someone to clean the virus from them"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> Sounds great, but I would prefer just injecting some Lysol myself.

<comment><USER63> Please don't do this here.

<comment><USER61> Why do you think this link got posted?

<comment><USER63> That's a separate question.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Which tools are the best for stress load testing of a web application? - <AUTHOR> I'm looking for tools which they are able to do heavy stress testing for a web application. Tools which they are able to do in browser testing (like Selenium) or a framework(Python preferred) to write the tests and record the GET/POST requests and the load of the JS/CSS files. Any suggestions will be appreciated. <comment><USER2> Gatling is my preference.

[http://gatling.io/](http://gatling.io/)

It's the successor to JMeter, self-hosted on a server (or multiple servers), and provides a lot of useful features. Some very nice reporting, full useragent control, path of access if you want (visit /index then /post then POST a comment then reload /index then...), and lots of other stuff.

It's a bit of a pain to learn to script, but it's also much cheaper if you're testing frequently than the various SAAS solutions.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you very much. I will look at it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I've used [http://loadstorm.com](http://loadstorm.com) in the past, let's you automate and test emulating real browser requests

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks a lot.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Be careful when running your tests from a single source as some people are advising. Some security measures might kick in when seeing too much traffic (pps, cps, ...) from a single source, so you might get throttled and think there's something wrong with your server.

That's the main reason why a SaaS offering might be a good idea here.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your advice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Locust.io written in python uses gevent. After locust no looking back.

<comment><AUTHOR> I heard about Locust.io. I will look at it. Thanks a lot.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Try siege for stress testing.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks a lot. For any in browser testing, do you have any suggestions?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Have you tried Apache JMeter?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, I have tried it. It was a bit complex to build some tests and I stared searching for something else, close to it. I prefer to find a framework to code the loading tests and if possible to do in browser testing like the Selenium. If you don't know suck a framework what other suggestions do you have? Thanks a lot.

<comment><USER8> Have a look at [http://gettaurus.org/](http://gettaurus.org/), its wonderful.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks a lot. I will look at it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> indio-jr HTTPWatch + Watir.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks a lot. I will look at them also.</comment></comment>


I'd Love to Move, but I Can't - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/the-go-nowhere-generation-speaks-id-love-to-move-but-i-cant/254579/ <comment><USER2> The fundamental problem in most of these is "lack of a safety net".

While there are safety nets in society they often exclude the years when someone is most likely to take economic risks - for example, in the US a minimum free medical coverage is provided to those people under 18 or over 65.

Personally, I'm thinking that if people knew they couldn't incur permanent damage to themselves or their futures, they would take more risks. As falling out of health insurance when you have a chronic condition (which is likely genetic and not the person's fault) in America is one of those situations, people stay in crap jobs that go nowhere, and aren't out there creating new businesses.

<comment><USER3> _Personally, I'm thinking that if people knew they couldn't incur permanent damage to themselves or their futures, they would take more risks._

Surely if people knew they couldn't incur permanent damage, it wouldn't be much of a risk? I don't think people's risk aversion has changed, I just think things are (or at least seem) more risky at the moment.

<comment><USER4> I think what was meant was more along the lines of "if people knew they couldn't incur _severe_ permanent damage..."

The problem seems to be that if you fall off the "middle-class bandwagon" in the US, it's very difficult to get back on. Since medical emergencies or the like can easily do this to you, people who might be willing to take a reasonable risk become more focused on minimizing the risk of a really bad outcome than on maximizing expected outcome.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm 27 so I think I'm just a couple years outside of this generation that can't find jobs. That said, I'm pretty sick and damned tired of seeing lists of things keeping these 20-somethings from succeeding. It's time for people to man up (Though I'm not excluding women) and take responsibility for themselves and stop complaining about externalities keeping them from success and just go out and succeed. The problem isn't the lack of jobs it's this loser, "The world is against me", attitude. One of the young people quoted in the article said, "not for the types of positions I'm qualified for". Another quipped about a living wage. Does this person even know what a living wage is or what that means?

Frankly, this article looks like it's full of over privileged cry-babies sad that life isn't working out as perfect as they hoped. I say it's time for them to pivot on life and stop the damned whining.

<comment><USER6> It's hard to point blame in one specific direction. Yes, you are right they should take responsibility.

But these are people who grew up doing the "responsible" thing and listening to the advice of teachers and parents. They made good grades whether or not they learned, did extracurricular activities whether or not they enjoyed them, and otherwise put aside any sort of personal decision-making for 21 years, in the idea that a college degree would get them "success."

Given that, it isn't enough to just say "get a job, bum." They need some new, concrete picture of how life works. With ideas like, do things you enjoy and practice hard to get better at them, not to impress other people. Or, work hard even at things you don't like, if it gets you the money, time, or skills you need to do something else later.

And then the question is, how would you arrange a family or a school that produces people who have these ideas naturally? Probably there'd be a lot more opportunities for kids to do meaningful work/play, apprentice learning a trade, and less focusing on getting into a prestigious school.

<comment><USER7> I have a group of friends who have master's degrees in art education (from a private school), and are stuck being substitute art teachers and waiting tables, because there are few openings for art teachers.

In their minds, they did the "responsible" thing. They got good grades, went $100k+ plus in debt, and are waiting tables at age 28. The problem is, they _didn't_ do the responsible thing -- they used alot of someone else's money to learn a skill of very narrow utility. Now they need to pay the piper.

People lack a critical eye. It's amazing to me that people advise high school kids the way that they do.

Frankly, I don't know how people do it. My wife and I make a good buck, own a modest home and drive one 5 year old car. We don't owe anyone anything, and we save alot, so we're "broke". I don't know how people fit a $400 student loan payment in, while living a non-frugal lifestyle.

<comment><USER8> High school students are getting advice that made since in the 1970s (when the people who are advising them went to school). Go to college, "find yourself", expand your horizons, etc. Then, that made you special. Today it just makes you one of many without any discernible skills.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> As I see it the baby boomers, rightfully worried about their retirement, are going to camp out in most top positions longer than we expected or was normal in the past. This will inhibit upward mobility of younger people for quite some time (retirement ages are creeping up all across the Western world). Additionally they are demanding loyalty and commitment in the workplace from the younger generation for part-time and casual jobs with no security which would have been more secure full-time jobs in the past. There is constant bellyaching from the baby boomers on this point about flighty millennials without recognizing it's far less secure and stable than when they started.

All this combined with the student loans situation and the stagnant real wages since the 1970s is going to be a big problem. You can see it very starkly in the university system, but it applies everywhere. When the mass baby boomer retirement comes social security and health systems will be put into stress while the Western world is still in fairly deep debt. However, the baby boomers will still be dominant in politics as they will retire later there, and they will still be voting in retirement anyway.

On the long horizon graduates will then be fighting with a new generation of kids with cheap online education and more modern skills and middle class BRIC teleworkers. Non-graduates will, as has been the case for a long time, also be competing increasingly with the rising BRIC workers. While there is potential for full-automation to bring a lot of manufacturing back to the West in the next few decades, that's not going to mean that many jobs. "Motherboards now made in the USA again!" will be the cry... but by an automated factory supervised by a handful of Ivy league engineers and some cheap maintenance workers and self-driving trucks bringing in supplies. Amazon, Walmart and the like will continue to clean up "mom and pop" shops, drugstores with skype video connections to pharmacists in India to confirm prescriptions, even some restaurants going for more automation. Farming is already down to a tiny percentage of the population and the rest will be immigrants (illegal and otherwise) and perhaps some robots too.

In this situation it's insane to go into 60-100k commercial debt for a philosophy or fine arts degree given there are already distance and online study options for these at insanely low prices (the "hobby/cultural enrichment" argument is valid, I think society would be poorer without this influence, but it doesn't need expensive on-campus study or a brand-name). Those prices are only going to go down.

Things are going to get tougher.

<comment><USER10> I don't buy into this logic. I'm sure it has an effect, but I don't see how a Baby Boomer working a job is worse for the economy than a Baby Boomer suckling on the government teat on retirement. It's not a zero sum game, if someone is doing productive work I think that's a net win for the economy.

<comment><USER11> Err, if you're referring to social security that's money that they've been paying into as part of their paycheck. But generally that's not the primary source of income AIUI. Most people were counting on their 401Ks which obviously took a hit by varying degrees. So there's a strong financial incentive for them to delay retirement as long as possible.

Medicare may be considered suckling on the govt teat but uh getting old is ridiculously expensive. I expect it would still not be enough depending on age and severity of medical conditions.

<comment><USER10> If you think that the Social Security system works like some sort of bank, I've got a few surprises for you.

<comment><USER9> An excellent point, if somewhat weakened by the behavior of the banks as of late.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> What is new about this generation is that they graduate with enormous student loan debt. They already have a "mortgage" or rent payment, only it goes towards their loans.

We desperately need good alternatives to current universities, indeed... the current default path of getting a degree by taking on enormous debt is just not viable in this economic environment.

But I also understand the cynicism of a couple responses. I have a few facebook friends in their twenties, and often enough, I read status messages like "I'm so broke and can't find a job (Posted from my IPhone)" or "I just spend two hours applying for ten jobs, will probably not hear back from any of them" (yes, most likely). Also - probably in part due to the large debt occurred to get their specific degree - some fresh graduates seem unwilling to expand their job search beyond their chosen field.

</comment><comment><USER13> I love that we simultaneously have a heap of victim blaming that

(a) they need to develop their professional networks more and (b) they just need to man up and move to South Dakota.

Before you start commenting with an easy solution, you should stop and think: if everyone did this, what would happen?

In the case of everyone networking better, it would simply recreate the current situation but biased towards those who are inherently better at networking. Well-written resumes aren't themselves valuable: they work as a signal of someone standing out from the crowd. But if everyone does that, it just shifts the equilibrium.

In the case of everyone moving to South Dakota, you'd end up with an unemployment rate of 30% in South Dakota. More than that, even: the number of unemployed in California is currently 2 million, which is more than double South Dakota's total population, let alone workforce, even ignoring the heap of infrastructure issues and mass destruction of social capital that would be involved in that kind of movement.

Instead, look at issues of public choice, broken institutions, and the system as a whole. Do not bother trying to blame (or excuse, for that matter) the individuals involved, unless what you're interested in is furthering a persona of being a hard-ass concerned with individual responsibility and tough love (or, on the other side, a persona of someone who is exceptionally sympathetic and caring toward others). Because whatever state individuals are in now as a result of their choices, as a whole those same individuals, made of the same stock and character and making the same general choices, were better off 6 years ago. What's changed, and how can we reverse or modulate it to improve overall outcomes?

<comment><USER14> >what you're interested in is furthering a persona of being a hard-ass concerned with individual responsibility and tough love (or, on the other side, a persona of someone who is exceptionally sympathetic and caring toward others).

Ah, but that's what people are actually interested in!

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I saw this problem coming way in advance. As soon as a graduated college I moved directly to NYC. Do not pass Go, DO collect a lot more than $200. There are a zillion jobs here of all kinds, so I am not worried about losing my job at all.

The cost of living seems high, but it pays off. Wages are higher, for one thing. What money I lose because of higher rent I gain in that there are awesome things happening all over the place just a short bike ride from my house. That's worth the price of admission alone. But also I don't have to pay for a car, and many other expenses of the suburbs just don't exist.

Of course, now that I'm here I would not love to move. I think I might be a homeless bum before I moved somewhere else. I'd like to travel, but I can't imagine staying anywhere else as a permanent resident.

</comment><comment> DanI-S It seems almost the opposite in the UK. Out of my original group of home town friends (from a pretty even mix of low and high income backgrounds), very few people haven't moved at least to another city. A large number of us have actually emigrated, at least temporarily.

The modern, British means of surviving an economic downturn without going crazy seems to be doing a Teaching English as a Foreign Language course somewhere far away and interesting.

<comment><USER16> At least 3 of my UK friends have TEFLed in Japan or South Korea, and I had it as a fallback plan at one point too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I think one of the problems is that a lot of "twenty something's" still believe in their degree. A B.A. means pretty much nothing. As a recent graduate (about six months ago), I can honestly say that _not_ letting my degree do the work for me was the smartest decision I've ever made. Grads need to realize that there are thousands holding the same, useless piece of paper. If you want to make money, teach yourself some cool shit and hit the road. It's terrifying, sure, but I think there's a lot of false hope in your four year stint magically converting into a $50k+/year job.

<comment><USER18> It's not really that easy to just _"teach yourself some cool shit and hit the road"_.

We seem to have this attitude here because you can just read a "ruby in 10 days" type guide online and start hacking away.

This just isn't true in many other industries or professions where you would need to either incur significant costs or have completed an apprenticeship in order to practice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Perhaps there is a market here: Inexpensive boarding houses for young people trying to get a start in high-cost-of-living job centers. If there were a place for young folks to live where you could get a room w/space for a bed and a desk, shared bathroom/showers, and 2 meals/day for, say $300-500/mo in Boston, I bet they would fill up. Allow people to focus on finding work, give them a leg up of sorts.

In my imaginary boarding house, you wouldn't get to "have it your way," you'd have to sacrifice some individual liberty out of deference to neighbors. To throw some random examples out there: your lease would not renew past 2 years (not meant to be permanent), maybe there's some work-trade to keep costs down, no music after e.g. 10, no guests after e.g. 11, perhaps locked front door from 0000-0530. The point of that sort of thing is a) to keep stuff under control so it doesn't become a party flop-house (e.g. "this is not your college dorm") b) keep people focused on their mission while there (to find a job and improve their situation) and c) to give people a strong incentive to move out.

I'm thinking of the boarding houses of ye olden days: it was cheap, frequently temporary, you had the amenities of a home (sleep, bathe, perhaps food), but it wasn't "your house" and you weren't entitled to treat it as such.

I think this'd be a great way for recent graduates to move to a big town like Boston or SF to look for work with much less stress & economic demands (in exchange for less "personal freedom"). My hat goes off to cletus's NY friend who "lives in a garage for $300/mo" but this isn't really scalable and most people can't find such a situation.

Anyway this is just a brainstorm about how I wish there were cheaper living options for new arrivals in BOS.

<comment><USER14> >Perhaps there is a market here: Inexpensive boarding houses for young people trying to get a start in high-cost-of-living job centers. If there were a place for young folks to live where you could get a room w/space for a bed and a desk, shared bathroom/showers, and 2 meals/day for, say $300-500/mo in Boston, I bet they would fill up. Allow people to focus on finding work, give them a leg up of sorts.

I have two responses here:

A) In Boston, it would never be allowed. Boston-Cambridge municipalities have _LOVED_ the boom in rental values from both the growing student populations and their low unemployment rates. Why would they ruin a good thing by allowing new building, let along ugly, high-density boarding houses that resemble nothing more than _student_ housing? And everyone official in Boston who isn't a student despises students.

B) I've thought of starting just this, but it WOULD be your college dorm (or at least, in the style of my old college dorms). Checks on room conditions every so often, eviction for damage or partying too much, month-to-month tenancy. You're missing an angle here: many people _like_ the dorm/boarding- house lifestyle better than the apartment/house lifestyle. Many people _enjoy_ not owning very much and having the majority of their life be "out there".

C) That fact leaves us with the opportunity to create a social environment for the long-term residents _and_ to branch off into things like supplying network access or food-service.

In short, this is an _amply_ viable business model (works for all the damn colleges!) that never gets used due to municipal and cultural biases against it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'm really surprised they don't mention "I'd love to move but I can't sell my house in the current market." I know at least five people in this boat.

<comment><USER21> Mortgages are seductive. Get a nice place, up to or beyond social norms, but be tied to it for decades. Outright ownership, while humbling, gives far more flexibility.

<comment><USER10> A proper mortgage with a decent downpayment is effectively identical to ownership. The biggest advantages of a downpayment are protecting against just the sorts of problems we've seen. For one, saving up a downpayment shows that you are a fiscally responsible person with stable employment in the past. For another, it gives you instant equity and protects you against being upside down due to market fluctuations.

You put in your downpayment and a year or two of mortgage payments and even in the market goes down a bit you still have enough equity to avoid being trapped. You can sell or rent and move elsewhere.

<comment><USER20> Around here, some places have halved in value, which is more than a year or two's worth of payments.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> A big problem here is perceived risk and unwillingness to step out of the comfort zone.

The other problem is money: when you are dropping > $500/month on student loans, you _have_ to have a job before you move.

I remember being graduated in 2006 with a BSCS and so broke I could not move without a relocation benefit. I was debating hitchhiking to Seattle or SF and bumming around with a laptop looking for coding work, but I wound up not having to.(Answer to this problem: save about 3K or so and don't ever let go).

</comment><comment><USER8> Job centers are damaging themselves with high cost of living. It easily offsets the increase in wage. They valley is a great example of this, if you're moving there for the first time you might get, what, 80k, which is equivalent to 55 or 60k in anywhere that's not California or New York. It's hard to justify a move when you see your standard of living dipping a little until you can establish a reputation that warrants higher wage.

<comment><USER23> This short ebook explains it extremely well: [http://www.amazon.com/The-Rent- Damn-High-ebook/dp/B0078XGJXO...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Rent-Damn-High- ebook/dp/B0078XGJXO/)

Basically, prices are so high because that is where building supply is constrained.

This book [http://www.amazon.com/Gated-City-Kindle-Single- ebook/dp/B005...](http://www.amazon.com/Gated-City-Kindle-Single- ebook/dp/B005KGATLO) explains the nationwide economic consequences of constraining housing supply (and thus rising prices) in the most economically productive areas.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Reading through this list of anecdotes I had mixed emotions. I spent a significant amount of time unemployed 10+ years ago in the post-dotcom recession in the UK and it was awful. This was partly due to the highly unregulated nature of UK IT recruitment but the problem was the lack of jobs.

Still, a see some problems in this article. Like "I graduated with a philosophy major in 2008". Bzzzzt. Sorry, you made choices. People need to realize that college is an opportunity that comes with a significant cost (real and opportunity). You may want to major in South American literature but you need to have a plan for what you're going to do in the Real World. Or at least question whether the cost of college is worth it.

As for state residencies, depending on the state it may only take a year to establish residency in a new state. This can mean the first year of college is expensive but then it gets cheaper (IIRC California works this way) or it means you move there and flip burgers or whatever for a year.

The second thing I picked out was "there are no jobs in my area". I have no sympathy for this. Either you didn't think about this beforehand or your area is just hard to get into. Doing a degree in that area doesn't entitle you to a job. Get a job. _Any_ job. Jobs are like social proof. It's far easier to get a job when you have a job.

The third thing I picked out was that it's expensive to move. No it isn't. You can get from pretty much anywhere in the US to anywhere else for under $500. What's that? You want your _stuff_? Ok, _that's_ the real problem.

I think back to Fight Club: the things you own end up owning you. You basically need little more than a bed to sleep on. I think back to that photo of Steve Jobs from the 80s sitting on the floor of his apartment with just a lamp. He basically didn't own anything.

I can tell you from experience it's incredibly liberating to just get rid of your stuff.

If you want to move to New York City (as one example) to find work, it's not expensive. Bring yourself, some clothes and a laptop and you can get here for maybe as little as $100. Find a cheap town in the commuter belt and find temporary accommodation (eg I know someone who works in Manhattan but lives above a garage in Long Island for $300/month) and just come in to the city when you need to go to interviews.

And the beauty of NYC is you can get rid of that car too. Oh you want a car? You can have one... when you can afford it.

Oh you want a social life? And a furnished home where you can "entertain"? You can have those things... when you can afford them.

EDIT: let me clarify one point. I was careful to say you "need a plan" for the real world when it comes to college. That phrasing was deliberate and different to treating college as some kind of vocational processing plant. It means if you spend 8 years studying history at top schools and rack up $200,000 in debt then you probably made some bad choices. But if you studied philosophy at a state school and worked part-time such that you have little or no debt, then you've made far better choices.

<comment><USER25> I was slightly offput by this comment "the financial costs of moving (which are high - I've definitely spent hundreds on new drinking glasses alone!)"

Who spends hundreds on drinking glasses when they're financially strapped? That mindset percolates outward.

I think a good part of this outlook comes from kids who came from upper middle class backgrounds, went to good schools, and expect to repeat the success of their parents and live accordingly without much sacrifice.

Full disclosure: I fit that description. And like you I was laid off in 2001 and looked for other programming jobs to no avail for months... I remember my mindset well, strongly that of the victim. I was paralyzed to do anything other than cold call companies/recruiters, spruce up the resume on monster/dice, and feel sorry for myself over and over again on a daily basis. It only happened that a friend was working at a company I had an offer from in '99 and they were happy to give me a job. "Yes, dodged a bullet, got lucky!" And that's all it was, luck. I certainly didn't make it happer for myself. I've been working at that company for 11 years and for the most part it's been a ho-hum experience; I am actively working to move on to something better by doing freelance work on the side for cheap to build up a portfolio. I wonder how my life would have turned out if that safety net hadn't been there.

<comment><USER26> This. There is a large segment of the American population that cannot fathom living a life not based on gross consumerism. It is a crippling behavior when you have little income and are just starting out because it prevents you from accumulating the savings required for economic flexibility.

When I was in my 20s and poor, I think the most I ever spent on drinking glasses in total was a few dollars, and I moved many times. I managed to actually save a modest amount of money making terrible wages in an expensive city without a particularly poor lifestyle but I only occasionally spent money on toys that I did not genuinely need. It made it possible for me to bootstrap myself to a very good job and to develop good saving and spending habits.

<comment><USER27> Amen.

The trait of rich people that I try to emulate (not always successfully) is that they tend to purchase assets that appreciate in value. Toys are paid for with highly disposable money and not the nest egg.

The trait of poor people that I try to avoid is purchasing depreciating assets, usually on credit ensuring that you'll be poor until that lotto ticket hits big (i.e. forever).

<comment><USER28> Isn't this pretty hard?

Most assets depreciate. Here's a non-exhaustive list: furniture, kitchen supplies, food, electronics, and vehicles.

It seems like it'd be hard if you're poor to avoid having a large chunk of your income go towards things that depreciate immediately you touch them.

<comment><USER27> It isn't easy, but it pays off. I slept on my floor for 2 years _after_ I got a job as an engineer at IBM.

The overall point is this. If you say that you're poor, but you have a cable connection, TV, cell phone, data plan, multiple cars on finance, large student loans for that lib arts degree, and eat out at restaurants, then you're poor by choice. It's fixable via a change in priorities. I'm not claiming that everyone is in this situation, but many people fall squarely into this bucket.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> In order to make a major move, you have to feel that the opportunities in the new place are worth the cost of uprooting yourself and leaving your friends and family behind. You also have to be willing to put yourself into a sink or swim situation - when you're in a new place where you don't know anyone, your ability to fallback and rely on someone is pretty much nonexistent.

Personally, I've made 4 major moves: first from my hometown in Washington State to Chicago, then to Raleigh, on to London, and now I'm in Oslo. Each time I decided to move, it was because I felt that the new location would yield better opportunities in the long run. --Even Raleigh, despite being too southern for my tastes.

Major moves aren't easy, but for me they've always been worth it in the long run (I never want to live in Raleigh again, but if I hadn't decided to try it out, I probably wouldn't have made it to Europe). I'd recommend that people take the chance.

</comment><comment><USER30> It's simple. If there is no work where you are, then you need to move to where the work _is_.

Lots of places are hiring - we are, in the middle of inner nowwhere Midwest. I hear there are jobs going begging in North Dakota, in the oil fields. Not the most pleasant of jobs, but 3rd shift on a rig pays better than not working at all.

</comment><comment><USER31> I have often thought that the decline in multi-generational families in the US was due in part to social security, and in part to the increasing demands of mobility. With social security no longer providing the safety net it used to and with mobility down, maybe this is why more multi-generational households are popping up all across America.

I have found it interesting how many people I knew who went off to college and moved back into the same county or even small town where they grew up, after a few years away after college. We are perhaps not as mobile as we'd like to think.

</comment><comment><USER21> There are jobs. There are growth areas. MOVE THERE. Sure, South Dakota may not seem desirable, but survival comes first and even McDonalds there is paying hiring bonuses.

Too much of society believes the prolific promises happiness and comfort without effort (and vote accordingly). Reality doesn't work that way; figure it out fast or a world of hurt will arrive.

<comment><USER14> If everyone took your advice, South Dakota would have high unemployment. It's not a solution.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> A good advice to "20 years old" who can't move – learn JavaScript. You will be able to move to just about any place. Esp. if you are an american citizen. Within the US, to Canada or Europe, or Thailand, or any other place.

<comment><USER33> At first I thought "why JavaScript" (and not any of the other web programming languages) but I realized this does make some sense as nearly all web apps nowadays use JavaScript whereas the other backend languages are more fractured. Of course, its better to learn some other languages too, but some of the new JS frameworks are awesome and it looks like demand is only going to increase for dev's with this skill</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What r some things u can get in Canada on PR but u can't in USA on H1B? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Please write submission titles in proper English. That's one of the ways we try to keep the quality of Hacker News a bit higher than most of what's out there elsewhere.

<comment><AUTHOR> i see character limits for the title, may be that is keeping from using proper English, what do you suggest for that?

<comment><USER2> Fewer words.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> The only difference between PR and Citizen is ability to vote or get elected. On H-1B you do not have any rights

</comment><comment><USER4> You get to live in Canada as long as you want on a PR instead of a few years in the US on an H1b.</comment>


The State of Venture Capital and the Internet - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/10/20/the-state-of-venture-capital-and-the-internet/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29 <comment><USER2> I hope PG reads this article, my Y Combinator application is in this field.</comment>


"No, internet companies shouldn't have to pay you for your data" - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Exploitation is neither natural or virtuous. It's like arguing that a rapist has no earthly reason to consider what's probably the best interests of the drunken student. It doesn't matter how misguided or caught off guard users may be, no company is entitled to use and/or abuse them, ToS or not. We cannot rationalize away ethics or morals, especially not for the sake of a goddamn profit margin.

</comment><comment><USER3> Meaning? Privacy is a right, and rights are non-negotiable?

<comment><USER4> No. It means if you don't want them to have your data, don't sign up for the service.

<comment><USER3> Whose service are you talking about?

If you use a browser and don't block third-party trackers, Google will know about 60% of the websites you visit, and Facebook about 20%. Even if you never signed up to any of their services and don't use any of their offerings.</comment></comment></comment>


Homeland Security wants the Master Key to the Internet - <AUTHOR> http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/internet_dhs_wants_master_key_for_net.htm <comment><USER2> Those guys scare me alot more than the terrorists do...

</comment><comment><USER3> I guarantee you, anything the NSA wants that Verisign has, they can get.</comment>


Tesla won't give drivers their own crash data without a court order - <AUTHOR> https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/tesla-blames-drivers-who-wreck-its-cars-but-wont-hand-over-crash-data-without-a-court-order-053018.html <comment><USER2> This is a bunch of PR nonsense.

> When asked why Tesla has an apparent policy requiring drivers who want their > own data to file for a subpoena, a spokesperson framed it as a privacy > issue.

> "We handle all customer data in accordance with our Owner's Manual and > privacy policy, which clearly outlines the type of data we collect and the > lengths that we go to protect a customers' privacy in the process," Tesla > said via email, referencing back to a statement on the Tesla website about > the company's data collection practices.

You can pay a third party $1000 to access the data, or Telsa will publicly shame your driving if they think you are in the wrong during a crash, but they really need to fight you to protect your privacy from yourself?

<comment><USER3> Ah, how wonderful that the GDPR is now in place, making this as easy as issuing a subject access request.

<comment><USER4> Only if you are in the EU. Many Tesla drivers aren't.

<comment><USER5> The GDPR also holds for European Tesla drivers outside the EU.

<comment><USER6> I don't believe that's true. For processors outside of the Union, it applies to "data subjects in the Union" or "monitoring [...] within the Union".

[https://gdpr-info.eu/art-3-gdpr/](https://gdpr-info.eu/art-3-gdpr/)

<comment><USER7> Does this mean that if a US citizen goes on holiday to a country in the European Union, that they are a data subject in the European Union?

<comment><USER8> Yes, as I understand it, that is correct. When you are in a country that is a member of the EU, your data held by companies is subject to the GDPR.

<comment><USER9> Doesn't this mean that even a US company which explicitly verifies it only works with US citizens must still IP block all of Europe to comply?

EDIT: A nasty surprise that might be, too, if it turns out there was important data via that service that you wanted to access abroad but couldn't.

<comment><USER10> Only if they actually have a legal presence in the EU. If they are a US company that has no legal entity established in the EU, the laws of the EU have no effect on them.

<comment><USER9> Thanks for the info.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> So this is something that has always kind of bugged me about Tesla. If you have an accident, they are more than happy to drop the crash data "proving" that you were at fault, look at the recent stories about running into a road barrier and the back of a firetruck for recent examples of this. And, of course, they don't ask you first if they can release it.

However, if you want the data, you can't have it… you have to go to court to get it.

<comment><USER12> GDPR doesn't sound so bad now, does it? :)

<comment><USER13> No.

You know what sounds nice?

Having the choice to not buy a Tesla.

I don't need Government™ to tell me what kind of contracts I can agree to.

<comment><USER14> > Having the choice to not buy a Tesla.

If Tesla's business model proves successful, all other car makers will copy it, and then it doesn't matter which brand you buy.

Look at the TV market. You technically have the choice not to buy a "Smart TV," which sells your info to god-knows how many third-parties and spies on you 24/7\. But good luck finding one. Sony, Samsung, LG? They all have the same spyware features. Your only option is to buy brandless Chinese TVs with terrible picture and worse sound quality.

How long until all manufacturers start acting like Tesla? What choice will we have then? Start walking everywhere like our ancient ancestors?

<comment><USER15> Can't you just not connect them to the Internet?

<comment><USER16> You can try. I recently learned that Ethernet-over-HDMI is a thing: now that you know that, you can potentially disable it on the other end of the connection, but lots of people are connecting their TVs to the internet without even knowing.

<comment><USER17> The protocol supports it yes, but I think you'd have a hard time finding a single person who has ever inadvertently connected their TV to the internet through HDMI. Hell I think you'd have a hard time finding a TV that even supports this functionality, and if you do my bet is it's a specialty thing made for the hospitality/service industry.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Can we make a law that all data collected by devices that I bought belongs to me? Yes, that includes everything the websites I visit send back to the mothership.

<comment><USER19> There's no real justification for anyone having that right. The device manufacturer/website owner/etc does the work of creating the data, yet you think it's yours?

<comment><USER20> No, it's my device that creates the data, so it is mine. Otherwise, does the typewriter manufacturer own the stories you type?

<comment><USER21> I don't think that analogy holds up. Maybe: does the typewriter manufacturer own meta data such as letter frequency, average work length, etc that their product calculates based on your usage?

<comment><USER20> No, of course not.

Once money exchanged hands, it's not their product, it's mine, as is _all_ of its output, including logs, etc.

Otherwise, I'd call it 'spyware'.

<comment><USER19> This already isn't the case in many instances where you don't actually "own" the thing, you just have a license to use it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Can we please go back to selling physical things instead of EULAs? If I bought the car it's mine along with all the data _I_ generate while inside of _MY_ vehicle. This is why I will not buy newer computer filled vehicles; they don't belong to you anymore.

<comment><USER23> Welcome to the next stage of the economy - now that we've created products for almost all daily needs, it's time to turn them into services. _sigh_.

I'm with you and 'adrianN on this. I hate this direction and wish we could turn it back somewhat, or at least cover for the negative aspects of servicization of products. Regulation might be a necessary tool for that.

<comment><USER22> It's starting to become maddening when you look around you and realize that in a few short years everything is shifting to SaaS. The part that really bothers me is it feels degrading in the sense that you are not allowed to control your own property anymore. This is when technology becomes oppressive.

<comment> gm-conspiracy The hegemony is coming. There will be a not insignificant portion that is unwilling to embrace this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Just a point of clarification as I was confused reading the description. The $1000 to access data isn't on an event by event basis. It's for the cables to connect to the EDR so presumably once you have them you can access all the data in the EDR at any time. [http://www.crashdatagroup.com/tesla-edr- kit/](http://www.crashdatagroup.com/tesla-edr-kit/)

<comment><USER25> They can get the data remotely from a smashed car on the side of the road to slander the driver. But somehow if you want it, a $1000 cable is totally necessary.

<comment> gm-conspiracy Is it really that difficult to use a hacked femtocell and MitM the Tesla's telemetrics?

And remember this story:

[https://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/03/man-hacks-tesla- firmwar...](https://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/03/man-hacks-tesla-firmware- finds-new-model-has-car-remotely-downgraded/)

<comment><USER26> Communication with the mothership is done through a VPN. The only way to listen in is to have root access to the cid (that computer in the middle with the large screen).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I imagine this policy would have to be different for those in the UK, right? I thought I had read that the Data Protection Act (of 1998) forced companies to send data in situations they would not for other countries:

[https://www.gov.uk/respond-data-protection- request](https://www.gov.uk/respond-data-protection-request)

> _Under data protection law, anyone can ask if your organisation holds > personal information about them - you must respond to their request as soon > as possible, and within one month at most._

<comment><USER27> Crash data is not necessarily Personally Identifiable Information

<comment><USER28> You added the word "Identifiable." The DPA isn't limited to just that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> It seems like Tesla's on the fast-track to an Uber-tier reputation.

<comment><USER30> Yeah, if any imperfect company is instantly equated with a pure evil company, then sure. Seems fair.

But, then again, I can see how you'd think Tesla was pure evil too if you buy into all the endless nonsense published about them without doing any research.

<comment><USER29> What is it you think is "nonsense" or inaccurate?

<comment><USER30> Not going to get sucked into this. If you have to ask, it implies you already believe that all of the dozens of articles published daily have total merit, in which case nothing I'm going to say will convince you because your position is pretty well set in concrete.

<comment><USER29> If I'm not already convinced Tesla is being unfairly attacked, I'm not amenable to changing my position? I find that line hard to understand.

<comment><USER30> True, perhaps you are amenable to it. But 95% of people encountered online already have their minds made up one way or the other pretty firmly, and I don't care to take the chance you're a unicorn.

Which begs the question, why do I comment in these discussions at all? I do not know.

<comment><USER29> You seem to be making quite a habit of it.

<comment><USER30> Don't think I don't know it. Sigh.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Oh boy, I was so excited to get a Tesla when the time finally came, but if they're still pulling this crap when that happens, guess I'm getting a Benz instead.

<comment><USER32> Will Mercedes Benz release your collected crash data to you?

<comment><USER31> Doesn't matter. They have an established history and have been making cars for almost a hundred years. I drive a Mazda now. If it's looking like drive-by- wire technology is too dangerous, I'll just keep driving that and hope my cruise control doesn't decide to cause an accident.

<comment><USER32> I don't quite follow the logic that it doesn't matter. If the reason for someone _not_ to buy a Tesla is because they do (A), why is the alternative to buy from another manufacturer that also does (A)?

<comment><USER31> I don't need a reason to not buy Tesla, I need a reason _to_ buy Tesla. Belief in Musk's vision and the awesomeness of the car was that reason. Without both of those things being true, there's no reason to buy something that new and untested. It's like asking me to buy a Kickstarter car.

<comment><USER32> Maybe there's an element to this that I'm simply missing, but I don't believe Musk's vision has changed, and Tesla's internal policies regarding the release of crash data to consumers doesn't say anything about the 'awesomeness' of the car itself. Your ownership experience of the car will be affected by Tesla's policies, for sure, but regardless of what Tesla does or does not do with crash data, the car itself doesn't change. That might be nuanced a bit by what Tesla can do so easily with OTA updates, but just speaking generally.

I have no real dog in this fight though. Any reasons you have to choose one car over the other are your own, and it's not my intent to criticize one choice or the other. The reasoning here just seems slightly difficult to follow.

<comment><USER33> > Maybe there's an element to this that I'm simply missing,

From a consumer standpoint you're buying a black box controlled by a company that frequently behaves in a overtly hostile manner towards the "owners".

Imagine Apple not letting you use the accelerometer or GPS sensors in your phone. Instead they'd just collect telemetry from it. Now imagine you claim a "spontaneous shattering of the screen". To counter this, Apple publishes select pieces to show that the phone experienced acceleration consistent with a crash after a drop. On Twitter.

Now would you expect Apple to do that? I'm not finished. Would Apple go on the record to say that you personally have not been taking proper care of your phone? That's what Tesla is doing.

> Tesla's internal policies regarding the release of crash data to consumers > doesn't say anything about the 'awesomeness' of the car itself.

Much like food by a cook that doesn't wash hands can still be delicious.

<comment><USER32> Those aren't the issues the commenter to which I responded claims to be concerned with. You're making an argument based on separate concerns, which is valid, but those aren't the things that we were discussing.

<comment><USER33> Sorry if I got lost in the woods.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> >But Tesla also took time to publish a blog post characterizing Cordaro as someone who did not take care of his Model S.

>"The suspension ball joint experienced very abnormal rust," Tesla said of his car, adding that Cordaro "lives down such a long dirt road that it required two tow trucks to retrieve the car." The car, Tesla also added, was "caked in dirt."

I'll be one of the first people to tell you that Pennsylvanians are a bunch of loud mouth complainers who don't really have it as bad as they say when it comes to vehicle rust.

However, the idea that a low volume, relatively new (there are no 20yo Teslas let alone Teslas that have spend those 20yr in salt states) car company, primarily located in California (!!!), that primarily recruits in California (!!!), is going to be able to determine "normal corrosion" looks like is laughable. Even established car companies can't accurately and consistently predict corrosion 10yr out. Tesla doesn't even have a big enough data-set to make that prediction, let alone the expertise.

<comment><USER35> When I bought a used truck out of PA I was alarmed by the quantity of rust on the frame, with chunks flaking off here and there. My mechanic assures me it's holding up fine, with below-average rust for its age.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> It would appear that US law states that the owner of the vehicle owns the Event Data. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_data_recorder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_data_recorder)

</comment><comment><USER37> Serious question, Can you get data from any other car manufacturer? I know ICE cars collect information but do you have access to it?

<comment><USER38> At least the local data can be accessed with OBD interfaces [1] most of the time. I don't know about stuff like theft prevention where the GPS location of the car is being constantly transmitted over GSM/UMTS/LTE, though.

1: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On- board_diagnostics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On-board_diagnostics)

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Interested to see how this would play out in Europe under the GDPR. Data should be personal data and hence each data subject has full rights to access it.

<comment><USER40> Not only that the GDPR requires that organisations provide the data in a standardised format that is easy to use / export.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Accelerator pedal immediately went from 0% to 100%?

Really?

Even I don't press my brake like that when parking.

<comment><USER42> They say abruptly.

And this is normal in a mistaken accelerator pedal application. You press down on the 'brake', the car speeds up, you panic stomp down on the 'brake' as hard as you can.

<comment><USER43> Which would not result in an instant 0% -> 100% reading. One would expect a gradual slope from 0% to, say, 30%, then a sharp increase to 100% some tens or hundreds of milliseconds later.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Since there is clearly an interface to obtain the data, used at least by third-party vendor 'Crash Data Group', it seems it'd be possible to develop an external logger to plug in while driving.

Such data loggers are commonly used in racecars, using either their own sensors, or in stock versions, also tied into the OBDII ports. It looks at everyghing from driver inputs, to engine performance, 6-axis G loads, etc.

Seems it'd be pretty nice to get the data anyway to help manage your own driving (or check the habits of someone borrowing your car, like your kid), and in case of an incident, your own log of the events so you don't have to pester/subpoena Tesla.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I have an anecdote, somewhat in defense of Tesla: a few years ago I was the victim of an armed robbery. One of the things I lost was my iPod touch, which was logged into a few media services, including Netflix. A few days later, logging into my Netflix account, I noticed that my "Recently played/Continue watching" list had some things I had never watched (including the show "Prison Break").

I called Netflix customer support and asked if I could get location/IP logs. The Netflix support person was very sympathetic but said that it was not company policy to release that info. I didn't ask for the issue to be elevated, or ask about a subpoena (I assume Netflix would respond to a subpoena).

But IMO, the difference between my situation with Netflix, and Tesla is:

1\. Netflix does not seem to have a practice of divulging my user data in a public forum.

2\. The circumstances for my data request were unusual -- it's not as if every time a Netflix-equipped device gets stolen, Netflix is expected to respond, or even be aware of it. But presumably, Tesla has a data process ready in the event of every kind of accident, no matter the actual cause or circumstances.

In other words, what I was asking from Netflix was refused because they don't have a standard operating procedure for responding to info about IP/location requests. If such a thing were needed, it's not hard to imagine Netflix making it a service, just as FB and Google data takeouts include login location history.

But Tesla _does_ have standard procedure for retrieving, storing, and transmitting vehicle logs, including divulging the data publicly without being compelled by the government. Which is why users seem to have a greater expectation that Tesla should be able to send them their own data.

<comment><USER45> Under GDPR, Netflix would probably have to divulge this data.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Isn't this true of any car company? BMW, Mercedes, and Lexus aren't going to hand over vehicle data. You can't just ask Google for your Android Auto data.

<comment><USER47> Those companies aren't in the news blaming drivers for crashes which occur while using their "autopilot" tech. So you may be right, but context matters. Maybe someday it will be them in the hot seat, but today, it's Tesla.

<comment><USER48> As I recall, when Toyota was dealing with accidents involving electronic throttles and "unintended acceleration" they did publicly claim that the accidents were a case of drivers stepping on the throttle instead of the brake.

(Note, this was separate from the real problem of floor mats interfering with the pedals, for which there was a recall).

The NHTSA apparently agreed.

 _Because proof that the ETCS-i caused the reported UAs was not found does not mean it could not occur. However, the testing and analysis described in this report did not find that TMC ETCS-i electronics are a likely cause of large throttle openings as described in the VOQs_

Acronyms and details in the report:

[https://one.nhtsa.gov/About-NHTSA/Press- Releases/ci.NHTSA%E2...](https://one.nhtsa.gov/About-NHTSA/Press- Releases/ci.NHTSA%E2%80%93NASA-Study-of-Unintended-Acceleration-in-Toyota- Vehicles.print#)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> For European customers that's a non-issue thanks to GDPR.

</comment><comment><USER50> A few months ago my valet backed my brand new X into a wall in the garage. I asked Tesla for the data to help use this for insurance. At no point was Tesla possibly at fault, but they still told me that in order to get the data I would need a subpoena.

<comment><USER51> I mean, that seems like a pretty open and shut case for insurance... What is the purpose of needing the additional data from Tesla?

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Stupid question but don't insurance companies require access to this data? Seems odd.

</comment><comment><USER53> For Europeans the GDPR may come to rescue. This is data that is highly personal and thus getting a copy of it or having the right to get it erased should be possible.

</comment><comment><USER54> 1) Does Tesla enforce an arbitration clause with their customers? Most (shady?) companies do this these days.

2) If so, can the customer actually get a court order in arbitration?

</comment><comment><USER55> I am curious if GDPR has any impact on customer's rights to this data?

</comment><comment><USER56> What if this request was under GDPR jurisdiction?

</comment><comment><USER57> Toxic decision on Tesla's part. Yet another fire needing to be put out that never should have started in the first place. They're really making things more difficult for themselves.

<comment><USER58> This isn't really a single decision, it's an attitude baked into Tesla's philosophy. You don't own the car; you just decide where to drive it. Tesla owns your car in every meaningful way (except liability apparently).

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> What's the deal with the recent flood of anti-Tesla news? Does someone want to buy Tesla stock, or is Tesla just no longer cool?

<comment><USER60> This article [+] explains it pretty succinctly, with as little bias as possible (TL;DR Tesla is the most shorted stock in the US, while also endangering entrenched interests).

[+] [https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/5/29/1767826/-The- War-...](https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/5/29/1767826/-The-War-on-Tesla- Musk-and-the-Fight-for-the-Future)

EDIT: below content moved up to this comment from danso reply in order to be more concise as well as to keep signal to post ratio high:

I do my best to provide non-biased sources/citations, as well as provide arguments without any intellectual disingenuity. If you can find something that is inaccurate or subjective, please point it out.

It's fairly obvious that the data used by Reveal was manipulated in their sensational Tesla piece, and I'm happy to continue to aggregate additional sources that bear that out. You left out the next six paragraphs that explain why there is no basis in fact for what Reveal wrote.

<comment><AUTHOR> > _Step up Reveal, an "independent journalism organization" to start > "reporting" on Tesla. Quotation marks are normally considered to denote > sarcasm, and boy do I ever mean it._

Sounds like an article committed to defending Tesla. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but "with as little bias as possible" is debatable.

<comment><USER61> I don't see how you take the writer saying "These people are reporting outright falsehoods and their falsehoods appear to closely match the talking points of a PR campaign" as an indication that they're committed to defending Tesla. If those facts are true, that seems like the sort of thing an unbiased analysis would explain.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, but this purportedly-unbiased analysis does not explain these assertions, and resorts to strawman arguments:

For example:

> _The first of their "personal stories" was about how a person involved in > developing the factory was told that they can't use yellow caution tape or > beeping forklifts because they offend Musk's sensibilities. The lack of > these things, according to Reveal, could be to blame for the "high" rate of > injuries._

The assertion that Tesla lacked yellow because of Musk's preference is attributed to the factory's former safety lead, Justine White, and documented in her 2017 resignation letter: [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4437759-Resignation-...](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4437759-Resignation- Letter-Excerpt.html)

You can argue about whether Reveal should have talked to Tesla's former safety lead, but the story doesn't assign blame to lack of yellow or whatever for the rate of injuries. In fact, the story is not about Tesla's "high" rate of injuries. The story notes that Tesla's injury rate in 2017 fell steeply. The point of the story is that, according to Tesla's own internal log, injuries that are mandated to be reported were not listed on the official report.

According to a Reveal followup a month later, Tesla's official injuries report has been amended with the injuries that Reveal accused Tesla of hiding:

[https://www.revealnews.org/article/tesla-left-injuries- off-t...](https://www.revealnews.org/article/tesla-left-injuries-off-the- books-but-it-might-not-face-penalties/)

The dailykos article doesn't have to agree that Reveal was overall in the right to investigate Tesla, but an objective analysis would note Tesla's actions in response to the investigation.

In fact, if you read the Reveal followup, you'll see that the added injuries don't even make Tesla a particular outlier:

> _The additions raise Tesla's 2017 injury rate to 6.3 injuries per 100 > workers, just above the 2016 industry average of 6.2._

So noting the followup, and the adjusted stat, is well within the comfort zone of an article that attempts to objectively defend Tesla. Yet the dailykos writer seems to have completely missed reading the followup and can only throw insults at Reveal. That does not seem like an "unbiased" analysis to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> Danso, by no means I wanted to "stalk" you but I noticed you posted at least 5 negative/harsh articles about Tesla last month, which is fine to me as HN has a lot of Musk fanboys to counterbalance, anyways, I was wondering if you have any customer story to share about Tesla that affected you, i.e. did you own one and it was a bad car or did you lost money investing in them? I am genuinely interested in that background so if it may read offensive to you please let me know so maybe I can rephrase it! PS: I would like to buy a Tesla myself but I can't because of where I live, so I can only read people's account about them

<comment><USER46> Doing it perhaps for the click-bait karma?

Edit: I'm one of those people that believe in what Elon is doing and while I don't consider myself a fan-boy, I get plenty frustrated by all of the biased negativity I somehow feel the need to inject some balance by saying something. That may come across as only ever defending, but the amount of negative fluff articles is astonishing.

<comment><AUTHOR> OK, you've accused me of submitting "click-bait karma" and "negative fluff articles". Care to elaborate on why you think the article under discussion is not legitimate?

<comment><USER46> It singles out Tesla and provides no broader context. Specifically there is no mention of the policies of other car companies. It is like saying that Kumo tires have been in 5 million car accidents. Sounds bad for Kumo, but there is no context to other types of tires. Will BMW or Lexus provide vehicle data after a crash? Will Google provide Android Auto data upon request?

<comment><AUTHOR> OK, so it's incumbent on you to show where other companies have used data in the way that Tesla has done in response to accidents. Here's a Guardian article from last year that made a related allegation about Tesla and user data:

[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/03/the- custo...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/03/the-customer-is- always-wrong-tesla-lets-out-self-driving-car-data-when-it-suits)

> _The Guardian could not find a single case in which Tesla had sought the > permission of a customer who had been involved in an accident before sharing > detailed information from the customer's car with the press when its self- > driving software was called into question. Tesla declined to provide any > such examples and disputed the description of its automation software, > called Autopilot, as "self-driving"._

I've Googled around but haven't been able to find instances of other companies releasing data in the wake of an incident, or being criticized by owners for not releasing data, though obviously the average car does not have the data systems that are standard on Tesla.

When Facebook gets criticized in an article for exposing/sharing user data, do you ignore the article if it doesn't have a complete rundown of how every other tech company may or may not abuse user data?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> No big deal just serve a subpoena on their registered agent.

</comment><comment><USER64> What use would this type of data be to the average consumer? Outside of the obvious question of ownership and argument of who owns the data - isn't this otherwise very similar to being in a plane crash and demanding the black box data? Surely the data, itself, isn't very helpful compared to the analysis of the data?

Note: My question is in no way trying to argue against the consumer owning the data. I'm just wondering how this kind of data could be useful without access to the means to analyze it.

Edit: Not sure why all the down votes. I explicitly tried to indicate I was asking a question about the data value and avoiding the ownership question. I, personally, think the data should be the device owner's property. But my opinion on ownership and my question wasn't related to the ownership.

<comment><USER65> > What use would this type of data be to the average consumer?

We can also reverse this question: why would Tesla hide this type of data from their customers so intensely?

One reason that comes to mind on both questions, is that customer's (or someone on their behalf) are able to review if the crash is due to software malfunction.

> isn't this otherwise very similar to being in a plane crash and demanding > the black box data

Most people don't buy (hence own) a plane but buy a ticket with an airplane company instead. The airline company actually does get to access the black box data in case of a crash. So do the authorities.

<comment><USER64> This isn't reversing the question - it's asking an entirely different question. My question was about the value of the data to a consumer. Presumably, this data is a mixture of location history, sensor/actuator logs (maybe human readable?), and maybe various state data for ML algorithms.

Depending on the human "readability" of this data - how could someone without proprietary knowledge find any value in it? That's my question - which is more leading towards "Tesla won't give drivers a means to analyze their crashes" which is a much harder pill to swallow as a Tesla driver, law enforcement officer, etc.

<comment><AUTHOR> But Tesla's defense is not that the data is in a proprietary format that can't be decoded. And even if it were, are you suggesting Tesla logs and stores data solely in a non-industry format for which there is not an ETL function that turns it into something less opaque?

And what do you base this speculation that Tesla does something so strange? Because Tesla has a machine-learning heavy reputation? Google does far more machine-learning and yet allows us to export data, such as geolocation, in portable JSON format:

[https://blog.rakam.io/rakam-google-takeout-importer- analyze-...](https://blog.rakam.io/rakam-google-takeout-importer-analyze-your- google-search-and-location-history-data-ba45e4c66b1c)

<comment><USER64> "But Tesla's defense is not that the data is in a proprietary format that can't be decoded."

I never said it was. I'm not sure why you continue to try to come up with unrelated arguments to push your agenda in a discussion completely unrelated to what you're talking about.

"And what do you base this speculation that Tesla does something so strange?"

Because educated speculation can lead to positive and constructive discourse? I have a fair amount of experience in the ML and CS field and I could imagine a situation where the data is in fact difficult to analyze.

Also, logging geolocation data is a fair amount different than logging neural weights or other types of ML data. Without knowledge of the types and composition of ML algorithms those numbers simply won't help you. Which was my point to begin with.

<comment><AUTHOR> You've proposed a reason for Tesla's reluctance to release data that Tesla itself has not used, so it's you that's bringing up unrelated arguments. Why speculate on the proprietary formats Tesla may or may not use when Tesla doesn't appear to have argued that the data was proprietary?

<comment><USER64> You're the only one talking about Tesla in this situation. I never mentioned Tesla's reluctance to release data. That's your fabrication.

I'm talking about data that's incapable of being analyzed in a meaningful way without contextual / proprietary knowledge of how that data was created, is used, and is stored. In reality, I'd wager that most companies have more of that type of data than not.

<comment><AUTHOR> My mistake, I see that your initial post was asking this speculative question. The first response to you shifted the topic to "What does Tesla have to hide?", which seems reasonable given the topic of the submitted article, but that wasn't in your original question.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>