Why are there 5280 feet in a mile? (2009) - <AUTHOR> https://petersmagnusson.org/2009/09/15/why-are-there-5280-feet-in-a-mile/ <comment><USER2> > The problem with these versions is that they don't explain why this > collision between furlong and mile occurred around 1600, and not centuries > before. It implies, therefore, that people suddenly woke up and realized, > hey, wait a second, if there's 660 feet in a furlong … and eight furlongs in > a mile … but 5000 feet in a mile …. wait a second !?!

It's not _that_ hard to guess why the broken system lasted so long (delightful and interesting explanation of TFA notwithstanding), and consequently why it was replaced by a different broken system.

95% of people on this planet use, understand, and advocate metric, in which an area of 100 metres x 100 metres = 1 hectare (10,000 sq m).

A 10 x 10 grid of hectares = a square kilometre.

A millimetre of rain falling across one hectare means you've received 10,000 litres of water.

That volume of water has a mass of 10,000 kilograms (or 10 tonne).

Wait a second, indeed!

<comment><USER3> A Bernard Cornwell novel about king arthur introduced me to all sorts of defunct, proto-english & welsh counting systems. Shepards used one system. Sailors used another. Soldiers another. It was part of a society that was deeply dialectic in all things, especially language.

This resonated with me, because my grandfather had sheep. Sheep were weighed in kgs. People were weighed in stones. Feed in pounds. Sheep were sold in dozen and half-dozen dividable lots. Land in acres. In his region, one acre could feed one cow and one sheep so they had an intuitive serendipity. 100 acres made a viable farm.

Measurement systems tend to leave even more vestiges than other elements of language. Most of the world uses metrics, but almost no one advocates for metric time or angular units. Square kms never became an agricultural measure of land because one is bigger than most farms. Instead, metric hectares and metric dunams were adapted to be metric. They were close enough. Acres weren't, so there is no metric acre.

There are sixty minutes in an hour and 360 degrees in a circle because sumerians used a base 60 numerical system 5 thousand years ago. I have never even heard of a metric angular unit.

I totally accept the fact that metric systems are better. Engineering anything in inches seems impossible. OTOH, the richness and embedded history of language is valuable too. There's a reason esperanto never caught on, even though it's arguably the right tool for the job.

<comment><USER4> > but almost no one advocates for metric time

People would love to but there are some nasty fractions left over if you try to impose a base 10 unit of time at any level above a day.

Any metric time system stumbles on the fact that 1) Days do not even divide into years by 10 and there's not even a whole number of days in a year and 2) calendars should sync with the seasons to provide any real use.

Also 10 days to a week is pretty long unless you include a break in the middle.

<comment><USER3> We're locked into days and years, but months, weeks, hours and minutes are arbitrary, no?

Maybe we can't rationalize it all, but what's to stop us from dividing a day into 10 hours with 100 minutes each? Fuck seconds.

<comment><USER5> Arguably if we are sticking with the existing definitions of days and years the reason we use a base-60 is because that is a _degrees_ system. We are respecting (approximate) circular travel. It would _almost_ make more sense to express time in radians in that case as that is the metric measure of angle. We are about 3/4 Tau through this year, and I'm writing this at about 1.2 Pi on this day.

<comment><USER4> 60 also has a lot of nice divisors and lays out nicely on a circle. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, 30.

If we're going to do radian measures why not just skip the extra tau and just say we're .75 through the year?

<comment><USER5> That's exactly what I think would happen if we tried to use angular units for days or years (or even months): we'd either end up back where we started with a ~360-based system with lots of divisors or a percentage system. Exactly why I choose to use Tau in at least one example because radian systems using Tau are much are obviously "percent of the pie chart" than Pi examples.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Marginally related: In 2020, the United States finally decided to adopt the International Foot (1959, 304.8 mm, based on the 914.4 mm yard / 25.4 mm inch) for land surveying, which is already the standard that's followed in all engineering disciplines apart from surveying. Now the historical US Survey Foot (1893) will soon been abolished for good.

It's an interesting piece of news, but due to its horrible title, it'll probably never be voted to the homepage (a better title to me would be "The United States finally adopts International Foot, abolishes survey foot").

* America Has Two Feet. It's About to Lose One of Them

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24196228](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24196228)

<comment> 1-6 The US Survey foot is defined as 1200/3937 and the international survey foot is exactly 0.3048 meters. When taking data into applications such as Autodesk Civil 3D, you need to transpose Lat/Long GIS data into a flat Cartesian coordinate system. For example, X,Y values in California start in X=6,000,000 Y=2,000,000 which starts eating up floating point precision. Because 1200/3937 doesn't divide cleanly, you'll end up with varying values depending on where you cut off your precision. That's why Highly Composite Numbers are critical.

<comment><USER7> You lost me there with the 6 million X coordinates in California. 6 million whats starting from where? It can't be feet from the prime meridian, that's not far enough.

I've been scraping my county assessor's GIS database for property outlines and I noticed that the coordinates are huge, as you mentioned. I assumed it was just some fanciful origin but I'd love to know the story.

<comment><USER8> Yeah, it's feet measured east and north of an arbitrary point southwest of everything in the state. There is an actual point inside the state used as a base but they set up a false easting and false northing by subtracting a large round number such that the origin of the coordinate system is southwest of everything in the state. A lot of things in surveying are designed such that the math is easier for people working in the field to reliably get correct.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This immediately brought to mind the immortal words of Terry Pratchett/Neil Gaiman in "Good Omens", pertaining old british money:

> It helps to understand the antique finances of the Witchfinder Army if you > know the original British monetary system: Two farthings = One Ha'penny. Two > ha'pennies = One Penny. Three pennies = A Thrupenny Bit. Two Thrupences = A > Sixpence. Two Sixpences = One Shilling, or Bob. Two Bob = A Florin. One > Florin and One Sixpence = Half a Crown. Four Half Crowns = Ten Bob Note. Two > Ten Bob Notes = One Pound (or 240 pennies). One Pound and One Shilling = One > Guinea. The British resisted decimalized currency for a long time because > they thought it was too complicated.

<comment><USER10> Divisible by both 2 and 3, which decimal, well 10s, isn't. Archaic in today's deals of prices ending in 99 pence or cents, it made a lot of sense to have things easily divisible by both 2s and 3s, and fractions of such.

<comment><USER11> Again, someone saying math by 10s is hard. Explain to me how moving the decimal point is hard. No dividing required.

1km = 1000m = 100000cm

1m = 5280ft = 63360in

Yup, math by 10s is definitely harder

<comment><USER12> > 1km = 1000m = 100000cm

> 1m = 5280ft = 63360in

How many times have you ever needed to know how many centimeters in a kilometer? Is that something you do a lot?

On the other hand, suppose you have 1x1 km of land three children, and you want to divide the inheritance equally. What do you do? Give two of them 1km x 333.33m of land, and the oldest one 1km x 333.34m?

If you were using miles and you had 1 x 1 mile of land, you could give each one exactly 1m x 1760ft of land.

<comment><USER13> > On the other hand, suppose you have 1x1 km of land three children, and you > want to divide the inheritance equally. What do you do? Give two of them 1km > x 333.33m of land, and the oldest one 1km x 333.34m?

This is a silly example. You're going to give them all about a third of the land. But the precise measures are going to depend on the land. Perhaps one of them got the steep hill and a bit more to compensate. Or the creek serves as a division between child 2 and child 3 but that just so happens to mean that child 3 gets a wee bit more than half the remainder.

In any case, you aren't going to give them 1 km x 333.33 m unless the law of your state really stangely provides a maximum precision of 10 cm. The system is infinitely divisible and the survey happens once with a fair degree of precision.

There are good arguments for the convenience of non-metric systems. This one is just a terrible one.

<comment><USER12> > In any case, you aren't going to give them 1 km x 333.33 m unless the law of > your state really stangely provides a maximum precision of 10 cm.

Nit: That's 1cm precision, which I chose because that's about where it should be clear to everyone that it really doesn't matter. A slightly unreasonable person might be miffed about 1m; a very unreasonable person might be miffed about 10cm; but if you're miffed about your older brother getting 1cm more than you, I think you're going into mental illness territory.

<comment><USER14> Therefore your example doesn't support your argument.

A division to 333.3+333.3+333.4 works to the satisfaction of all parties involved. You can also write 333⅓m, no-one prevents you from using fractions with the metric system.

You have the same assumption implicit in your square mile of land, as you assume everyone is satisfied with measuring to the nearest inch (or half-foot, or whatever is realistic with the measuring device).

<comment><USER12> > You can also write 333⅓m, no-one prevents you from using fractions with the > metric system.

...except that nobody does. And that would pretty much void the entire point of the metric system, which is to "make the math easier" by making everything a power of 10.

> A division to 333.3+333.3+333.4 works to the satisfaction of all parties > involved.

Sure, you _can_ , but it's less satisfying.

Remember how we got here in the discussion:

A: "Miles are easier because you can divide by 3 evenly."

B: "How is the math easier? <Does math converting km to cm, miles to inches>"

Me: "How often do you convert miles to inches or km to cm, compared to how often do people have to divide distances by 3?"

I'm not saying that I think we should all stick with / switch back to using furlongs. On the whole I think having a simple universal system like the metric system is better. But there is a trade-off involved.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> There's certainly a lot of good background information here, but the basic answer of:

 _" In 1592, Parliament set about determining the length of the mile and decided that each one should be made up of eight furlongs. Since a furlong was 660 feet, we ended up with a 5,280-foot mile."_ [1]

Still seems right. Is there a nuance I'm missing that makes this more complicated?

[1] [https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/25108/why-are- there-5280...](https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/25108/why-are- there-5280-feet-mile-making-sense- measurements#:~:text=In%201592%2C%20Parliament%20set%20about,with%20a%205%2C280-foot%20mile).

Edit: Please note I'm not trying to be snarky. It just seems straightforward to me, so I'm trying to understand the long rant.

<comment><USER16> Yes. And the article mentions this rather early. But continues to dive. Why was a furlong 660 feet? Why did parliament care in 1592?

<comment><USER17> It was the distance that oxen could plow in a day on average. Not exactly sure of why 1592, but I'm sure that over time parliament found it favorable to standardize the wide variety of localized and customary measures.

<comment><USER18> _> Not exactly sure of why 1592_

As the post mentions, math and geometry had seen a literal renaissance during the Renaissance (eh), and this development had likely made its way into England. So the problem of reconciling measures for area and length had finally become clear.

<comment><USER13> > As the post mentions, math and geometry had seen a literal renaissance > during the Renaissance

How can math and geometry see a literal renaissance? Surely they cannot enter into their mother's womb a second time and be born again? What is their mother's womb in any case?

<comment><USER17> Math is part of nature and is unchanging. Our ability to apply it changes over time.

<comment><USER19> squiggleblaz was criticizing the use of the word "literal".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> > Thus its claims cannot be checked against any other contemporary sources, > which is particularly irksome since some of them appear highly dubious – > such as stating that the army marched 20 miles in 5 summer hours at regular > pace and 24 miles at double pace.

The author provides this information and then never details what was meant by 'summer hours'. Romans had twelve hours of daylight and twelve hours of darkness. That is to say, the daytime was simply divided into 12 hours, which made 'summer hours' significantly longer than winter hours (and longer than 60 minute hours.) Which also seems to make the quote more believable.

<comment><USER21> Yes, daylight in Rome around the summer solstice lasts about 15 (modern standard) hours.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Fun fact for all Americans who say "Our country is too big, changing to metric could never work here": Canada switched from Imperial to Metric between 1970 and 1985. Though in practice people you'll encounter people who will use both systems in one sentence...

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

<comment><USER23> Unfortunately the US has to change from the United States customary system to Metric, not Imperial to Metric. This is much harder! /s

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> A rod is 5.5 yards. A mile is 320 rods. A rod is 1/1000th of a league . A league is the distance a man could travel in about an hour and corresponds nearly to about 5k in today's measurements.

<comment><USER25> Which suggests that seven-league boots would equate to speeds of about 110,000 mph.

New York to San Francisco in about 90 seconds.

<comment><USER26> Those boots are for walking all day (eg: infantry) - not walking very fast.

<comment><USER25> You seem to have something else in mind.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven- league_boots](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven-league_boots)

<comment><USER26> Huh, yea, TIL

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I thought it was like the rest of the Imperial system: just to fuck with people. No rhyme or reason at all. In my hobby work I use metric wherever I can, metric bolts, nuts, metric sizes. Sadly this is not possible with some electronic components where pin distances are in mils. My car (a BMW) is also set to metric and so is my home thermostat and phone. All the CAD and 3D modeling work I do is metric. The imperial system needs to go IMO. I've read that NASA has gone metric everywhere it could circa 2007. Do good engineering, be like NASA.

<comment><USER28> Imperial is there because it's convenient to humans without tools.

Sometimes you need precision, sometimes you need accuracy, and sometimes you need both. For completeness I'll say that sometimes you need neither, perhaps politicians know more about this last part. Using Imperial measures makes this clear - do you really need to know how big your field is to the millimetre? To the centimetre? A foot will do.

My foot is, strangely (there's that British sarcasm again), a foot long. I can go into a field without tools and measure using my feet and be quite accurate.

I programmed Ruby for years and it was always said that it was designed to work for the human over the computer, Imperial is much the same, as were the things like pre-decimal currency (I don't want 12 eggs, can you sell me one? Easy when I've 240d to divide into, not so easy with 100 pence).

Use what's appropriate, don't wed yourself to decimal.

<comment><USER2> If your starting position is that eggs must be sold in sets of 12 only, then buying 1 will of course be more complex when using a base-10 currency.

But in the same way that we can't switch to driving on the other side of the road over the space of a week, the UK can't spend a half century or so half- arsedly failing to commit to the metric system, and then complain that things don't make as much sense as they seem to in 95% of the world.

Btw, is your foot precisely 12 inches, or is your shoe? I wonder, because it sounds dreadfully inconvenient to have to take your shoes and socks off when you want to measure a field. (I measure large distance by paces, which for me are roughly a metre.)

I know that my hand span is 22cm, which has occasionally been quite handy when I'm without a tape or rule, and want to roughly measure something -- but that's not a compelling reason for me to advocate a base-11 measuring system. : )

<comment><USER29> I've once heard the base 12/base 60 system is derived from how people used to count with their fingers long ago:

1 hand has a thumb and four other fingers, each consisting of 3 parts. So you point with your thumb to one of these 3 times 4=12 parts.

If you run out of numbers, you take your other hand an put up a finger, then start counting from 1 with the other hand again. 5 fingers give you 5 times 12=60 possible combinations.

No idea why they didn't do the thumb + 12 positions stuff with the other hand, which would have given 12 times 12=144 possibilities. Speculation: Maybe there was no need as such high numbers didn't appear in practice?.

<comment><USER30> Base 60 was used by the babylonians. They were big into astrological observations, and so I think their influence affected time and angle calculations.

The numbers 12, 60 and 360 that occur in our time and angle calculations are interestingly factorials divided by 2. (4! = 24, 5! = 120, 6! = 720).

Since larger factorials have both 2 and 4 as factors, they have 2^3 as part of their factorisation, and by the time you get to 6! you introduce another factor of 2, so it's not a big loss dropping one of those power of 2, you still have a huge range of factors and hence ease when working with fractions with these numbers.

Attempts to replace degrees with base 10 (gradians) appears to be slow on the uptake, with radians being a more natural measurement (but who wants irrational angles in everyday life) so I think we're stuck with degrees.

<comment><USER31> There was an attempt to replace 24h system by 10h system around the same time metric system was introduced (French Republican Revolution), as a part of (much better, IMO) French Republican Calendar. Unfortunately, it didn't gain enough momentum and was cancelled after not so long.

Babylonians inherited base-60 from sumerians. AFAIK, there is no real consensus why exactly it was base-60 with sumerians. One hypothesis is exactly what _hyperman1_ is telling us. Also, don't quote me on that, but I seem to remember hearing that 360° might have been introduced not because of divisibility specifically, but because of the size of the sun. Not sure how plausible is that, but, notably, angular diameter of the sun is ≈0.5°. So I might believe it is related, but if I'm not mistaken 5/12/60-numeric systems seem to be much older than 360°.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> 1-6 It's not quite a highly composite number (HCN) but 5280 still has 48 divisors. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highly_composite_number](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highly_composite_number)

<comment> 1-6 If Plato was still around, he would definitely push for 5040 it's a convenient number which can be divided many ways. For example, it would be a great number for the number of citizens in a state (polis). It has a massive 60 divisors. People were smart back then... [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5040_(number)#:~:text=4%20Note...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5040_\(number\)#:~:text=4%20Notes-,Philosophy,families\)%20making%20up%20a%20polis).

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> > Modern archaeological estimates of the actual Roman feet vary between 11.6 > and 11.7 modern inches.

Damn! If we'd settled on ~11.8 modern inches instead of 12 (well, if 12 inches were ~11.8 instead), we could have hit the 1 nanolightsecond ~exactly.

Is anyone up for restandardizing on 1 nanolightsecond feet with decimalization and an informal 5000-foot mile that would line up very nicely with the Roman milles?

</comment><comment><USER31> > At the time I tried to make some fixes to parts of the puzzle in Wikipedia, > but they frequently rejected as OR (original research).

This, frankly, bothers me way more than why there is 5280 feet in a mile. Wikipedia is the most brilliant in the concept, yet the most aggravatingly frustrating in details thing I know.

<comment> w-m I don't think it should bother you. It makes perfect sense for Wikipedia to focus on collecting established knowledge. I want my Wikipedia articles to contain the known facts, with citations and proven sources. I do not want theories or research of some individuals interspersed with the established facts.

<comment><USER31> I'm pretty sure nothing really _should_ bother me, but it does. It makes me rage and hate Wikipedia mods with passion. Much of the "established knowledge" is bullshit quotes from the bullshit books that don't itself have any source references, yet obvious observations that require only basic calculations or are easily verifiable otherwise often "require citation". There are thousands of articles on some silly stuff like Harry Potter book characters & fantasy items, yet immensely notable music bands known to pretty much everyone listening to some "not too mainstream" genre are being deleted because they "lack notability". (A disclaimer: especially offensive cases of this kind of event weren't articles written by me, but, on the contrary, stuff I tried to learn about looking for it on Wikipedia, so it sure was notable enough to a user of Wikipedia, not only to an author of that article.)

I am not against all these "Star Wars timeline" articles, by the way (although, I wish fantasy worlds with big enough fandom would have their own "sub-wiki", just so they have their own "namespace" referenced from the "general" wikipedia, so that some magical beast wouldn't be squatting on the name that is actually shared with some creature from the actual folklore, several geographic objects and a dozen of music bands). It just makes me angry how some people are eager to "keep wikipedia tidy and organized" by deleting actually important real-world stuff (often justified by "storing data is expensive"), while they obsess over listing all possible Pokemons on wikipedia or some shit like that.

Now, this is only remotely related with the topic, which I agree is a serious and complicated issue, since we don't want to mix up random people fantasies with actually verified and established facts we could refer to. But the overall spirit of the issue I believe is the same, since in this particular case the subject seems to be explored by the author well enough, and people that protect wikipedia by keeping this kind of "original research" away _may be right_ in some sense, but still _are_ a problem I wish could be resolved somehow. (I don't know how, though.)

<comment> w-m The issue of notability of different categories of articles will always be a point of contention for online encyclopaedias. That you argue so passionately for the reduction of one category of content (fictional Harry Potter characters), but the increase in another (music bands) shows that, I believe.

For me, these notability rules for music make sense: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#C...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_\(music\)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles)

As music evolves away from big album releases at major record labels, these rules will probably evolve with them. But even now, these 'music bands known to pretty much everyone listening to some "not too mainstream" genre' can be notable if there are non-trivial articles about them in the media, even if they have no traditional album releases and haven't won any awards.

You didn't really argue about the point of original research. The arguments here also make sense to me: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research)

In any case, I think hate towards Wikipedia moderators is misdirected (I'm not a moderator, haven't even contributed anything but typo fixes).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Very well written piece!

My main quibble would be when the author goes into theological territory. There were attempts to translate the Bible into English and vernacular languages before Wycliffe, see [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations_into_Engl...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations_into_English), [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations_in_the_Mi...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations_in_the_Middle_Ages..).

</comment><comment><USER34> I used to run a bar trivia at Lewis & Clark Brewery. I had diverse questions per round, and one of my favorite things to ask were obscure forms of measurement as the round "hard question", like how many gallons are in a bushel? (I generally also counted it right if it was close enough).

</comment><comment><USER35> In a vacuum, it should be 5040, which has a uniquely abundant collection of factors. Still, natural evolution of units via surveyor's units did pretty well to turn the Roman mile of 5000 feet into 5280, which has a pretty solid collection of factors.

</comment><comment><USER36> > The number 20, of course, was the common "decimal" system prior to the > invention of shoes (at which point you can't see your toes).

Is this true? It reads like a dad joke.

<comment><USER19> The invention of shoes doesn't really have anything to do with it, but vigesimal is a real thing, and does have the linguistic vestiges noted ("quatre vingts", "four score", et al.).

Furthermore: A Troy ounce was 20 pennyweights. There are 20 Gebinde in a Strang. There were 20 maunds in a candy. 20 lyspond in a schippond. And so on.

Enjoy [https://archive.org/details/dictionnaireuni00dourgoog](https://archive.org/details/dictionnaireuni00dourgoog) .

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Fascinating article. So, it seems that many civilizations used base-20 [1] but why do the Danes stop at 60? Does anyone think it could be related to whyever (still undetermined by the evidence) Babylonians used base-60?

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

<comment><USER38> I don't know why 20 was popular but 12 is divisible by 2, 3, 4 and 6, and when multiplied by 5 equals 60, which is divisible by 20, of course. 30 is divisible by 2, 3, 4 and 5 as well, but is not divisible by 20, so 60 was preferred, perhaps.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> How does the author jump from 1000 paces to 5000 feet so easily in the first section?

<comment><USER40> Looks like the Roman defined a pace (two steps for a soldier) to be 5 feet. And a mile to be 1000 paces.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> there are 5280 feet in a mile, because there are 8 elbows in a foot and 52 inches in one knee. don't you see? it makes perfect sense.

</comment><comment><USER42> Honestly given how weird the imperial system is I'm genuinely surprised that miles can be expressed as an integer of feet. Was half expecting a 7/16th at the end.

</comment><comment><USER43> TL;DR : Thank God for the Metric system!

</comment><comment><USER44> Because if they were hands, it would take 15,840 of them?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_%28unit%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_%28unit%29)

<comment><USER45> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FFF_system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FFF_system)

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Want the esoteric explanation for 5280 feet in a mile? From my favorite book ever, the Quadrivium [1].

5280 feet in mile = 10x11x12x13 - 9x10x11x12 feet

Radius of Earth = 11x360 miles

Radius of Moon = 3x360 miles

Radius of Earth + Radius of Moon = 1x2x3x4x5x6x7 = 7x8x9x10 miles

ALL COINCIDENCES, NOTHING TO SEE HERE, MOVE ALONG :)

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/Quadrivium-Classical-Liberal- Geometry...](https://www.amazon.com/Quadrivium-Classical-Liberal-Geometry- Cosmology/dp/0802778135?ref_=d6k_applink_bb_marketplace)

</comment><comment><USER47> People talk about the Metric system, but if we didn't have 10 fingers and if we went with a Base 12 system from the dawn of time, we would have something _much_ better than the Metric system.

The duodecimal system is unique to the fact that the number 12 has more divisible factors than anything else that's manageable to count.

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

Inches/Feet are based on Duodecimal system, but since we use Arabic numerals (base 10), it's obvious why inches/feet aren't the way to go and why Metric system wins.

There are still things that the rest of the world use Base 12 for - hours/minutes/seconds, 360 degrees, point font units, etc.

The reason why America hasn't adopted Metric system despite of it being the official system in the law is the same reason why the rest of the world hasn't gotten around to changing time/degrees into a decimal equivalent. It takes a tremendous amount of effort to turn the ship, the US being a giant ship to turn. America also leads in determining standards for Metric system around the world - NIST with collaboration from European counterparts work together to establish these standards. Universities in US, semiconductor industry, medical industry, etc. use metric units. Engineers in the US _know_ and use the metric system.

If we didn't have Arabic numerals in Base 10, the American system is better :) *

But since we are all stuck with arabic numerals, the Metric system is better!

Edit: * I realized that its not that simple. Conceding this point, see responses. I was under the impression that most US units were consistent with base 12, but they're not - 1 lb = 16 oz (not 12) for example. A base 12 metric system would be ideal.

<comment><USER48> Metric makes sense in science, sure. But our system makes more sense to humans. A gallon of gas is easier than 3.8 liters. A pint of beer is easier than its metric equivalent. As a gearhead, I absolutely hate the metric/standard difference. But if metric wants to take over the world, I feel they need more human submeasurements.

<comment><USER49> Any argument that is "makes more sense to humans" that is actually based on repeated exposure to the concept/metric since young age fall flat on itself.

It makes more sense to YOU because you've used it since early life, so you have created an mental model for it. Countries with metric system, people have done the same.

As one example, In a recent after-work conversation, some one mentioned the stupidity of the "stone" measurement, upon the Italian, Canadian, Japanese, American, Swedish, Mexican, Chinese and the Russian all agreed it was the most non-intuitive stupid thing they have ever heard. Except the Brit at the place, who (in vain) tried to explain how it made sense and made "more sense to humans"

<comment><USER50> You're spot on with the mental models. If I try to imagine a gallon, I think of 2x2L bottles, one of them not quite full. A pint and I imagine a 600mL soft drink or water bottle. When you start having to do double conversions (eg miles per gallon) it becomes hopeless - that means nothing to me - and I have to convert to l/100km.

These "intuitiveness" arguments are silly. It's whatever you're used to. So with that realisation, we may as well choose the more universally self- consistent and useful system, which is indisputably metric.

<comment><USER40> > A pint and I imagine a 600mL soft drink

Careful, that's a British pint. An American pint is closer to 400mL.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


How The Economist sells more subscriptions - <AUTHOR> http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/10m9dd/my_buddy_sells_firewood_he_took_half_of_it_and/c6epii5

<comment><USER2> We used the same (well, similar) approach in our kickstarter campaign. It's actually one of the big pieces of advice I give people. Cool stuff.</comment>


Ask HN: Have you ever had an existential crisis? - <AUTHOR> How did you handle it? <comment><USER2> Yes.

They faded away as I approached 30, which was also about the time when my life started to have more of a solid dimension – an end, far away, but not infinitely. Suddenly a dozen different things I wanted to do turned into realizations that each one would take several years and they wouldn't all fit, not a depressing thought but a focusing one.

Why am I here? It doesn't really matter, _mu_ , the question is wrong. The question supposes an answer is there and it isn't. Purpose is all made up, pick one if you want one or don't. Zoom way in or way out and nothing could possibly care about the mundane details about what I have for lunch or the history of my civilization. Unless you're doing it for its own purposes fumbling around for meaning isn't a very high quality activity. You _should_ probably do it for a while from time to time, but hanging it up as a dependency for everything else – well nothing comes of it.

Strong certainty of purpose always comes off to me as a little bit (or a lot) of insanity.

How did I handle it? By spending a lot of really unproductive (or perhaps very productive) time doing nothing interspersed with a bit of active fumbling for meaning often by seeking out sources. The result is more or less "meh" which came with time.

I bet I'm due for a big one in five or ten years, but that me will be a different person.

</comment><comment><USER3> Always. Since I was 10years old, I've battled with the knowledge that life has no intrinsic meaning. Sometimes I break free for a few years, but it always comes back around. I'm 38 now and I don't see myself being able to come up with a convincing reason to live anytime soon. I mostly feel empty or sometimes I bubble over with rage, or deep sadness. Sometimes something interesting will catch my eye and I can become involved with it for a time, but I'm not sure I actually enjoy the process. I think perhaps, for me, all the things I want are out of reach. I'm transgender but could never transition. I was fascinated with physics and philosophy, but had untreated ADHD and could never manage to apply my decent intellect to doing well in academia. I don't have any family, never did. My mum died when I was a baby and my father is an abusive alcoholic and couldn't love me. I've tried every drug going, nothing works. I'm empty inside and the world is just as empty. And the world is so cruel, brutal. Not just to me, but to everyone and people are so cruel and arrogant and empty. I want to reach out and save the world, to take away it's pain, but there is nothing anyone can do. It's all just fucked and often I wish I hadn't been born. Also I hate my career and am so lonely working alone all the time. And IT people just don't suit me, I'm just not like them. So maybe the existential depression is just an expression of my own misery and loss of purpose. Also 3 years of therapy did squat.

<comment><USER4> Huggles. I can understand how you feel.

> battled with the knowledge that life has no intrinsic meaning

Yes, it doesn't. But we can choose our own adventure, create our own meaning. I organize a summer camp for ~50 people. Is there any objective value to it? No - we'll all die and no one will remember. But I derive plenty of subjective value, as do the other participants. Is it worth it to do this? Objectively, no. For me subjectively, yes.

Have you read Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl?

<comment><USER5> Why not give up on the search of meaning? "What is the meaning" is an ill posed question, because it assumes there is one or that there should be one. I mean think about it - what's the meaning of a life of a wolf. Or a frog. Or a computer program. Or a modern naked ape. They all just are, until they are not.

<comment><USER6> The creatures you listed were necessary for the development of a human. They are also a part of the fragile balance of nature which keeps the living conditions on Earth. I am not saying everything has a meaning (I do not know). But I disagree that this is "an ill posed question".

<comment><USER5> So was the transistor [necessary] for the development of the CPU. It's also a part of fragile timing nature of electric signals. What's the point?

By ill-posed I simply mean it assumes something under the hood. Like when someone says "how do you catch X criminals" without first establishing that X is a crime. It's kind of a trick of language.

<comment><USER6> The point is that there _may_ be a meaning. You questions do not prove its lack.

I do not like your parallel. The question about the meaning of life can also have the answer "there is no". It does not assume anything under the hood.

<comment><USER7> You are talking about objective versus subjective meaning I think. Objectively life is meaningless according to the Nihilism school of thought but subjectively life can have plenty of meaning it all depends on how you "frame" your experience of life.

Meaning to me for example is conquering my existential problems (anxiety, depression), pushing past boundaries and percieved limits in life, seeking love and obtaining goals. These examples provide substantial meaning for me, where I'm currently at in this point of time. So meaning to some degree are what you value, subjectively speaking.

<comment><USER5> I'm actually coming from the Buddhist/meditation school of thought. It's neither about subjective nor objective meaning, it's about the emptiness of this word "meaning". For a lack of better language available - "meaning" does not mean anything. It's like pondering over the liar's paradox without defining truth (see Tarski's undefinability theorem for a strict mathematical example).

Just ask yourself - what does it mean that the "meaning" of X is Y? In the "meaning" sense that this thread is about.

The very fact that anything is happening, that there's something rather than nothing can be all absorbing. The "meaning" as people usually put it is typically a case of mis-wanting, trying to fit the reality to the language of thought, rather than the other way around, and a lack of focus on the present. In particular the religious concepts of heaven and hell are the most prominent members of this category (throughout the written history, and perhaps much earlier).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm surprised existential crisis is not a common phenomena. Life has no meaning, no purpose. "I saw all the deeds that are done under the sun; and see, all is vanity and a chasing after wind." (Qohelet, in the Bible, about 2300 years ago).

So why live? In my case, I examined my options. Purposely dying (including taking extreme risk while mountain climbing, etc) is not an option for now, because it would cause intense suffering for a few people I love. So I have to live on. I don't want to fake exaltation and fill my life with extraordinary activities. It's now hard to find pleasure in novelty: after reading thousands of novels, surprising books are seldom, and the same law applies to music, and most activities, including human interactions. Sometimes I'm just waiting for time to pass. But there's still a bit of feelings and pleasure to be found in the daily blunt life.

<comment><USER9> You have people who you love and (probably) love you back and yet you want to go?

You're a narcissistic ignorant. Lift your head up a little and see the world you dumb idiot. Look at the people dying of hunger all over the world and you're sitting here telling us that you have read thousands of books and now everything is saturated for you instead of celebrating the privileges you have.

I hope you live up to 100 and your time passes as slowly as possible because looks like that is the worst possible TORTURE somebody can wish for you.

<comment><USER10> Personal attacks will get you banned here. Please review [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and follow the rules from now on.

I realize you were probably trying to help someone by giving them a good kick, but that doesn't work on internet forums and breaks the guidelines even if your intent was good. [https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20tough%20love&sort=by...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20tough%20love&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Yes, definitely. And I'd assume that questioning "the meaning of it all" is something most people will do at some point. In particular, those who tend to think critically and independently about other questions, which I'm also assuming is a common trait of HN readers.

To me, the process was the following:

1\. Realizing that society has created many layers of "fabricated" meaning (thinking of things like a successful career, owning a big house, an expensive car, being the best player in the soccer team, etc). I think those will quickly feel superfluous and the fact they are fabricated becomes apparent. They are in fact meaningless.

2\. Understand that behind all that fantasy, we're still rather simple (social) animals. And coming to terms with that, helped me find meaning in basic things I'm hard-wired to enjoy: like nurturing the relationships with the ones I love, challenging myself in some sort of dimension (eg. sports, learning), being a positive influence for the younger generation, etc.

All in all, I think that questions makes you cut-through the bullshit society has fabricated over the years and go back to the core of what exactly makes you feel well. What makes you feel well, even if it's hard, is what you're supposed to do IMO.

</comment><comment><USER12> Had one a few years ago and I became a nihilist because I couldn't really find a purpose for my existence. I'm not as ambitious when it comes to work. Switched to contacting as a 9 to 5 job and don't touch programming outside of that. I spend more time with family and friends, going to the gym and doing sports, traveling more.

<comment><USER4> > more time with family and friends, going to the gym and doing sports, > traveling more

Sounds like a good life. I've seen nihilists who are equanimous (like you appear), and ones who seem rather depressed. I can see how nihilism can lead to either of these outcomes, and wonder what the differentiating factor is.

<comment><USER12> It could be that I have a loving family (including a cat I've raised since she was a kitten), I'm quite social and have lots of hobbies. Don't get me wrong, there's days when everything falls apart, but usually I see no purpose in being depressed. I only got one chance to live this day and I don't want to waste that time by being sad because life is meaningless.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Yes. Still hits me from time to time, but it mostly happened between when I was 21-24 y/o.

I don't know why it happens man, it occurred to me whenever I was faced with a deep-rooted issue, an issue that got me exhausted or worried. For example, one of my colleagues, a new hire, died in an accident 4 days into his new job. It got me thinking why do we even exist, why do we die, why were we sent here?

Or when I was bored of life or was so indulged in work that I thought fuck this shit, what am I doing? Why do I even exist? What's the goal? What will happen once we die and get alive again? Even if I do exist, what's the purpose?

How did/do I handle with it? Spirituality helps, you pray to God (I'm a Muslim), then you move on. What helps is that most of us are in that crisis so you tell yourself, "Oh, alright. I'm not alone. Guess I just need to drag myself through life.". You get depressed, you get worried, you get panic attacks sometimes, you cry, you have trouble sleeping. But then... then you just wake up and you get some happiness, and then you move on. You just drag yourself.

To conclude, I find it weird how I've struggled to put my thoughts into words because I usually am able to explain myself properly. So I don't know? Just keep moving I guess... Sorry I don't think I helped.

<comment><USER4> > what am I doing? Why do I even exist? What's the goal?

> I'm a Muslim

I always thought the most attractive thing about religions was that they resolve exactly these questions. Guess it's not so simple.

<comment><USER13> Hah. I still believe religion will lead me to something but such an unknown question with subjective variable answers takes time and great inner self- belief. I'm not too religious so I just crawl around.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I hit a very low point on Friday feeling a lack of meaning in my life. One thing that really helped was having a friend who I could phone and they would just listen.

If someone's at a bridge, and phones up the number on the sign for a suicide hotline they'll say something like "I'm going to jump off". The wrong response to this is "Don't do it" or give reasons why it's a bad idea. The correct response is "Why?"

It's taken me a long time to end up with a friend who's matured enough to take themselves out of the situation, so that when I phone them up they'll listen and not give me advice and tell me what to/not to do. If the conversation progresses enough, or I ask for advice then my friend might give some as advice does have its place. The trick is knowing where that is.

This is of course what a (good) therapist is trained to do, so if you feel there's no-one you can phone up it's an option to explore.

The psychological concept of resilience[0] may also be something that's worth exploring, if you want to understand how people cope with bad situations.

[0] [https://www.apa.org/helpcenter/road- resilience](https://www.apa.org/helpcenter/road-resilience)

</comment><comment><USER15> I was just talking about this with a friend. I think every few months I have one of these crises. And I don't even know where to begin with talking to a therapist about this. I feel like I would just steamroll the conversation with "look I already know X Y Z about your approach and I understand there's nothing I can do about death, mortality, or the meaninglessness of it all" and start ranting about Kierkegaard and Sartre. So I just spin my wheels enough to exhaust myself and pull myself out of it.

I've found meditation to be helpful - but it can be both uplifting and pull me back in. Being in the present can get you to appreciate the fact that you are even living (positive), but that recognition of life's ephemeral nature and it's complete insignificance in the cosmic landscape of the universe can drag you right back down (negative).

So long story short: acceptance is helpful. I haven't totally gotten there but it can alleviate the crisis symptoms. In fact I'm currently reading "Radical Acceptance" right now as a means of dealing with this and other issues.

</comment><comment><USER16> It's always been a bit slumbering in the background for me. Then someone I knew committed suicide, with an important reason being that she felt that she could no longer believe what her religious environment had told her growing up, and was left with this existential dread, and couldn't face waking up to that for another couple of decades.

Hearing about that rekindled those ideas in me as well. I didn't _really_ deal with it, but I realised that I was still capable of enjoying things in the moment. Hence, my current strategy is: enjoy life while I can, because fear of existential dread is only likely to make it happen sooner.

I wouldn't be surprised if I'd get sucked into a depression sooner or later, but who knows, it might never happen.

</comment><comment><USER17> Yup. I guess spending time with family and friends makes it better. At least it does for me. We adopted a dog with my girlfriend this January and I'd say that just spending time with him alleviates it. I'd imagine having kids will have a similar effect (probably 100x stronger).

In the newest Indie Hackers podcast [1], founder Aline Learner mentioned that starting a business helps with existential crises because you're so busy worrying about everything else. I'm looking forward to finding out if this holds true to myself in September.

[1]: [https://www.indiehackers.com/podcast/099-aline-lerner-of- int...](https://www.indiehackers.com/podcast/099-aline-lerner-of-interviewing- io)

<comment><USER18> >I'd imagine having kids will have a similar effect (probably 100x stronger).

Sure, but putting the burden of existence on another human to alleviate one's existential pain doesn't make the problem go away, it only puts it on others that had no say in their own creation. Overall it increases the amount of suffering (unless we're talking about adoption in the case of the child, too).

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I've felt it from time to time. The books helped me: in the subject, I recommend "Happy" by Derren Brown and "Man's Search for Meaning" by Viktor Frankl. Anything related to stoicism can work as well.

Also, not sure if this counts - recently I've been having a feeling that I no more like programming. The reason: I have a different mindset than the vast majority of programmers I met. It feels like either I'm the only one who knows how to do it well, or I'm the only one who doesn't know that. This feeling I've not yet overcome. I will probably try to change the job OR look for a different project / team.

</comment><comment><USER20> I sometimes get this when I'm tired. So I concentrate on how I feel like that BECAUSE of being tired and aim to look back at those thoughts after a good sleep. When I wake up, I'm fine again.

</comment><comment><USER21> I used to think from a nihilistic perspective a lot because it seems like the most logical position to take. I'm not depressed or anything and nihilism doesn't at all get me down. I just sort of think it is what it is. Though I do remember I went to see Jordan Peterson live when he came to my city and he said something that made me rethink nihilism as a valid perspective. And it wasn't a religious comment either.

He was saying people tend to fall into the trap of thinking that in a million years none of this is going to matter and that they're just one of seven billion people, so they don't really matter etc. Then he said now imagine your 6 year old daughter gets cancer... what do you tell her? That in a million years it isn't going to matter? That she's only 1 of seven billion people, so who cares? And if it's not the answer at a time like that then it's probably not the answer.

I dunno... but it struck a chord with me and I've not been able to entertain the nihilistic perspective ever since. Now whenever I find those thoughts coming on and think why on earth do I push so hard or why do I bother with what I do etc... I take on a more cosmic perspective. That through our actions and experiences the universe is able to observe, enjoy and comprehend itself. The point is to be the matter and the energy. The point is to be the experience.

Like why do you sit down and watch a movie when you know it's going to end?

</comment><comment><USER22> Yes.

If by definition "Why am I here? What is purpose?", then yes.

I've spent a lot of time "soul searching" by asking myself questions, and also similarly asked people the same questions as well to try to learn from them.

I tried to by systematic and log all my efforts too.

I put together [https://www.deepthoughtapp.com/](https://www.deepthoughtapp.com/) as a means to better understand myself and why I do what I do. Being able to look at past answers has been super helpful in understanding my behavior

Maybe some of these keywords may help you. Take the time to answer some of the questions yourself (on paper, in your own notebook/journal)

[https://www.deepthoughtapp.com/en/keywords/purpose/](https://www.deepthoughtapp.com/en/keywords/purpose/)

[https://www.deepthoughtapp.com/en/keywords/existential/](https://www.deepthoughtapp.com/en/keywords/existential/)

[https://www.deepthoughtapp.com/en/keywords/calling/](https://www.deepthoughtapp.com/en/keywords/calling/)

[https://www.deepthoughtapp.com/en/keywords/meaning/](https://www.deepthoughtapp.com/en/keywords/meaning/)

</comment><comment><USER23> Existential crisis are usually related with "why" questions regarding life. But "why"s are usually of very low priority as it hardly harvest any insights given limited time. It is a helpful tool for human to explore and for scientific progress as it reduces the search spaces of potential actions or models, but not quite necessary helpful for day to day life.

So you can remind yourself that in hour mind it always seems that "why" matters a lot, but facts matter more than models and models can always be improved. "why"s are supposed to be a friend to guide us, but if they created problems, just be skeptic from and reevaluate the value of question itself.

If your crisis is a "what" crisis rather than "why". It is often easier to cope with, as you only need to open up yourself and remind that all "what" questions are just nomenclature build on immature social/scientific models and never complete. Every "what" question can be altered by a different definition.

People often relate existential crisis with nihilist view, but my opinion is that they are not nihilist enough to think through that the existential questions are meaningless or of low priority themselves.

[edit] typo

</comment><comment><USER24> Every morning when I do a standup.

</comment><comment><USER25> What is the definition of 'existential crisis' in this context?

<comment><USER26> I imagine it's the overwhelming feeling of "why am i here/why do i exists/what is my purpose in life/what is the meaning of it all?"

For me personally, it's usually a passing feeling, but once every few years it grows into a multi-day/week long feeling that borders on depression.

Why do I have to work? What am I toiling for? When I die, who cares? Everyone who's died before me - who cares? Those who lived a good, lucky life vs had a terrible one under oppression/torture, why did I get this one? What does it matter?

At these points, I tend to take a hard look at life and ask myself "What do I want?" and "What is making me feel this way?"

Sometimes I come up with an answer for the 2nd, mostly it's just empty noise (it's existential, so that's kind of expected). So the driving question for me becomes, what do I want?

<comment><USER27> I'm having an episode like you describe it right now. I'm doing okay now, but I was in a very dark state for about two months. Couldn't get up in the morning, quit my job, started therapy and medication.

Thanks for writing this down. Knowing that other people go through the same stuff, helps a lot.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I vividly remember my first "existential crisis". Well, perhaps that's not the right term for my experience.

The first time I had a feeling that once it's over, it's really game over and.. that's it. Very unsettling, cold, indifferent. Who'd care about some carbon remains on some big stone orbiting somewhere in the galaxy? Nobody, no one, and it doesn't mean anything.

I was 6 years old. I remember where I was, who was in the room, what were they wearing - it's all etched in my memory. That's one of the strongest feelings I've felt.

From time to time, I think about this topic and it's still difficult to accept that we are finite. But, we are and it is what it is. We didn't choose this world; we are here, might as well make the best of it.

</comment><comment><USER29> What I find strange is an existential consideration seems to be largely a negative. Couldnt we call it 'existential realisation' and treat it as a positive

Lack of meaning can be a good thing. Realising we're not here to do anyhting great. I'm not going to make anything of significance change. If I dissappear it wont really mater.... ok, that good, now I can get along with my life and not worry about societatal / parental / career etc pressures and follow my path beacuse in the same way I dont matter, your view of me doesnt matter. I am just here and will be treated based on what I put into the world and there is no great plan so get what you can from the journey.

</comment><comment><USER30> Sure. For my whole life before I realized neither life, nor death, nor the universe nor anything has any meaning and that's ok. There is nothing you _must_ achieve in your life, and nothing you have no choice but to feel a particular way about. Just set yourself free of any conditioning, do whatever you would like (together with probable results of such an action) and feel happy (most of the people believe feelings are exclusively controlled by the circumstances but this is false, with some training you can choose them the same way you choose which direction you will move your arm).

</comment><comment><USER31> I found that one of the best advice (successfully tested on myself and others) to help during existential crisis is to remember that someday you are going to die, and work from there. If you knew you were going to die in ten minutes, what will you do ? What will you regret ? What will you wish you had done ?

Also this : [https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/feb/01/top- fiv...](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/feb/01/top-five-regrets- of-the-dying)

<comment><USER32> so basically Stoicism's negative visualization?

<comment><USER31> I am not much experienced with stoicism, so I can't say.

My reasoning is that a crisis is generated by an unpleasant situation that may be difficult to identify, thus the feeling of powerlessness. By looking for what you want - or don't - out of life, and in an ideal situation (in front of death, a very personal thing where you don't have to deal with habits, job, or any external pressure), you can identify the elements in your life that suit you or don't, and act on it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I handled it logically:

 _If_ there is a meaning of life, we did not find it yet. Therefore it must be beyond our current scientific knowledge. Now, science becomes the new meaning, because it may give us the original meaning. Therefore I devote my life to science. (It is not necessary to be a scientist. Any possibility to help science counts for me.)

 _If_ there is no meaning at all, then I personally do not understand why people would continue struggle in life. I just cannot accept such situation. I would rather search for the meaning.

<comment><USER33> What is the struggle if there's no meaning? In my opinion, you struggle only, because there are actually things that mean to you. You cling to things, you yearn for things, and you don't get them. That's the struggle. If you don't want anything, where's the struggle? If you don't want life, you would just fade away, with no struggle. It's self-deceptive to think you don't yearn for things. Maybe it's a way to protect yourself. If you're stuck, try to see the underlying assumptions you have about life, and break them. That, in my opinion, let's you take steps forward.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Going through one right now.

I am old and confident in my skills as a developer. Many of my peers are young and utterly lack the confidence I take for granted.

Part of being confident (different than arrogant), and old, is that you have a kind of honesty about your capabilities and the technologies in which you work from experience solving certain problems. You know what is easily capable and what isn't. You know what is necessary and what isn't. You don't need tools, frameworks, gimmicks, or black magic to write your code for you. In many cases you would rather just write an original solution for a given problem because there is a very good change it will be less code, execute faster, and takes less time than dicking around with a bunch of dependencies and their configurations.

Another part of getting old is a loss of sensitivity. Either you have moved passed hard problems and grown callous to things that are no longer challenging or your career is stuck stagnating. Let's call that battle scars. This doesn't mean empathy is gone, but it does mean you have lost patience for people who either don't try or make everything an emotional event.

I found the culminating collision between old confident developers versus less confident, possibly more sensitive, developers boils down to RTFC (Read The Fucking Code). Here are some frustrating scenarios:

* A developer is particular about code style and so they don't RTFC and then misunderstandings occur.

* A developer is intimidated when a file contains greater than X lines of code and so they don't RTFC and misunderstandings occur.

* A developer refuses to do work without a certain API, framework, or tool and so they refuse to RTFC causing defects to slip into production.

* A developer doesn't know what they are doing and make an incomplete attempt to RTFC but refuses to ask questions in order to achieve clarity.

* A developer doesn't know what they are doing and finds a piece of code challenging so instead of RTFC they blame everything else, such as coworkers or the programming language, on their failures.

* A developer is largely code illiterate and so they pretend to RTFC and then lie about their assessment.

This is an existential crisis for me, because I am tired of dicking around with dishonest insecure people whose only professional goal is to achieve easiness (not simplicity). I have a fancy job at one of the largest and most profitable public companies in the US and I am in the process of giving this up and relocating for a change of pace.

</comment><comment><USER35> Doesn't matter what type of crisis it is, just remember you have a Choice in what your mind Focuses on. Remind yourself of that Choice. Have a list of things you can switch focus too - music, going for a run, helping a friend out, planning a trip etc etc.

When people don't handle crisis well, it's usually a sign they aren't able to switch focus to something else because they don't have something/anything to switch focus too.

</comment><comment><USER36> Always, But for me I settle down with my religious preaching in mind. Such as the sole purpose of life is to worhship God. Do good deeds, provide comfort to needy and wait for my time to die. Every step towards good deeds provide satisfaction and every bad act brings mysery.

<comment><USER27> My existential crisis helped me to be more accepting of religion. I can see how a believe like yours helps you in these situations and who am I to criticize something that helps people feel better (which is what I liked to do before - I'm an atheist).

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Everyday

</comment><comment><USER38> Yes, I became a nihilist for some time then I found solace in Islam. The more I thought about it the more I became convinced there is a God and there is a meaning behind all of this. And when I read the Quran it took all the worries from my heart.

<comment><USER39> I get turning to God for meaning, but why Islam in particular? Did you try reading other holy books?

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> If humanity has a purpose, it seems to be to destroy the planet.

</comment><comment><USER41> In life? No.

At work? Yes. How did I handle it? I quit.

</comment><comment><USER42> Only if I haven't had my coffee yet.

<comment><USER2> For a while when I was younger I didn't experience hunger very often, I had existential crises instead. It was a bit ridiculous, the world would start crashing down around me, everything about my life would become terrible, unbearable burden... and then I would get to wondering about how long it had been since my last meal. A few bites into the subsequent sandwich and everything was back to normal.

Now I just get foggy and easily irritated.

<comment><USER43> That sounds like the symptoms of low blood sugar.

<comment><USER2> A retelling:

When I was younger the way I experienced low blood sugar from neglecting to eat was a lot more interesting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Today?

</comment><comment><USER45> Yes I had one when I was 20 (if you may even call it that), I handled it by thinking logically.

<comment><USER27> Would you mind explaining how "thinking logically" helped you with this?

<comment><USER45> Sure, if you put aside your emotions for a second and just think on why you're having a existential crisis you will probably come up with some reasons.

For me, the reason was that I wasn't sure if I was heading in the right direction, spending money and time on education. But I realized that is is kind of unnecessary and as long as I enjoy what I do and can continue to do it without any damage to my future possibilities I should probably continue. You can always switch tracks later in life, no harm done.

Emotions are rarely logical, they are often very irrational and sudden. If you put aside the emotions for a while and ask yourself if it's really worth it to be upset, the answer is probably going to be no.</comment></comment></comment>


Moving to Berlin as a Software Developer - <AUTHOR> https://relocateme.eu/blog/reasons-to-relocate-to-berlin-for-work-as-a-software-engineer/?hackernews <comment><USER2> For me, the European attitude toward family, work-life balance, commitment to the physical and mental health of its populace, and commitment to building and maintaining a middle-class, among others, are why I immigrated from New York City to the Nordic region. If any of my fellow Americans want tips on how to get out here, hit me up. Contact info in my portfolio.

<comment><USER3> But what's of the OP? And, do you absolutely have to speak German?

<comment><USER4> I know a number of developers in Berlin who speak little German. That said:

\- If you go outside of Berlin, it will be harder

\- Even in Berlin, sometimes your baker, cab driver, etc. might not have a good command of English

\- dealing with authorities can be difficult (that one's even difficult if you know German because of the excessive legalese)

Also, in the end, personally I think that if you want to live somewhere you should learn the language because otherwise it's kind of a shame (unless you don't plan to stay long). But you don't have to know it necessarily _before_ moving there, and plenty of people here just stick to their expat bubbles...</comment></comment></comment>


Listen Carefully for Hints of the Next Global Recession - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/01/upshot/listen-carefully-for-signs-of-the-next-global-recession.html?pagewanted=all <comment><USER2> "Beliefs and stories passed on by thousands of individuals are important factors, maybe even the main ones, in determining big shifts in the economy."

We've known this all the way back to Keynes. That's why he wanted the government to step in and pick up the slack created by individual consumers creating a self fulfilling prophecy of cutting back their own spending by 10% in preparation for a possible bad economy. Not only would the government spending help offset reduced consumer spending but the knowledge, within the broad population, that the government would do this would reduce fear of a recession and thus reduce the recession inducing behavior.

<comment><USER3> That logic only makes sense to me if I start with the presumption that the market should only ever go up _ever_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I don't know how to measure this, but I'd be curious what impact all of these news outlets writing doom and gloom actually have. I'll bet it is quite a lot.

There is a very palpable sense of people wanting the economy to collapse, and I'll bet a lot of it is spite from renters who are having their rents jacked, and being completely priced out of even entry-level homes in many markets. They can't get a fair shake at things, so they want to watch things burn.

Not to say that I entirely blame that mentality, but I'm just very curious what tangible impact that has and how to measure it from a quantitative standpoint. Are there any good sentiment analysis tools for this sort of thing and correlating it with the market/economies?

<comment><USER5> There is no magic formula but here's an example using negative rates in Denmark: [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-01/world-s- lo...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-01/world-s-longest- negative-rate-experiment-shows-perversions-ahead)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> _Beliefs and stories passed on by thousands of individuals are important factors, maybe even the main ones, in determining big shifts in the economy._

This sort of ooga-booga is why it's almost impossible to take economists very seriously.

Any sort of study with pretensions to scientific rigor (look at all that fancy math!) that, at the end of the day, falls back on something like animal spirits, deserves quite a bit of mockery.

<comment><USER7> It is worth noting that a majority of economists are studying narrower and more tractable problems than predicting business cycles/asset prices.

Take a look at Al Roth's work on matching markets (useful for organising more efficient organ donation or school attendance systems) or Jim Heckman's work on policy evaluation (useful for measuring the impact of educational policy on lifetime earnings children.

[http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/06/alvin- ro...](http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/06/alvin-roths-new- book)

[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/03044076859...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0304407685901393)

<comment><USER8> > a majority of economists are studying narrower and more tractable problems > than predicting business cycles/asset prices

This is a good point: macro and micro are rather different beasts, especially when it comes to the "science" question.</comment></comment></comment>


Hoffice Turns Your Apartment into a Free Coworking Space - <AUTHOR> http://www.fastcoexist.com/3041322/hoffice-turns-your-apartment-into-a-free-and-incredibly-productive-coworking-space <comment><USER2> I've done this for a while, long ago, and while it was interesting it had an element of 'tragedy of the commons' in it, in that there always was a shortage of people available to help cleaning up afterwards and once something got stolen. I really liked the idea but if I were to do this again I'd do it with a space set aside for just that purpose and not in my living space.</comment>


Governments Introduce Surveillance Under Veil of Coronavirus Control - <AUTHOR> https://forklog.media/safety-over-freedom-how-governments-introduce-surveillance-under-veil-of-coronavirus-control/ <comment><USER2> It's really hard to get any rights back once the government has taken them.

</comment><comment><USER3> "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

[0] [https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/rahm_emanuel_409199](https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/rahm_emanuel_409199)

<comment><USER3> Provenance: [https://freakonomics.com/2009/08/13/quotes-uncovered-who- sai...](https://freakonomics.com/2009/08/13/quotes-uncovered-who-said-no- crisis-should-go-to-waste/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The article claims China is a role model.

However chinas reported numbers is not their actual numbers. We have no clue if China's approach was effective.

Even today ppl in China are still getting sick. With weekend traffic in Beijing not recovered.

<comment><USER5> I may have misinterpreted the author's intentions, but I think it was sarcasm.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm seeing strong tensions between values considered to be fundamental; privacy, safety, freedom, etc. To me, it looks like COVID-19 has introduced a kind of CAP theorem for civil rights and we don't really have a good answer here.

Let's assume an ideal case of a perfect government with a good will. If a centralized authority have the perfect information and perfectly execute a quarantine measure, it will be so accurate that minimizes fatality and restrictions on freedom, but at the cost of extreme privacy invasion. If the government have less than perfect information or execution, you gotta choose either accuracy or recall for infected. The former will give you more freedom of action at a higher cost of life. The latter will restrict more freedom of action which also potentially leads to larger economical disasters, but will save more lives.

Even worse, this is not even a ternary choice but more of continuous, multi- dimensional one. Also, the good-will assumption made above distorts the reality in a very incorrect way. The solution space is likely much more complex (e.g. those values are not really mutually exclusive and interact each other in a subtle way) and we don't really understand what shape it is. Neither I know the right answer. But I can say that even values/rights that we assumed fundamental may conflict in the extreme situation like COVID-19 and we don't really understand what trade-offs we're forced to make and its consequences.

</comment><comment><USER7> Dr. Michael J. Burry, _M.D. (Vanderbilt)_ , setup a twitter account[1] just to address some of the negative consequences of overreacting to covid-19. He's not normally a social media type, to say the least.

[1][https://twitter.com/michaeljburry](https://twitter.com/michaeljburry)

<comment><USER8> Yeah he's pitching that California has already reached herd immunity.

The premise is that covid-19 arrived in fall and that unlike everywhere else in the world, it arrived, spread without so much as being noticed at the ER.

<comment><USER9> If this actually happened, why did we not observe other incidents like what happened in the Live Care Center in Kirkland, Washington? 35 people died.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/21/us/coronavirus-nursing- ho...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/21/us/coronavirus-nursing-home- kirkland-life-care.html)

This has ripped through like wildfire in highly vulnerable communities.

Also, would we not have observed a lot of medical staff becoming sick like they are now?

I just find it very hard to believe that this could have happened earlier without anyone noticing it given how it's greatly impacted pockets in very newsworthy ways.

Another example was that family in New Jersey where some members of the family died within hours of one another. 7 sick, 4 died.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/nyregion/new-jersey- famil...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/nyregion/new-jersey-family- coronavirus.html)

Even California has vulnerable pockets in places that would have been canaries in the coal mine.

<comment><USER10> "as many as 380,000 people die of the infections in LTCFs [long-term care facilities] every year."

[https://www.cdc.gov/longtermcare/index.html](https://www.cdc.gov/longtermcare/index.html)

An increase of a several percent would not be noticed.

<comment><USER8> Typically the staff isn't at risk for life threatening respiratory viruses. They _might_ catch a cold, but it will look nothing like covid.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> the source reporting the US surveillance is kinda murky at best. Apparently the US sources their information from ad trackers and a company called lotadata which has a "geospatial AI platform "

if most of the tracking data is coming from FAANG its nothing new, however, it may not exactly be accurate with the latest iphone and android devices which have fairly overt controls for the user to restrict data collection.

<comment><USER12> I'm speculating here, but it's probably a data broker that gets location data from apps that share it as part of an advertising SDK. Users still need to enable location sharing. So the data ends selects for a cohort of people that installs sketchy apps and grants location permission. Ironically, this is probably the group of people least likely to follow social distancing guidelines.

<comment><USER13> LocationSmart is one such broker. They've been featured here before.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I am surprised there hasn't be a bigger spotlight shed on the concepts developped by Michel Foucault around _Biopower_ [0] and the genesis of the modern state. See for example this excerpt of _Discipline and punish_ [1] on what quarantine was like:

 _" First, a strict spatial partitioning: the closing of the town and its outlying districts, a prohibition to leave the town on pain of death, the killing of all stray animals; the division of the town into distinct quarters, each governed by an intendant. Each street is placed under the authority of a syndic, who keeps it under surveillance; if he leaves the street, he will be condemned to death."_

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

[1][https://foucault.info/documents/foucault.disciplineAndPunish...](https://foucault.info/documents/foucault.disciplineAndPunish.panOpticism/)

</comment><comment><USER15> > At the ACLU, we have always recognized that, during a disease outbreak, > individual rights must sometimes give way to the greater good. After all, > when it comes to disease, we are not just individuals but also one big bio- > mass. That is why people can sometimes be deprived of their liberty through > quarantine, for example. And this is as it should be, provided — and this is > a crucial and sometimes violated condition — that the science supports the > effectiveness and proportionality of measures such as quarantine. And even > if a quarantine is imposed, people do not lose their due process rights, > which at a minimum require that they be able to challenge their quarantine.

\- [https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/can-we-trust- the...](https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/can-we-trust-the- government-to-respond-to-the-coronavirus-in-a-fair-and-effective-manner/)

<comment><USER16> Unfortunately the ACLU is slowly going down the path that SPLC and NRA (to pick one example from both sides of the isle) went down. They used to be a strong special interest advocate organization but they're becoming more and more corrupted by partisan politics.

Likewise a statement of "we know it's not what our organization stands for but y'all need to get on board with what the government is telling you to do" is kind of to be expected. If they really wanted to stay true to their mission they would have either come down on the side of being pro-liberty or they would have said nothing at all.

<comment><USER9> WHO and the CDC also count as organizations that were more ideologically neutral that have lost their neutrality over time.

My understanding is that it was the CDC's partisan scope creep that put it in the crosshairs when the new administration came in. Instead of sticking strictly to infectious bacteria and viruses, they started quixotic quests to classify gun violence and obesity as epidemics. Those distractions allegedly cost them their edge in this pandemic.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> In pop culture people turn into zombies by contact with a virus. Zombies don't think of themselves as idiots, probably because they lost their brains in the process, so actually they don't think at all, they just mumble "ARRRRHHHHG" "ORRRRRSSSSFFFF" and go after other peoples brains. Now this is a sad comment, using the deaths of other people to make a point, but since we're talking about facts I'll go ahead.

\-- [https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105061/coronavirus- deat...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105061/coronavirus-deaths-by- region-in-italy/)

(14794 >= 60 years old, 12973 >= 70 years old, 775 < 60 years old) These are the statistics of the death toll in Italy, keep in mind the average life expectancy is 83 years in Italy. If it follows the same pattern as everywhere else, most of these cases will probably have co-morbidities as well.

\-- [https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/04/07/new- yo...](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/04/07/new-york- coronavirus-deaths-data-shows-most-had-underlying-illnesses/2960151001/)

quoting:

"ALBANY, N.Y. – The majority of New York's more than 4,700 deaths due to coronavirus were among men, and 86% of all deaths were among people who had underlying illnesses, such as hypertension and diabetes, new state data shows.

The statistics released late Monday offered the latest glimpse into how the rapidly spreading virus has impacted New York and made it the epicenter for COVID-19 in the nation.

Of the 4,758 deaths in New York since the first on March 14, 61% were men and 39% were women, the state Department of Health reportedon its new data portal.

In addition, 63% of the deaths were among those age 70 and older, while 7% of the cases were those 49 and younger.

And 4,089 of those who died had at least one other chronic disease, the records showed:"

93% >= 50 years old. 63% >= 70 years old. Of all cases, 86% with underlying conditions that are known to reduce life expectancy aggressively. The average life expectancy in NY is 81years old.

\-- From [https://www.france24.com/en/20200402-for-some-survivors- coro...](https://www.france24.com/en/20200402-for-some-survivors-coronavirus- complications-can-last-a-lifetime) quote: "As the number of worldwide confirmed coronavirus cases climbs towards 1 million, the number of recoveries is thankfully more than four times the death toll. But medical experts told FRANCE 24 that COVID-19 can cause severe long-term damage to the lungs, heart, brain and other organs – and that for some patients, these complications may be permanent." in an article by Tom Wheeldon, that appeared on www.france24.com, 02/04/2020 - 15:28

Now, given the disease is a couple of months old, how can medical experts come to these conclusions? You would need years of follow-up of recovered patients to even be able to test the hypothesis. Given what we know about lung damage, e.g. from tabaco, and the way our bodies regenerate it's highly improbable that this has any kind of truth to it. It does, nonetheless, increase one thing, fear. Still, this is touted on every major news outlet, by so called experts.

\-- Regarding the cases that appear on headlines and such, you can see things such as 80 years olds with cancer, dying, in a country where the life expectancy is 81 years, and still the cause being attributed to covid. It's like saying that an HIV patient died from a cold.

Going out and catching sun is actually good for you, there's a reason why flu and colds peak from late autumn to early spring. It doesn't take an expert to understand why. Plus, there are countries that seem to have been able to contain the epidemic wave without martial law, so it's certainly not the only viable option - and the question here is, "does this justify what is being done?" \- not "should we ignore those that need medical treatment?".

Lastly, although the following quote was said in a very different context, it doesn't mean it doesn't or shouldn't apply (even if it was a quote by me): "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".

<comment><USER18> > "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary > Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".

We know the quote already. It's not doing any good to post it or repeat it. Simply saying this in response to complex problems is equivalent to saying "Thoughts and prayers" when someone is asking for help. It doesn't help and only makes you feel good.

People are willing to give up a lot for convenience, including sending many jobs to China. We allow this due to laissez-faire capitalism. Turns out people care more about cheap shit than the job prospects of their children.

People are also trained/willing to give up a lot for fear. This is caused in part by the very freedoms enshrined by your quote - there's a lot of fear and misinformation spread and allowed to spread because of the principle of free speech.

The situation is more complex and needs a more complex response than simply saying "hurr durr liberty".

<comment><USER17> While what you say might be true, you took literally the last two lines of a much longer post (that were used as final note regarding the topic in question) and in turn used that to say nothing relevant either, "hurr durr complex capitalism let-do scoobydoobydoo", but of course making me say "hurr durr liberty" in the process.

The points I made are quite clear:

a) A serious reading of the data we know shows a different picture of the fear inducing narrative being peddled b) Experts say the most irresponsible things - in quite enigmatic situations for someone with deep expertise in the subject being talked about c) Lockdown and home isolation are probably detrimental in terms of an individuals immune system - as in, going out is good d) There are other approaches that seem to have worked quite well e) You're going to die f) You shouldn't trade certain things for a fake sense of security even in the face of uncertainty

There are other questions that are complex, like millions dying of structural inequality every year and no world wide response to that (and on that point, no moral outrage by the civic chevaliers on that either), we could go on in false moralities all night long.

Although I'm not religious, I imagine saying "Thoughts and prayers" does help people who are in distress.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> You start a war to get more power. You start letting virus to go and start ...

</comment><comment><USER20> Giving up your liberties here will likely be a permanent choice. Live free or die.

<comment><USER21> Wish we could shout "Let freedom ring!" and hit the liberty bell with a mallet, but because of the crack it would likely make a humorous "tink."

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> It's too bad that people can't follow simple requests. Governments are forced to choose between allowing idiot citizens to destroy society or to implement draconian policies.

Medical professionals are being asked to come out of retirement. Nurses are reusing PPE for weeks. Medical students are graduating early to help.

The rest of us are being asked to just stay the fuck home for a few weeks.

And we just refuse to do it. Absolutely refuse. Everyone is suddenly and avid walker. So then governments have to choose whether to let idiot citizens ruin everything... or not.

I don't blame governments. I blame all you idiots who won't stop going outside.

<comment><USER23> > I don't blame governments. I blame all you idiots who won't stop going > outside.

It's precisely this kind of reasoning that this article is having problems with. Pre-COVID19, it was because of the terrorists, drug dealers, and pedophiles that we'd have to give up our freedoms. Now, it's because of "us idiots." We the people are "too idiotic" to decide for ourselves, or so you say.

<comment><USER24> I know it's annecdotal, but now I've had two elderly relatives die -- one from covid-19, and one from a heart attack, in the past few weeks. The second wasn't able to get into the healthcare system because it is just too overstretched. Firstly, causes by a very slow ambulance, and got diverted to an ER just about as far away as you can get.

I have also seen more people walking along our city exercise path than ever before. There's not really a good middle ground here, exercising your civil liberties is resulting in deaths.

<comment><USER23> I'm most certainly not opposed to saving lives. But we can't just mindlessly approve whatever "solutions" the government comes up with. Some "solutions" are bound to do more harm than good, and mass-surveillance is a prime example considering its potential for abuse. Just as people die from disease, people also die from tyrannical governments. Even if we assume that _your_ government, however unlikely, would forever continue to wield its power wisely, other governments wouldn't care. If we justify the use of mass- surveillance, we would give other tyrannical governments a free pass and more people would be killed or tortured as a consequence. But unlike pandemics, time won't cure tyrannical governments.

<comment><USER24> Well, I love the positive attitude implying time will cure pandemics. Cure, in the sense that all things come to an end, the way all bleeding stops, yeah.

I'm currently working as an infectious disease researcher for a state with a lot of political turmoil, and I'll have the be honest, my (profesional) opinion doesn't matter. No single recommendation we have made has had any bearing on the action of our state. These opinions we (you and I) have are moot.

<comment><USER23> Just to be clear, I'm not dismissing the devastating effects this pandemic has brought. More lives will continue to be lost for the foreseeable future and it will likely have lasting economic implications. But if governments around the world go forward with mass-surveillance, it would be 9/11 all over again. As a direct consequence of 9/11, many innocent lives have been lost. But it's the policy decisions after the incident that has had an even more lasting and devastating effect on our democratic society. People need to keep these things in mind, especially in times of emergencies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Death rates are at 0.5%, and it was worth shutting down the economy.

Car accident death rates are at 1%. Wait until people hear about that.

The bigger shock is when people realize that you can't stop the spread of a pandemic. You can flatten the curve to help hospitals. But soon we will find hospitals are more dangerous than staying at home due to infections and that respirators barely improve your chance of survival.

I hope medical loses their credibility big time. Their rejection of math and science in favor of tradition is horrifying.

<comment><USER26> So you assume that yourself are the number guy and know better, so what is the equation that will determine when lockdown is more efficient? what are the inputs in that equation ? Why car deaths would be a factor in why you should implement a lockdown. If you go to a hospital with a illness X would you like a response like "X kills less then cars in our country, until traffic laws are fixed we decided you can suffer and die from X, Have a ice death!"

<comment><USER25> I think it's fair to do death vs death. Especially if Corona disproportionately affects people who have lived 60+ years already. Car deaths affect people of all ages.

The economic collapse and scare has caused people to cancel or delay surgeries, dental work, physical therapy, buy newer and safer cars, home abuse has gone up, I imagine exercise has gone down, I wonder how alcohol use has changed.

You can quantify these with numbers.

<comment><USER26> But why cars? It would make sense if you are an extreme capitalist to put money in the equation, how much a life costs, how much lockdown costs, how much it costs to find a cure, how much it costs to let everyone sick die but it would make no sense to bring cars into this, think about it your calculation would be different depending on the country or state, like if you are in the country with horible driving bad luck now you will also die from covid.

<comment><USER25> Because we will always drive cars, and in 5 years there will be no coronavirus. Would it have been better to spend our resources on more complex airbag systems that would last as long as humans drive or a lockdown to save our oldest population for 3 years?

I think this math problem is easier than we would like, but politically it's unpopular.

<comment><USER26> Let's assume cars kill N people a month, and the next pandemic kill N-1 old people a month and cancer kills N-2 people a month. We do nothing until we solve the cars? What if it kills N-1 children we still do nothing?

I do not see the argument that the resources should go to cars, if you want to solve car accidents you can do it for free, I have the secrets here:

\- don't give a diving license that easy. have decent tests

\- if you are caught drunk you should never drive again

\- if you are caught looking at a phone screen your license is gone for 10 years

\- if you are speeding your license is gone for 10 years

\- test the cars every 2 years to check they are safe and not polluting

\- analyze the crashes find the causes and address them, if speeding is the issue find a way to enforce speed limits.

Do you have any evidence that if the lockdown did not have happened more lives would have been saved? Ironically probably less people died in car accidents so you need to find some domain where the number of deaths increased more then the lives saved,

<comment><USER27> I think the point is, Forcing people to stay home is a solve against cars and coronavirus. The death rate for cars is higher, so why haven't we forced a lockdown to deal with car deaths? What makes the Coronavirus different, besides that it's been 100 years since we've had a serious pandemic?

<comment><USER26> I think your assumptions might be wrong though, if I use the numbers from here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic- related_death_rate) and calculate for Italy I get 3600 car fatalities, and there are aprox 18000 deaths by covid with a lockdown on. Let me know if my numbers are wrong.

<comment><USER27> Italy's a bit of an outlier due to both average age and how they count covid deaths. If we look at Germany instead, we get 3.6K deaths by car (in 2016) vs 1.8K deaths from covid. There are all kinds of different assumptions about unconfirmed cases etc, but even in the most optimistic scenarios, it's roughly the same order of magnitude either way.

<comment><USER26> But don't ignore that Germany also treat the coivd like "not the flu" if Germany would do nothing like you suggest the numbers would be larger, to honestly support your point you need to find a country that did exactly what you want (nothing or just pray) and show that the mortality is better then car crashes when the pandemic is over.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>