Drupal on Docker - <AUTHOR> http://robknight.org.uk/blog/2013/05/drupal-on-docker/

<comment><USER2> The article touches on this towards the end, but I think the Docker (or container) way would be to create separate containers for each process. I could very well be wrong on this though. I'm still trying to figure out the best way to use containers.

One container would contain the Drupal files along with an Nginx or Apache process.

One container would run PHP (probably PHP-FPM.)

One container would contain MySQL.

This would allow for better scaling options. You could then run multiple containers for PHP processes and have the web server do a round robin between PHP containers. You could do the same for the container which has the Drupal files and put a load balancer in front of them. Any file based caching options would probably be best switched to something like Memcache so that the cached items are in sync.I suppose some content management systems would better accommodate this setup than others.

I'm not sure yet the best way to do development in the above setup. I suppose one way would be to run an SSH server on the Drupal container and then perhaps mount the files you need access to as a drive using SSHFS or something. I haven't played with this yet, but you can also create volumes on the host OS to be shared with the container (I think I got that right.) Perhaps you could share the files that you need access to.

Am I right on this? Does anyone else do things differently? This project moves so fast it's hard to keep up with.

Edit: I also wonder if containers create a performance hit for MySQL. You would also need make backups. Maybe you would be better off running a big DB on its own dedicated server / VPS outside a container?

I would also save all user generated files (for something like Drupal, this would be mostly images) to something like S3.

</comment><comment><USER3> Docker is wonderful. I'm using it to build a continuous integration system that can run my unit tests as root. It's completely isolated and it uses almost no resources, compared to spawning up an entire VM. There are still some bugs and security issues here and there but they're coming along quickly.

Finally a sane Linux answer to FreeBSD jails. It's about time.

</comment><comment><USER4> As a newb on this, can I use this on Arch Linux for example to give people a sort-of chrooted SSH environment with their own Nginx instance?

In this way I could still let people SSH into my box and put up their website with 0 risk of them every seeing the things I have on my SMB share? (yes this can be achieved with groups but this seems better.)

<comment><USER5> Hmm no. Although Linux was built as a multi-user operating system, it is not a secure one. Privilege escalation exploits are routinely found and fixed, and there are likely a lot more out there.

So if your stated aim is to use the LXC as a speed-break on hackers, don't rely on it.

<comment><USER3> Heroku uses LXC for privilege separation between customers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Docker I get. What's the point of Vagrant? Isn't it easier to just download a premade VBox image and then you don't have to install all the dependencies of Vagrant? Moreover, Vagrant has opinions built-in into an image nothing like a bare OS I get in the cloud.

I use ansible to provision my box into its role.

<comment><AUTHOR> Vagrant is intended to make starting, provisioning and then destroying and rebuilding virtual machine instances quick and easy. It makes it much easier to bring up VMs in different configurations for different projects and provides a way to store the runtime environment configuration with the code for a particular project. It's primarily a tool for software developers but as it gains more provisioning capability it's roll seems to be expanding and you can use ansible as a tool to provision a vagrant VM.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm a long time sysadmin and I don't get all the hype about docker. Is this bad? I have nothing against the project, at the contrary, but it's as if people haven't yet heard about lxc (which docker indeed uses), openvz, UML or linux-vserver. Some of these have been around for almost a decade. :-/

<comment><USER3> OpenVZ and Linux-VServer require kernel patches. UML does not, but it doesn't perform terribly well, and requires the user to run a sub-kernel, leading to slightly higher resource usage. It is unknown how well-maintained UML is; I remember that Linode used it in the past but they moved away from it.

Docker is also, pardon my French, more "web 2.0"-ish software than all other 3:

* The Docker website is clean, modern, and attracts. It clearly tells me how to get started. They even invested time/money in a proper logo. Now look at the other websites. They look old, archaic, too formal, and looking at them don't give me the feeling that I should try out their software. The UML website gives off the feeling that it is unmaintained. I realize this isn't a purely technical reason, but presentation is important.

* Docker feels like it has more community around it. It uses Github and you can see that it's very active there. Docker also has an easy to use image repository. Apart from being extremely useful to pull in an image with a single command, it gives off the good feeling that there's an active community around it and that it's actively developed.</comment></comment>


Makerbot's New Device Makes Cloning Instantaneous - <AUTHOR> http://www.appstorechronicle.com/2013/09/makerbot-digitizer-scanner.html

<comment><USER2> Anyone who uses "instantaneous" in the same paragraph with "3D printing" is clueless :-).

That said, 3D digitizers look like fun. My thought is that one of these laser pico projectors, a RasPi, a web cam, a computer controlled turntable and some clever software, ok so that is like 5 things. Ah to have free time again.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's hyperbole. I use 3D printers frequently. The "instantaneous" was referring to the digitizer, which takes 12 minutes to create the file. That, compared to the hours it would take to create such a design in CAD program, could be called instantaneous. Just as "rapid prototyping" can take hours, depending upon the object. It's fast, compared to the alternative.

It's all about frame of reference.

<comment><USER2> Fair enough, but when someone wants something printed on my Makerbot Replicator, and they don't know these things. They thing "Star Trek" not, slow grind :-).

<comment><AUTHOR> Now that would be a printer that sells well. Even the most expensive printers still take FOREVER. One day. One day.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I wrote some software that could (mostly) do this scanning with a webcam.

[http://jack.minardi.org/software/whats-in-a- shadow/](http://jack.minardi.org/software/whats-in-a-shadow/)

</comment><comment><USER4> Has anyone considered obtaining a leap motion and making a small rig that does this same function? Given the accuracy of the leap motion, it seems like an almost trivial feat

<comment><USER5> I've seen a human scale version of this done with the Kinect. An artist in NYC was doing it quite a while ago and had a showing in 3Dward. I saw the digitizer at Maker Faire this weekend and was impressed at the quality.

I'm guessing the res on this thing is better than that offered by rotating a Kinect around an object. It certainly requires a lot less space!

<comment><USER4> For something like that, I'd like to see someone put a bunch of leap controllers/other stuff on a hula hoop, and make models that way.</comment></comment></comment>


New Cars' Pedestrian-Safety Features Fail in Deadliest Situations - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-cars-pedestrian-safety-features-fail-in-deadliest-situations-study-finds-11570075260?mod=rsswn <comment><USER2> It's getting harder than ever to see out of modern "safer" cars, too. I regularly entirely lose cars hidden by the B-pillar on my Model 3. I have to rock my head back and forth before each lane change to make sure something's not hidden there. It's compounded by the fact that the driver's side mirror doesn't physically move far enough to the left to cover the blind spot like it would in most cars, and our terrible flat mirrors in the US don't provide the wide angle that european driver's side mirrors have. (still working on sourcing a european mirror glass; currently Tesla only sells the entire mirror body+motors+glass as a single part, for $400ish)

It's VERY easy to lose a pedestrian in the A-pillar (windshield pillar) of modern cars, particularly due to how large these units have gotten to accommodate side curtain airbags.

Note that the fixtures on the body don't have to 100% optically obscure things for them to be 'invisible' to the driver.

[https://www.portsmouthctc.org.uk/a-fighter-pilots-guide- to-s...](https://www.portsmouthctc.org.uk/a-fighter-pilots-guide-to-surviving- on-the-roads/)

>It gets even worse. Not only can we not see though solid objects; research has shown that we tend not to look near to the edges of a framed scene. In plain language, we tend not to look at the edges of a windscreen. So, not only do the door pillars of a car represent a physical blind spot, but our eyes tend not to fixate near to it, leading to an even bigger jump, or saccade, past a door pillar. This is called windscreen zoning.

<comment><USER3> Some manufactures keep great visibility. My Subaru has very narrow A pillars and good blind spot visibility. I can adjust my mirrors to get rid of almost all blind spots on my Impreza.

<comment><USER4> Was gonna say, my Forrester has probably the best visibility of any car I've driven.

<comment><USER5> Same here - my forester has excellent visibility.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I love cars, driving, and freedom in general. Just wanted to put that up front, because I'm going to suggest this isn't an issue with the manufacturer of motor vehicles, but with the massive government system(s) built around regulating them.

There is nothing stopping this terrific government thing everyone is raving about from passing some regulations that require people who operate motor vehicles on the roadways, actually be capable of operating motor vehicles on the roadways. Instead, we get short HS drivers education classes, that really only teach you what the 2 pedals in American cars does what, and perhaps a quick refresher on how "wheels" work.Then you get put on the highway, and taught to speed, but not too much, and generally ignore every other major rule there is.

I ride motorcycles, have taken several high performance driving classes, as well as drive in an amateur (wheel to wheel) auto racing series, and I still catch myself making mistakes on the roads. Its not an easy task, and the current system is woefully under performing when it comes to equipping people to handle it. This needs to be fixed by changing the culture around driving, if for no other reason than because sometimes machines fail, and the person behind the wheel needs to be responsible.

<comment><USER7> >I love cars, driving, and freedom in general.

Then be careful what you wish for lest you incite the DMV to morph into the FAA, FCC, or ATF.

I'm serious. You have not even begun to contemplate how miserable, soul killing, and inaccessible regulations can make something until you have really dug into something like that.

If you do love it, teach! Don't seek to lock a student out! Help them become better, faster, that they can do the same for someone they know!

<comment><USER8> Actually it's funny you should mention the FAA. I have _much_ greater freedom at modifying my airplane than I do modifying my car.

<comment><USER9> Sure, if you have an E-AB airplane. If your airplane is certified you can't do much as run a USB charger out to the panel without the FAA coming down on you like a ton of bricks.

<comment><USER8> That's true, but at least you have the choice of which route you want to go.

I guess even CA allows "home-made, specially constructed, or kit" vehicles. [https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/spcnsreg](https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/spcnsreg)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Lately my (foot) commute has come to involve a whole lot of people blasting down residential streets at 40mph while staring at their phones and only barely slowing down in acknowledgement of stop signs.

My current belief is that the single most effective pedestrian safety feature that car manufacturers could possibly implement is some mechanism for preventing Waze from working.

<comment><USER11> Maybe we should all start carrying oversized fluorescent umbrellas when walking

<comment><USER12> How does this help if driver is looking at their phone?

<comment><USER13> Since the umbrella is so visible, they may see it from further away during one of their brief glances at the road.

<comment><USER12> How do you know if you're seen when carrying umbrella? Eye contact is not enough (info you can find in pretty much any driving handbook).

<comment><USER13> You don't, but it's almost certain that you'd be safer with it than without.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> > Nearly 6,000 pedestrians were killed in U.S. traffic accidents in 2017, the > latest year data were available, according to the National Highway Traffic > Safety Administration. That was up 35% from 2008

I wonder how much of this is due to distracted driving because of smart phones. I would bet it's more than we care to admit.

This is where the material from the college engineering ethics course I was required to take kicks in. It's stuff like this we should pay attention to.

> At 20 miles an hour, the cars struggled with each test, AAA found. The child > was struck 89% of the time, and all of the cars hit the pedestrian dummy > after making a right turn. The systems were generally ineffective if the car > was going 30 mph. The systems were also completely ineffective at night

When companies advertise these systems, I wonder how many people feel they can pay less attention while driving.

I also wonder what's up with their QA testing. This stuff could use some chaos engineering thrown at it.

<comment><USER15> > I wonder how much of this is due to distracted driving because of smart > phones. I would bet it's more than we care to admit.

Not just drivers. Plenty of pedestrians which just walk straight across the road with their eyes firmly fixed on their screens and earbuds protecting their ears from the sounds of the world around them.

<comment><USER16> People should pay attention to the world around them, but keep in mind that the pedestrians aren't the people doing the activity that causes the damage.

<comment><USER15> In the same way that if I stick my hand in the table saw, it's not me causing the damage.

Of course drivers who can't pay attention to the things they should pay attention to don't really deserve to drive. But physics is physics, and there's a limit to how fast a driver can react and a car in motion can stop. And a lot of pedestrians at least here seem to not keep that in mind when roaming about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Car companies seem complicit in promoting distracted driving in their commercials, too, by promoting automatic braking for drivers who aren't paying attention:

1\. [https://youtu.be/bS19g7Va6jg?t=30](https://youtu.be/bS19g7Va6jg?t=30)

2\. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9d8PPrCB38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9d8PPrCB38)

<comment><USER18> I get that, but the feature's there for when you're not paying attention, so I'm not sure how to advertise it.

The other more boring use of automatic braking is applying extra force in emergencies because people might not apply enough.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> 1\. Even if they fail to stop 90% of pedestrian accidents, that an improvement from the 100% of previous car generations.

2\. These systems are primarily for avoiding car-on-car collisions. They're _very_ good at that. Which is maybe why it's not mentioned in the article...

<comment><USER20> Pedestrian deaths in the USA have steeply risen over the last decade, as you can see in this graph: [http://usa.streetsblog.org/wp- content/uploads/sites/5/2019/0...](http://usa.streetsblog.org/wp- content/uploads/sites/5/2019/03/ped-deaths-graph-1.jpg)

<comment><USER21> Hard to say if this is the result of drivers or pedestrian inattention.

<comment><USER22> Only one of the people in that interaction is wielding a deadly weapon. Perhaps the burden of responsibility should be slightly greater for the one who can kill half a dozen people with five seconds of inattention.

<comment><USER23> I think the burden of responsibility _when there is an injury or death_ should fall on the car, because, yes, a ton of steel and plastic tends to win over a couple hundred pounds of meat and bone, and drivers should keep that in mind when driving.

But I think it's reasonable to expect pedestrians to take at least some responsibility for _keeping safe_. I'm primarily a pedestrian. I'll sometimes be doing something on my phone while walking on a sidewalk (though I try to keep even that to a minimum), but as soon as I'm about to step off a curb into the street, the phone goes away. I watch where I'm going, and where the cars around me are going, for however long I'm in the street.

I see plenty of people who are still buried in their phones while crossing the street, and it's just _stupid_. If they get hit and die while crossing the street, it's (probably) not their _fault_ , but that's little consolation: they're still dead. If they could have prevented that by taking the entirely reasonable step of making sure they're aware of their surroundings, isn't it worth it? I'm talking about _outcomes_ here, not responsibility. If you can do something to keep yourself safer, and that thing is an entirely reasonable, non-burdensome thing to do, then you should probably do it, no?

And that's what the parent's post was about, anyway: no one is talking about responsibility. It seems pretty likely to me that at least some of the increased rate of pedestrian-involved accidents can be attributed to increased pedestrian inattention.

<comment><USER20> Re the last sentence in your comment: the New York DOT performed an analysis that "found little concrete evidence that device-induced distracted walking contributes significantly to pedestrian fatalities and injuries": [https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/distraction- shou...](https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/distraction-shouldnt-be- deadly.pdf)

<comment><USER23> Interesting, but I'd like to see a broader study. Note that this was the New York _City_ DOT, not the state DOT. The study does reference some national figures, but otherwise mostly focuses on NYC itself.

Given the volume of people walking around in NYC at most hours of the day, I'd expect a sort of "herd immunity" to come into play: sure, you might be on your phone, but you're surrounded by 15 other people while crossing the street, and a car is going to be hard pressed to not see all of you. At least _one_ of those people is likely paying attention, at any rate.

Also I was a little confused by their conclusion, given this statistic in the linked report, under "Pedestrian Self-Reports of Distraction":

"Using emergency room data from 1,075 pedestrian injuries (2008–2011), researchers at Bellevue Hospital found that 7.7% of admitted pedestrians were using an electronic device at the time of the crash."

How is 7.7% not "significant"? I'm sure those 83 people would rather not have been in the emergency room, and maybe have changed their behavior for the better. And that's just injuries; obviously dead pedestrians can't self-report what they were up to in the moments leading up to their death. Also consider that 7.7% is a _lower bound_. While it's unlikely that someone would lie to say they were using a device when they weren't, it's likely that there are quite a few people who _were_ actually using a device during the incident but didn't want to admit it out of embarrassment or fear of fault or blame being assigned to them (legally, even).

I just don't find this study all that compelling.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> An interesting study on US pedestrian fatalities: [https://www.ghsa.org/sites/default/files/2019-02/FINAL_Pedes...](https://www.ghsa.org/sites/default/files/2019-02/FINAL_Pedestrians19.pdf)

Some notes: Pedestrian fatalities are up in the last decade and there isn't a great smoking gun on why. The "every driver is starring at a smartphone" explanation doesn't have much evidence. The vast majority of pedestrian deaths happen at night, and not at an intersection. Almost all the additional pedestrian deaths are at night; daytime fatalities have been flat since 2008.

<comment><USER25> Actually, one of the big changes in that report is that more _pedestrians_ are drunk.

A drunk pedestrian is likely to indictate 1) nighttime, 2) walking in a target rich environment (most bars exist near other bars) and 3) lots of distracted Uber/Lyft drivers.

What is interesting is that Texas/Arizona/Florida/Georgia have increases in deaths that completely cancel out California's decrease.

<comment><USER24> That is an issue that was touched on in one of the Freakonomics books too: increased DUI enforcement has lead to many would-be drunk drivers instead being drunk pedestrians, which is much more dangerous (for the drunk).

<comment><USER26> That's an improvement because the victim is the person at fault, not a bystander. The incentives are aligned to motivate people to behave responsibly.

<comment><USER24> We're getting into the realm of Trolly Problem-esque ethical thought experiments, but how many drunk pedestrians should be allowed to die to save one victim of drunk driving? Consider also that those dead pedestrians are often not really at fault, but just unable to avoid a bad driver due to poor reaction times that would also affect children and elderly pedestrians.

I'm not saying that driving drunk is ever morally acceptable, of course. There are just some interesting unintended consequences of public policy at play.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> You can also look this from a completely different mentality.

> The child was struck 89% of the time, and all of the cars hit the pedestrian > dummy after making a right turn.

That means that in that simple no-turn circumstance, the car DOESN'T hit the child 11% of the time.

It's better than nothing, and it's a start. You still have to drive your car. You still need to stay off your phone. But these systems only have to work _sometimes_ for them to be worth installing.

<comment><USER28> The main issue here IMO is that these systems are being advertised in a way that gives people a false sense of confidence, leading to them being less attentive. Autopilot might have some useful safety features, but that won't improve overall driving safety if people believe (to some degree) that it can actually automatically pilot your car.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I think a huge part of the problem is that car companies aren't properly incentivized to protect pedestrians. It's easier and cheaper to prevent my car from hitting something that can damage it than to prevent my car from hitting something that it can damage (easier to detect buildings and other cars than to detect children). If you were the CEO of a car company and had a finite amount of money to spend on research on driver assist features would you rather spend it on the easy problem of protecting your customers or the expensive problem of protecting other people? Furthermore, as a consumer, would you rather buy a car that costs x dollars that protects you or costs x+y that protects other people?

<comment><USER30> > Furthermore, as a consumer, would you rather buy a car that costs x dollars > that protects you or costs x+y that protects other people?

Reducing the chance of having to live with the fact that I ran somebody over and seriously harmed or even killed them, that's indeed worth an extra y dollars to me.

Furthermore, it is in the interest of my insurance company too, they might factor that into the premium.

<comment><USER8> I seem to remember somewhere that insurance companies have been reluctant to factor the risk of injury to others into the liability premiums for cars. This was in the context of a discussion of the externalities when SUVs and trucks became popular.

It's hard to separate driver inattention from the effect of having vehicles that are much more deadly these days, too. If you get hit by a sedan, it'll take out your legs and you'll get flung up on the sloping hood/windshield. If you're hit by a truck/SUV, on the other hand, the majority of your body will take the direct hit.

<comment><USER30> It is my understanding that driving an SUV pushes up liability premiums, but this is offset by them being generally safer for the driver.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> It seems to me this encouragement of partial attention while driving just doesn't work for human reasons. The more you give people an excuse not to participate the more they will withdraw and blame technology when something goes wrong. You're either driving or you're not - there is no middle ground.

<comment><USER32> yup, driving must be a full-focus activity because of the non-negligible probability of death (to you or others).

partial self-driving tech like lane-assist and collision avoidance only serve to dull our driving skill and makes us unattentive while driving.

<comment><USER33> The in-car distractions that come factory standard are absolutely ridiculous at this point.

Everyone is such a lazy asshole now that you probably couldn't hope to start moving the needle back in the other direction though. The consequences of ripping out all of these driver 'assist' technologies at this point would probably cause a Mad Max episode to unfold on our roadways every morning.

It's also really sad the impact this has all had on the car market as a whole. The diversity of options has radically diminished in my opinion. Look at 2007 lineups and compare to 2019 lineups. Every car today is just the same goddamn turbocharged V6/I4 with whatever arbitrary body tacked on top. Everything. Ford has what? Like 4 unique chassis now for the consumer market? I think BMW finally got down to monochassis. I bet that higher degree of coupling makes their lives a lot easier, but it makes my experience as a driving enthusiast dull.

<comment><USER32> yes, and to be fair, most driving is pure drudgery, going back and forth to the same places over and over, often zoning out on the tail lights of the car creeping along in front of you. it's understandable how things got this way, but it's certainly not desirable.

<comment><USER31> All the more reason for people to remain vigilant. Truck driving is often described as 95% tedium and 5% of unexpected nerve wrenching events. It's that 5% we all have to be in good shape for even if you are 'zoning out on the tail lights of the car creeping along in front' \- that's when something might come flying out of nowhere at you and you need to be ready...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Pedestrian safety is of almost not value to us manufacturers. The could improve it significantly but there were actually a couple cases where manufacturers would strip off pedestrian safety features off cars originally designed to European standards to make them more aggressive looking.

<comment><USER35> Further there are almost no regulations in the US that would prevent the end user from removing or negating the manufacturer supplied pedestrian safety features. People routinely drive massively lifted trucks that would be deadly. Just like tampering with the emissions systems is illegal in some areas so should removing or negating pedestrian safety features.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> It took a bunch of old NIMBYs to have scooter companies install speed limits within certain locations. We have the technology to have cars automatically limit speeds to the maximum allowed on the given road. We choose not to. Instead people keep getting killed.

This is not pie in the sky science fiction to drool about. We could do it now. We could do it 5 years ago.

<comment><USER37> Huh? Are you actively advocating for everyone's car to send location data, and have the ability to be remotely controlled? Terrible idea. The difference between cars and scooters is that you buy a car that you OWN, and you rent a scooter for 10 minutes.

<comment><USER38> No, remote control is not required. It would probably be implemented as every car having machine vision to recognise road signs, or a built-in sat nav with the map data including speed limits. Both of which are already available on production cars - the new "feature" would be linking those to a speed limiter.

Of course, whether this would be popular with voters or car companies is another matter...

<comment><USER39> My 2018 Honda regularly detects the wrong speed limit (45 miles per hour limit, but it detects 70) and will fail to detect any speed limit. It also seems like it can't detect Florida's interstate speed limit signs at all, since they have both the maximum and minimum speed limit on the same sign.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I look forward to fully self-driving cars, but I fear this halfway situation of semi-automated safety aids is going to make things worse, not better.

<comment><USER23> There's a similar (yet generally not as bad) problem with airliner automation: the less a pilot has to do, the less experience they will have actually actively flying the plane. And when the automation hits a corner case where it can't control the plane, the pilot has fewer skills and experience on hand to keep the plane in the air.

The more automation allows people to avoid paying full attention to driving, the more crashes we will have when the automation fails and the human driver is unable to take control or react appropriately fast enough to avoid a collision.

This problem all goes away when we have perfect automation (or at least automation that performs better than humans do without the automation), but we're certainly not there yet, and it's not clear that we're even close.

And even if you have automation that's better than a human driver, when the automation _does_ fail, and people die, there's an emotional backlash because, even if they're entirely wrong, people _feel_ like they could have done better, if they just had control of the situation themselves. And even without that, you still need to assign blame. Does it go to the human in the car, even though they weren't driving? Does it go to the manufacturer of the automation? Or do we have to go through a huge cultural shift and dispense with the notion of blame in these sorts of situations?

<comment><USER40> It's funny... I am an adamant stickshift driver. I don't like driving cars with automatic transmissions. I feel less in control, less attentive. If even the difference between shifting myself and having some hydraulics do it for me bothers me, what about all this automatic other stuff?

We also hang on to cars for a long time, but my spouse recently got a new car and it has, among other things, a lane-keeping feature. It annoys the crap out of me. I use it on highway driving, but not in urban driving. On the other hand, it has a context-sensitive cruise control I really like.

<comment><USER23> I've had a car with a manual transmission for 12 years now; I dunno about feeling more in control. I personally find it more fun to drive a manual transmission car, but I recognize that I have no logical basis for this. Modern automatic transmissions (or CVTs) likely get better fuel economy than I do.

And I honestly don't even really think about shifting that much when I'm driving; after doing it for so long, it just comes automatically (despite the fact that I drive very little, on the order of 1500 miles per year at most).

It's extremely annoying if I'm ever in stop-and-go traffic, to the point that I'll probably get an automatic transmission car whenever I need a new one. I can also count on one hand the number of friends who can drive stick, so if I'm ever driving people on a long road trip, there's no one to share the driving.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I am 100% blind. This article confirms my fears. In the future, it will be more dangerous to walk the streets then it already is. I was born with an deep fear of automatic doors. And I will likely die due to the autonomous car revolution.

</comment><comment><USER42> Guys, I want to buy a car and my Main concern is pedestrian safety. In the report they didn't mention which car fares the best.

<comment><USER43> You, the driver, have much much more control over pedestrian safety than any tool. Tech is not silver bullet, it fails (rta). If you believe the tech will "protect you", do you job for you, that is dangerous. Get skilled first, augment those skills with tech second.

<comment><USER44> That's a naive approach. Sure - technology shouldn't replace safe driving, but it sure does help a lot. It was amazing when the collision avoidance system kicked in on my Volvo V60 and did an emergency breaking, stopping in time when some kids snow sled into traffic. I think could have been able to stop in time, but that would have been a much closer call.

<comment><USER43> > Get skilled first, augment those skills with tech second.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> [http://archive.is/yeqkN](http://archive.is/yeqkN)

</comment><comment><USER46> Relatedly, a _1939_ vision of the future (discussed recently at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21104762](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21104762) ) shows a simple --- but probably quite expensive --- solution; people and cars can't collide if they're separated:

[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/Street_i...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/Street_intersection_Futurama.jpg)

<comment><USER47> ...which, in practice, leads to a lot of deteriorating walkways ($$$), a car- first-, and eventually a car-only-city.

Yeah. It's been tried, and kinda didn't work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Sadly, this is well known inside the industry. The functionality of these systems significantly degraded when dark.

I've been told that there is similar degradation in the performance of autonomous emergency braking and forward-collision warning not only when dealing with pedestrians, but with cars that have their lights on and are perfectly visible to human drivers.

</comment><comment><USER49> A relevant article [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/oct/03/collision...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/oct/03/collision- course-pedestrian-deaths-rising-driverless-cars)

</comment><comment><USER50> If any of those systems use deep learning, they _by design_ will not necessarily recognize a _dummy_ as a _person_, particularly in difficult lighting conditions or if the dummy does not show up on IR (if the system is multi-spectral).

<comment><USER47> That's essentially the story "build a ML system that recognizes the time of day, instead of tanks" ;)

<comment><USER50> More like "build an ML system which recognizes real tanks but not toy tanks". Doable with today's tech.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> I view these systems as a backup in case I miss the danger, not as a primary.

</comment><comment><USER52> That headline seems exceedingly tautological to me. If a safety feature fails, then the situation isn't going to be the safest, or if it was, who would notice?

</comment><comment><USER53> [http://archive.is/xVI0g](http://archive.is/xVI0g)

</comment><comment><USER54> > the Chevrolet Malibu, Honda Accord, Toyota Camry and Tesla Model 3 ... When > testers drove the cars directly at a dummy crossing the road in the dark, > however, the system failed not only to stop or slow the car but also to > provide any alert of a pedestrian's presence before a collision.

Oh good.</comment>


Grid Collapse in India Leaves 360 Million People Without Power - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-30/grid-collapse-in-india-leaves-360-million-people-without-power.html This is what can happen when you are in between an interesting conversation :\ <comment><AUTHOR> This is something can happen when you are in between an interesting conversation. :\</comment>


Why 37 Signals is Encouraging A Different Kind of Silicon Valley - <AUTHOR> http://serialtechnopreneur.blogspot.com/2008/04/why-37-signals-is-encouraging-different.html

<comment><USER2> Or maybe its because of things like this: <http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/smallbus.html>

Firms (total: 5,697,759) with:

Less than $100 thousand 1,291,552

...

$2.5 billion or more 891

So you should shoot to be in the 891/5,697,759 (0.016 %) instead of the 1,291,552/5,697,759 (22.7%)?

Maybe they are just promoting a more realistic and likely path to success...?

<comment><AUTHOR> They may be promoting a more likely path to success, and I'm not saying that they aren't. I just think that the point that they stand to benefit from more smaller companies should be brought up.</comment></comment>


Learning the Wrong Lessons - <AUTHOR> http://gaiustech.wordpress.com/2011/09/18/learning-the-wrong-lessons/

<comment><USER2> Might one objection to SP's be that they hurt your ability to migrate from one DB to another? I've never worked anywhere where SP's were widely used, and the chief argument has always been along the lines of "what if we switch to another database? We'll have to rewrite all this logic if it's in stored procedures."

Do you agree with this limitation? Does it change your thinking on the subject?

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, my experience of this is that languages change an order of magnitude more frequently than databases. You might see an organization use green screens, then VB, then CGI scripts, then back to the desktop with Java, then JSP, then RoR, all the while using successive versions of the same DB. Thanks for the good point, I'm going to write it into the post :-)</comment></comment>


FF Sandbox Escape - <AUTHOR> https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2020/06/ff-sandbox-escape-cve-2020-12388.html?m=1 <comment><USER2> Non-mobile link: [https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2020/06/ff-sandbox- es...](https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2020/06/ff-sandbox-escape- cve-2020-12388.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> Off topic, does Firefox depend on Chromium code?

> As I'm a Chromium committer as well as an owner of the Windows sandbox I > realized I might be better placed to fix this than Mozilla who relied on our > code.

<comment><USER4> Firefox uses some of the chromium code/libraries for the sandboxing on Windows.

[https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Sandbox/Specifics](https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Sandbox/Specifics)

<comment><USER5> I thought one of the main point of Firefox would be to not do this :D

<comment> vertex-four Chromium contains a really solid implementation of OS process sandboxing, which is rather secondary to the bits of building a web browser that we need competition on. It could very reasonably be spun out into its own project, but that takes time and effort so it stays part of Chromium.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It looks like this is not an actual exploit, but a hole in the sandbox that first requires injecting custom code into the process?

<comment><USER7> I guess it depends on how you define "exploit." I'd personally consider bypassing the sandbox an exploit, even though it's not a full chain.

</comment></comment><comment> starlig-ht "Sandbox Escape" sounded like something fun but alas

</comment><comment><USER8> Off topic but does project zero ever publish vulnerabilities on google products? More and more it seems like they mostly target google's competitors (Firefox, iOS, etc)

<comment><USER9> The very first sentence points to a PZ blog post about the Chrome sandbox.

<comment><USER10> The very first sentence points to a PZ blog post about a Windows vulnerability that affects the Chrome sandbox, not an issue with their own code.

<comment><USER11> Is the claim that PZ is some sort of PR attack on other companies?

Because as someone who is highly skeptical of Google's motives a lot of the time, that just seems like a batty take for anyone who is familiar with their work.

<comment><USER12> That's been the claim for as long as they existed, and one that Microsoft employees like to respond with in the media (and behind closed doors). It's not true though. I have talked to some of the early PZ folks and they are unwavering in their devotion to sincerely held beliefs that they are making the internet safer. They feel strongly that their hard disclosure deadline is a critical component of this and they stick to those principles, even when it is unfavorable to Google.

The _only_ reason that deadline exists is because many vendors have had a long history of taking advantage of researchers who agree to embargo details of their work while the vendors work on a fix. Bugs were going unfixed for years.

It has been my observation that this strategy only partially worked. The main thing that happened is that vendors now won't sit on Google reported vulns, because they know Google are not bluffing, but they're still generally happy to take their sweet time if the report comes from someone else. I know of some companies who put PZ bugs in a special queue to fast track them.

I think it has done a little bit in terms of setting norms for shorter disclosure timelines though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Meh...escape must mean something different at Google

<comment><USER14> What do you mean?</comment></comment>


Presentation Hacks: Timing, timing, timing - <AUTHOR> http://blog.rafaelcorrales.com/2010/04/presentation-hacks-timing-timing-timing.html

<comment><USER2> For the last several talks I've given, I've printed all my slides and taped them up to the wall.

Then I rehearse the talk once with a marker and write notes as I work out the wording.

Then I walk through the talk with someone else in the room, more explaining the slides and the narrative than actually rehearsing, taking notes while I do that.

Then I collect my notes and practice from that.

I find actually rehearsing to be incredibly difficult (it's awkward, in the same way that narrating a screencast is awkward, but magnified), and while this isn't a perfect substitute, it's drastically better than just trying to write out everything I'm going to say, or, worse, just throwing slides together and hoping.

<comment><AUTHOR> Awesome advice.

Can I include this in my next post (about practicing)?

<comment><USER2> Sure.</comment></comment></comment>


Bitcoin withdrawals are once again fully automated - <AUTHOR> https://www.bitstamp.net/article/Bitcoin-withdrawals-are-once-again-fully-automated/ <comment><USER2> Wow, MtGox price is almost half that of Bitstamp:

MtGox: $346 for 1 BTC

Bitstamp: $651 for 1 BTC

When MtGox re-enables bitcoin withdrawals, will there be a surge of arbitrage trading?

[https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=define:+arbitrage+trad...](https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=define:+arbitrage+trading)

<comment><USER3> For now, you can't withdraw BTC from MtGox. You can "buy" them at ~$350 but you can't transfer them to another exchange to sell them, nor transfer them to a private wallet to keep them safe.

MtGox promises that they will soon make possible to transfer the BCT again. Some people believe that the problem will be fixed soon. Some people believe that it will implode and disappear because all the technical problems and you never will see again any of the BTC you "have" in MtGox.

A 50% discount can be interpreted as "the market" believes that there is only a 50% chance that you will see the BCT at MtGox again. (It's really more complicated, perhaps it's a 40% that you will see them soon and a 20% that you will see them in a year. Don't interpret the number too literally.)

<comment><USER4> Question from someone who doesn't know much about this: is it possible to know that there is a genuine market in these MtGox bitcoins i.e. that $350 is a genuine market price and not just something made up by the exchange to conceal a complete collapse in value?

<comment><USER5> I suppose Gox could be buying up all the goxcoins less than $300. But then you'd see a decrease in future volume until the volume reaches zero. They wouldn't do that, because they're not smart enough to pull it off without anyone noticing.

<comment><USER4> So if hypothetically Gox was the only buyer for bitcoins trapped in Gox, would they be buying them with real USD, or with 'trapped in Gox' USD that may or may not turn out to have any value?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> There are several flaws that are still not fixed. This known vulnerability only "suspended trading" because people started using it too much. The other vulnerabilities aren't "in the wild" but offer similar exploits. I suspect that as soon as MTGox resumes we'll see a new exploit take its place.

If I were a conspiracy nut I'd tell you that the Merchant Services companies were responsible. But more likely I think that these issues are just the result of there being enough money at play now that there are those looking to beat the system and so instead of being a community of "hippies" who just want peace and love, the BTC community now has armed muggers and cat burglars. That's what happens when the hippies get to a point that they could buy mansions with imaginary coins they trade.

<comment><USER7> Whom might you be referring to when you say "Merchant Services companies"? Coinbase? Others?

<comment><USER6> Lady Visa and Master Card. The companies that have the most to lose if cryptocurrencies take off

<comment><USER8> They certainly do not. Western Union has more to lose.

<comment><USER6> 68% of Western Union users are unbanked. You think people who live on Cash, because they need absolute liquidity are going to user BitCoin?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> MtGox team can easily do arbitrage trading. They can buy a lot of bitcoins for half price at mtgox market, transfer them to bitstamp and sell (they admins, they have options to do it by hand). In a few minutes they can earn 100% from arbitrage trading.

<comment><USER10> But is taking advantage of other people's BTC being stuck there, strictly legal? If they're doing that, they're basically keeping other people's BTC hostage for personal profit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> What exactly are these Bitcoin withdrawals? I hear they tend to take a lot of time. I own some Bitcoin, but I bought them at a site that's not MtGox, though I think that site used the MtGox exchange, and stored the bitcoin at blockchain.info, which immediately had the bitcoins I purchased. No noticeable waiting for the transaction to be verified or anything.

So what exactly is the problem here? Are my bitcoins at blockchain.info safe? Do I care what happens at MtGox? Am I required to transfer them there before I can sell them there? (Very unlikely I'd ever want to use MtGox at this point, but you never know.)

</comment><comment><USER11> Does anyone have any experience buying BTC at Bitstamp? was it good or bad?

I am planning on buying some BTC and did not know about this exchange, so I am curious about it, if anyone can share any info on it it would be great. Thanks!

<comment><USER12> In my opinion, Coinbase and Bitstamp are currently the only Bitcoin exchanges worth using. Coinbase might be the better exhange (as far as I know, it wasn't vulnerable to the recent attack), but Coinbase is unusable for non-Americans as it doesn't accept international money transfers. Meanwhile, you can transfer money to Bitstamp regardless of where you live in the world (and if you're in Europe, currency transfers to Bitstamp are free of charge).

<comment><USER13> Coinbase uses bitstamp under the hood. It's just a mapping of bitstamp to the north american market.

<comment><USER12> Really? That's news to me.

<comment><USER13> They don't run their own exchange, except presumably when their own customers happen to have matching trades. Otherwise they use bitstamp as the clearing house - they basically act as a brokerage. The price you see on their site is just a filtered version of the current bitstamp price:

[http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1mjjfb/how_i_succes...](http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1mjjfb/how_i_successfully_manipulated_coinbases_price/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> What % of the Bitcoin transaction volume occurs through exchanges vs OTC? Anyone know?

</comment><comment><USER15> Bitcoin is messed up!</comment>


RIM thought iPhone was impossible in 2007 - <AUTHOR> http://www.electronista.com/articles/10/12/27/rim.thought.apple.was.lying.on.iphone.in.2007/

<comment><USER2> BlackBerry is in a good position with the Z10. It has encryption and privacy features no other phone has, and innovations like the hub. I switched my iPhone 5 for the Z10 and it's way more graceful.

Yeah, RIM were coasting for many years and they paid dearly. But I'm glad to see them back.</comment>


Bitnami MEAN stack: MongoDB, Express, AngularJS & NodeJS - <AUTHOR> http://blog.bitnami.com/2013/11/mean-stack-for-bitnami-mongodb-express.html

<comment><USER2> We started with a MEAN stack but are in the process of stripping out Mongo for MySQL... I guess that still makes it a MEAN stack.

<comment><USER3> Why not Postgres?

<comment><USER2> Well, simply because it was familiar to all of us and will be sufficient for the task. That said, I like the idea of a PEAN stack.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I personally like MongoDB, Express, NodeJS, Socket.IO, and Angular. MENSA. Genius!

</comment><comment><USER5> No, just no.

</comment><comment><USER6> This sounds more like the HIPSTER stack.

<comment><USER7> I was about to write that!</comment></comment>


Show HN: Tailwind Button Playground - <AUTHOR> https://minthemiddle.github.io/tailwind-button-playground/ <comment><USER2> This is cool! It'd be nice if there was a list of presets or something to scroll through.

<comment><AUTHOR> Nice idea, I created a ticket for that and will work on it: [https://github.com/minthemiddle/tailwind-button- playground/i...](https://github.com/minthemiddle/tailwind-button- playground/issues/9)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I've been toying with the idea of using Tailwind (I currently use Bulma), but I'm concerned about it taking more dev time than necessary. Would love to hear people's experiences!

<comment><USER4> I did some experiments, after watching the quite helpful design videos by the two main developers, and it's been quite useful. Definitely best suited (or only suited?) to a component-based system, where the repetition is soon factored out.

It's a bit hard to get a unified style going, especially if you don't get a thorough design document from someone who knows what they're doing -- but it's definitely doable, mostly because you don't attempt every minute px/em/ex variation on every border or padding, but you're restricted to a set of sizes and dimensions that fit well together. (Although, one of the developers still does fiddle too much in his videos to adjust to the Figma blueprint)

And easy enough to customize with the built-in tool, if you e.g. want to omit certain styles, add some distances yourself or have your own palette.

<comment><USER5> Relevant - [https://github.com/heybourn/headwind](https://github.com/heybourn/headwind). An opinionated Tailwind CSS class sorter built for Visual Studio Code.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is awesome! I recently switched to Tailwind from using Basscss in my projects, and am excited at the ecosystem and amount of support around Tailwind. Tools like this make it easier to introduce newcomers as well.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I built this small tool to create buttons with Tailwind. The buttons can have background and text colors, margins, paddings, rounded corners and shadow.

<comment><USER7> Are you going to build one for every design element in Tailwind?

<comment><AUTHOR> Good idea, any wishes?

<comment><USER8> Generate custom components, such ELM buttons already with CSS ([https://package.elm- lang.org/packages/elm/html/latest/Html#b...](https://package.elm- lang.org/packages/elm/html/latest/Html#button)) in it =)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The contrast button doesn't work when the background is set to transparent.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the bug report. Added an issue and will fix it asap: [https://github.com/minthemiddle/tailwind-button- playground/i...](https://github.com/minthemiddle/tailwind-button- playground/issues/8)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I like being able to modify the properties and see the resulting classes.

<comment><AUTHOR> I would like to expand it so you can build whole components (like cards or navigations) and get the classes to copy them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I find Tachyons better than Tailwind. Much shorter class names and a thought- through system which makes it hard to make bad design. Also setup (there's none) is easier than with Tailwind.

<comment><AUTHOR> Tachyons certainly is a good alternative. The system is as thought-through as Tailwind's, though there certainly is a bigger ecosystem (tutorials, videos, components) for Tailwind. Also I found it easier to customize and extend Tailwind. And if I don't plan to customize I just use the CDN version which is just one-line. Again, Tachyons is a perfect contender and if Tailwind does not convince you for whatever reason, have a look at Tachyons which has a slightly different philosophy.

<comment><USER11> My take on this customization: Once you need more use css-in-js libs like emotion. But maybe you like to elaborate with an example you custom stuff works in Tailwind?</comment></comment></comment>


American Trailer Parks: The owners are getting rich - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/may/03/owning-trailer-parks-mobile-home-university-investment <comment><USER3> On the surface this is a story about trailer parks and the rich profiting from captive renters, but I think the bigger story is this:

"He quotes US government statistics showing that in 2013, 39% of Americans earned less than $20,000 – less than the government's poverty threshold income of $20,090 for a three-person household."

39% means (Edit: 48,000,000 not 125,162,700, thanks @beachstartup) Americans are living below the poverty line! When you don't have options then you will be taken advantage of.

Our system is failing us, our government is failing us, our fellow Americans are failing us and we the community of Hacker News are failing us.

How do we disrupt poverty (in the USA and globally), disrupt failing governments and disrupt failing communities?

It seems as if our biggest downfall as humans is we don't see how what we do as individuals impacts everyone else and we are all dying deaths of 1b stings. "my carbon doesn't matter", "my investments don't matter", "my food doesn't matter", "my lifestyle doesn't matter", "my impact is so finite", "I'm just one person", etc.

<comment><USER4> "Disrupting poverty" is a mostly solved problem in e.g. the Nordic countries. The solution is a strong social welfare net - which means the poor never fall into absolute poverty - and high taxes to fund that net - which means the rich don't become as rich (doctors for example don't earn that much more than baristas, but medical school is free). Unfortunately most Americans wouldn't support the high taxes part.

Remember when class mobility (i.e. not being poor just because you had poor parents) was the American dream? That dream is now far more alive in Denmark than in America.

<comment><USER5> If doctors don't earn much more than baristas, why would I even bother putting myself through the hell that is medical school, free or not? I could skip it all and make almost as much pulling espresso shots. It makes no sense.

<comment><USER6> In a system like that, you would have fewer doctors yes, but the ones you have would be the ones who actually want to BE doctors. In the US you have a huge group who couldn't afford med school but really want to save lives as a doctor. Under that system, they could do it. I'd be entirely ok if everyone in the medical profession was there out of passion instead of for the money.

The jobs you'll have trouble filling are the ones that are shitty but get paid big bucks in the US, like oil field workers. Those guys are there entirely for the nice paycheck.

<comment><USER7> Hey, while working in mining as a labourer or other hands-on-tools job may be physically taxing and miserable in some sense (hence the large paycheque), it's enjoyable in its own right. My father works as a civil engineer out in mining towns here in Australia, both for the money and because he loves his job as much as I do mine. It's not all ruthless money-grabbing :)

<comment><USER6> Of course, but most people out there got into it because of the money or because there's nothing else for them. It's not a job where a new entrant to the workforce will think "yeah I think I'll do that for a living". Same with waste management jobs, etc. More standard vocational jobs like electricians would be separate, as its more 'desirable' and 'cool' from a young age, at least among some.

I'd also argue that a civil engineer is an entirely different beast from the actual laborers, who I was referring to. My understanding of a CE in that scenario is more of a planning and overseeing role (correct me if I'm wrong about that).

<comment><USER7> _> I'd also argue that a civil engineer is an entirely different beast from the actual laborers, who I was referring to. My understanding of a CE in that scenario is more of a planning and overseeing role (correct me if I'm wrong about that)._

You'd ordinarily be right, but as an interesting quirk of how things are run out where my Father is he's down in the trenches with the rest of them :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm so torn on this.

So, if I understand this correctly, this is how to get rich off renting to poor people: (1) Buy out a property where a bunch of poor people live, (2) Jack the rent up, (3) Justify it with superficial renovations.

It works because (1) the cost of moving is so high, and (2) all the other property owners are doing the same thing -- In fact, that's probably why they're doing this "university" to begin with.

On the one hand, this looks totally immoral. Poor people are forced to move out, or become even more impoverished, as a result of what you're doing. And it seems like the renovations are really just superficial -- they're designed to make people think "Oh, well they're doing renovations, so the property is worth more." Rather than a genuine, good-faith attempt at improving the properties in a way that the poor tenants can afford.

But on the other hand, this is capitalism. Oftentimes in capitalism, things look really, really bad. But from a macro point of view, things work out better in the long run. Could there be some kind of better long-term effect that I just can't see?

And yet, criticisms aside, I don't know if any municipality in the country has figured out a good solution from the regulation side of things. In fact, I'm skeptical if regulation can solve this problem. It feels like greedy slumlords are just going to be greedy slumlords no matter what rules we put into place. Maybe the real solution is to just, like, persuade greedy slumlords to think of tenants as real, living, breathing human beings instead of cattle.

<comment><USER9> I have an answer.

Buy the trailer park. Sell it to the tenants. Their rent payments become mortgage payments, in effect. When they finish buying the property en masse, it becomes controlled by a tenant-run cooperative.

This is, obviously, a money-losing proposition for whoever buys the trailer park in the first place. That's why it should probably be a government entity.

If the trailer park residents can do it by themselves -- and in several locations, they have -- that's great. But it would be preferable to have self- owned communities over slums, even if you have to have the government provide the initial loan and organization.

Is it socialism? Sure. The good kind.

<comment><USER10> There's proof that this solution works :

Something similar was done for a large percent of housing in Israel , in the 50-80's. Israel was a newly formed state, with massive immigration coming with pretty large economic challenges. And yet it worked out pretty well - <USER2> housing wasn't a big problem - and everybody could get a place to live.

<comment><USER11> Living in a maabara is considered good housing? Have you been in a rakevet building recently?

<comment><USER10> Yes i know what a rakevet building(long building with say more than 5 entrances) is.They might not be that beautiful but functionality wise they are pretty decent. And many would prefer to have the option of living in such building than the current mess that is Israel housing today.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The underlying problem here is that no town is willing to be the site of a new "trailer park" because of the negative stereotypes. Meanwhile the existing trailer parks go about further impoverishing their tenants and towns allow developers to put up "affordable housing" in the form of apartments instead, which is just as much of a ripoff and doesn't come with the benefits of owning your own home (trailer) and having some space around it. The people I personally think are responsible for this aren't the businessmen with questionable ethics taking advantage of an opportunity to make money, but the know-nothings that actively participate in local government solely to fight against a trailer park, Walmart, junkyard or some other local business that benefits poor people. It's the same phenomena seen in internet comments and product reviews. Only people with strong opinions bother to participate and more often than not those opinions are negative and driven by emotion or some self interest ("I'm too good to live in a town with a trailer park" or "I'm too good to live two streets over from "affordable housing") and supported by a poor interpretation of fact. We all know what the online form of this looks like but parallels can be found in local government as well.

<comment><USER13> I grew up poor and in subsidized housing. There are real negatives to living in and around these places, not just snobbery.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The big success of today's capitalistic system is indicated by the fact, that it even draws profits from the calamities of the people.

When I add the "globalization" situation (marginal wages for poor people in poorest countries, that oftentimes even are at the limit of starving in these countries, for the production of our goods), than it is not even seldom today, that this system draws its profits from poorest peoples.

It is said, that Henry Ford understood that for him to succeed, he also must help others to succeed. He and other big entrepreneurs laid the foundation for today's wealth of the western nations. Currently the system seems to have changed, by teaching people how to let others fail for the own success.

I don't think, that the current system is sustainable. Even Warren Buffet said that his class is winning, but it should not.

I think, in the long run, we will all loose this way.

</comment><comment><USER15> _he sent a letter to every tenant at that park in Grapevine, Texas, telling them the rent was going to more than double but was still below the market rate of $325.

"If you don't like this or you think you can do better, here's a list of all the other parks in Grapevine and a list of the owners," he said in the letter. "Go ahead, call them if you want to move. How many customers do you think we lost? Zero. Where were they going to go?"_

Says it all. When you've got a captive market, you can squeeze them for every nickel they have. You only have to leave them with just enough money such that they won't give up completely (although that's worth doing a few times; if they do just give up, you evict them and replace them, and the new tenants are paying the higher rate, and soon enough you've covered the costs of eviction and are making a higher profit).

<comment><USER16> Come now, you've dropped the context for that quote.

 _he sent a letter to every tenant at that park in Grapevine, Texas, telling them the rent was going to more than double but was still below the market rate of $325._

 _"If you don't like this or you think you can do better, here's a list of all the other parks in Grapevine and a list of the owners," he said in the letter. "Go ahead, call them if you want to move. How many customers do you think we lost? Zero. Where were they going to go?"_

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'm as big a capitalist as anyone, but, boy, reading that made me want to go out and buy a bunch of trailer parks just to lower the rent and lessen the squeeze on these poor folks. Sad!

</comment><comment><USER11> I have been to boot camp. I speak to a lot of mobile home park owners. When frank talks about raising rent, it's typically because the parks are mismanaged by people who don't know what they are doing. In areas where there are multiple parks, rents hit a plateu because of competition.

The other issue, not mentioned here, is that it's really hard to build a new park. No city wants them so they won't allow them. Effectively there is a cap on supply and demand is growing.

</comment><comment><USER18> What I start thinking after reading that is - how could an individual investor do this in a way that felt/seemed less sleazy and might actually help people? Most people's go-to seems to be to try to keep the rent low, but that doesn't really accomplish anything but keeping the same people in the same slightly less grinding poverty for the rest of their lives. What if you raised the rent like they say, but put some of the money towards some kind of education or life-counseling class on-premises instead of just pocketing it all?

I thought of that when I remembered a recent discussion on debt collectors where one collector decided that, instead of just hounding and threatening the debtors with dire consequences, they would actually help them make more money to pay the debits by giving them career counseling, resume help, interview practice, help finding jobs they could do, etc. You get your money and improve their lives at the same time.

Why not try the same thing here? I bet a lot of the people there could be making more money if there was somebody there to teach them things, train them in new skills, help them out with logistics, transportation, contacts, etc. Why not dream up new ways to help them instead of new ways to fuck them over?

<comment><USER19> The answer you are looking for is higher taxes on the owners of trailer parks to fund universal education, not higher rents on the people who live in trailer parks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax)

^^ This would ensure that nobody got wealthy from doing this type of thing, ever.

If you _don 't_ have a land value tax (or its cousin, property tax), the land value is still taxed, it's just that it's called rent instead. Instead of the stream of income ending up as a social security payment or building a school, it ends up bidding up the price of a Manhattan condo or buying a yacht.

<comment><USER21> What's the difference between this and property tax? Commercial property rates are generally determined by rents.

<comment><USER20> Property tax is assessed based upon on the value of the property, which is often in large part determined by the value of the land it is built upon. Same house in SF and the Midwest - the Midwest one is 5x cheaper. ~80% of the value of the house is the value of the land.

LVT is a tax that is intended to tax 100% of the value of the land and 0% of the value of the property built upon it, so in theory the house in the midwest would cost the same as the one in SF, but the tax you'd pay to live in SF would be higher.

Property tax would discourage this type of behavior (which is good). LVT would eliminate it entirely.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> _" Equity LifeStyle Properties (ELS) is the largest mobile home park owner in America, with controlling interests in nearly 140,000 parks. In 2014, ELS made $777m in revenue, helping boost Zell's near-$5bn fortune."_

They may be despicable, but I don't understand how these numbers support that claim. $777m revenue over, say, 70,000 parks (taking 'controlling interest' as '50% ownership') is around $10,000 in _revenue_ per year, per _park_.

It also doesn't seem consistent with those $300 a month rents.

So, please elucidate me. Do I misunderstand those numbers? How large is a typical trailer park? Does rent include a trailer or do you have to bring one on your own?

<comment><USER23> The author of the article got their numbers mixed up.

ELS only has ~370 communities. The 140,000 is accurate but is the number of individual sites/lots which that ~370 communities represent.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> What a perversion! The richest country in the world celebrates trailer parks. Even "upscale trailer parks". OK, one has to admit, it is an improvement over tent cities. No wonder these exist. When you're giving hundreds of billions to gamblers and nothing for social housing you get "ghetto" areas which even police avoids. You officially live in a free country and you surely can go into those areas but it's questionable if you'll come back with your life and your possesions.

<comment><USER25> As a clarification, I just want to make sure that by "gamblers" you were referring to the various Wall-Street one-percenters who repeatedly rape our economy. I don't mind millionaires (or billionaires) who actually produce something but it's aggravating that someone can take such a large percentage of the profit by simply shuffling money around.

I don't buy the "it creates market liquidity" argument for one minute ... we'd find the liquidity the market needs elsewhere.

<comment><USER24> Upvoted. Yes. And I agree: As long someone is producing value she is contributing to the society.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> They are _sorta_ trendy here in the Bay, since they offer the appeal of home ownership (of sorts) without the hassle of, you know, buying an actual home.

I lived in one in Sunnyvale with a roommate for a few years, and my experience was a bit mixed. The biggest beef was that the gate next to the light rail stop locked both opening and closing, so if you lost your key, you had to walk all the way around to Tasman (paranoid suburbanites about crime).

That said, I still think a condo or townhouse is a better deal.

</comment><comment><USER27> The big surprise for me in this article was that housing sex offenders was such an effective way to get rid of drug dealers. Sex offenders bring attention from the police, media, and ordinary citizens, and drug dealers don't want to be near all that attention.

<comment><USER28> The original article glossed over this, IMO. The linked Orlando Weekly article [32804] about Lake Shore Village explains that it's the sex offenders themselves who chase off the criminal element. The gist was that they consider themselves to be sufficiently hounded and they don't need their lives complicated by incidental criminal acts. In fact, there are so few places for sex offenders to live (given the 1,000 foot minimum distance requirements) that they are eager to protect those few areas they can call home.

[32804]: [http://www.orlandoweekly.com/orlando/the-scarlet- letter/Cont...](http://www.orlandoweekly.com/orlando/the-scarlet- letter/Content?oid=2256113)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Mandatory read about an old nice and innocent man with an ice-cream cone...

[http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/04/03/17024/warren- buffe...](http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/04/03/17024/warren-buffetts- mobile-home-empire-preys-poor)

</comment><comment><USER30> Here's a crazy idea: regulate residential real estate.

This is sickening. It should not be that the poorest of society are further pressed because some graduate of the "mobile home university" wants to jack up rents for his class project.

We do NOT need this free market. It is exploitation backed by the threat of state violence.

<comment><USER31> > _We do NOT need this free market._

The article says it is difficult to establish new trailer parks, as the authorities will not give permissions. So I don't think it is a free market. It is artificially created scarcity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Getting even richer by taking from the poorest. Disgusting.

<comment><USER33> They're not taking from the poorest, they're selling to them. People in low income brackets use services and pay for them, just like everyone else in a market economy.

As a society, we need to stop acting like every business that deals with the poor is inherently evil. Sure, such businesses can have unethical practices, but simply charging people for goods or services isn't one of those practices.

<comment><USER32> I was not talking about poor people paying for what they need and consume, I was talking about rich people investing in trailer parks just to get richer. They invest with the sole purpose of getting more money back then they put it, taking the difference from the poor.

<comment><USER34> Yes dan that is how money works. You'd rather the poor have no place to live??

<comment><USER35> These people are not building anything, there are the same amount of houses before and after they buy them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> In Palo Alto, the last trailer park is being closed:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9586401](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9586401)

</comment><comment><USER37> Not surprising. I once looked into trailer/camper housing to save money... Turns out the combined rent was about 80% the cost of an apartment, with vastly reduced choice of living location. Didn't seem worth it.

</comment><comment><USER38> Isn't all landlords are getting rich since the beginning of time, and land ownership is the central issue of all politics (leaving some abstractions, like "equality" aside?)

</comment><comment><USER39> So what's the surprise here? The economics of a trailer park are lucrative for landlords?

<comment><USER40> "They've got to live somewhere, so you combine them in a certain place. They don't go out to hurt people. I think it's a community service, because if not they will be in your neighbourhood. Now they're all in one place, you can watch them all in one place. And they pay well and won't mess things up. I mean, why would you not? I think it's a brilliant idea."

The surprise here is that the ghettoization of identifiable groups is not unintentional; in fact, it's planned.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> One of the elements that enables the perpetuation of this system is the food- stamp program. The landlords are counting on it. If some of these people did not get food stamps they would starve to try to pay the rising rent. People would leave or violently rebel, not starve for the sake of a landlord who decides to raise the rent 50%.

</comment><comment> anti-shill I live in an equity lifestyles mobile home park near denver. My job pays me income in the 87th percentile of all workers in america. Not a sex offender park here.

The article does not mention it of course but the reason parks and apartment landlords are able to rip off the poor is because the zoning laws all over america have closed off the opportunity to build more mobile home parks and cheap apartments. The fact that over 50% of all voters live in their own homes means that the politicians are able to sell themselves out to landlords and create zoning laws that prevent developing land that would allow placement of mobile homes. It's all about driving up property values and exploiting those who are at the bottom.

America is not really about the american dream of capitalism and entrepreneurship. The american dream of about using the government to put the squeeze on the unprotected ones.

I would go further and comment on trailer park demographics, but I don't want to get downvoted.

<comment><USER42> Same deal in the UK.

Consider that zoning laws in the UK make agricultural land incredibly cheap. This means people with means can basically wander around buying the countryside.

So even if the laws are ever repealed or changed, it doesn't matter - you've just given a windfall to those with wealth.

I have kind of always had this thought that the real world has to eventually turn into a late stage game of Monopoly in which some people just own everything. If you have the resources to buy a large portion of e.g. all property in London, you can basically set the market rental rate because it's inelastic. The only option people have is to move away and try to jump start another city.

I actually think that a reasonable way to think of inequality is that it is bad because it produces negative feedback loops.

Firstly, it's a lower competition environment; those with less money are generally not able to become landlords or business owners etc, so the original owners win more and more.

Secondly, the fact that this happens results in more inequality and results in... even less competition.

Hence there is no need to invoke moral arguments; inequality, at least beyond some reasonable level, is simply inefficient. It prevents markets from operating well and allows economic rent.

<comment><USER43> I have feared this would happen, and it's pretty much here.

The "this" is the wealthy buying up all rentable property, and raising rents until disposable income is close to 0% for many people.

In the past, I had a jobs that entailed collecting rent from tenants--and I hated the job. This is what bother me the most; I hated going to the door, or unit(mini-storages), and asking for that huge chunk of money each month. In every case, the family, or person was at the complete mercy of the Landord. I never met a Landord who didn't look for a reason to raise rents.

These Landlords knew the pain their rate increases would cause, and would hire guys like me(poor and needed a job) to do their dirty work. I think what bother me the most is when market rates went down--so many Landlords let their property sit idle until the market picked up.

I don't know the answer other than Landlords should get morality implants? I didn't mean to high jack stegosaurus' comment--I just don't like to see this imprisionment taking place so nonshalonant, like it's just business? It's not just business. Your business is affecting people lives on a very personal level.

It comes down to I don't want to live in a society that's so bifurcated. I see it happening and I don't like it. The disparity of income is here; I just can't keep acting like making money off the struggling, and dependent is copacetic!

(I used the word copacetic because when I was in school, I worked at a mini- storage. My manager who lived on the premises, with his wife, was the nicest guy. I saw how he struggled financially. Copacetic was my manager's favorite word. Whenever, I use it I hope he is doing well. I remember the look on his face when he had to tell people being close homeless, the owner is raising rents again. I'm even in denial. There were many people living out of their cars, and putting their few possessions in the units--they were homeless. Anyway, stay out of mini-storages if you can. I saw so many people put their stuff in and never get it out. They couldn't part with their stuff, and became perpetual tenants. Those were the lucky ones. The unlucky ones were already homeless.)

Good night people!

<comment><USER44> Yeah, while I generally support the freemarket, something as finite and important as property to live in shouldn't be at the mercy of it.

Near London we're living in a world where middle earners just 20-30 years older than us were able to get property at resonable prices, sit on them, and now someone earning in the top 1% will struggle to buy anything decent.

Further to that, the only property taxes we have here are council tax. Remove all the funiture from your property and leave it empty and you don't need to pay this. I'd argue that's backwards and what we should really be doing is taxing on levels based on empty, rented and living in, with taxes being prohibitly expensive to sit leaving a house empty.

Of course, being 40 and above has had left you with ample oppertunity to milk the status quo, so you're not voting for this and neither are those who inherit from it.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


No More Mr. Nice Guy - <AUTHOR> http://www.nomoremrniceguy.com/ <comment><USER2> I just read this book a few months ago, It was fantastic. After No More Mr. Nice Guy I highly recommend Models [http://www.amazon.com/Models-Attract- Women-Through-Honesty/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Models-Attract-Women- Through-Honesty/dp/1463750358) and How to win friends and influence people is a great self help book too [http://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends-Influence- People/dp/06...](http://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends-Influence- People/dp/0671027034)

I've read these three books (Nice Guy then Friends and then Models) over the past few months and they have really taught me how to build up my confidence.</comment>


IBM secretly used New York's CCTV cameras to train its surveillance software - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/6/17826446/ibm-video-surveillance-nypd-cctv-cameras-search-skin-tone <comment><USER2> Wouldn't the actual original article on The Intercept be a better link?:

[https://theintercept.com/2018/09/06/nypd-surveillance- camera...](https://theintercept.com/2018/09/06/nypd-surveillance-camera-skin- tone-search/)

Original title:

IBM USED NYPD SURVEILLANCE FOOTAGE TO DEVELOP TECHNOLOGY THAT LETS POLICE SEARCH BY SKIN COLOR

</comment><comment><USER3> As worrying as this is, the title could use some work. This is not IBM being sneaky, it's IBM actively partnering with the NYPD to develop surveillance technology for public monitoring. IBM and the NYPD were in on this together.

<comment><USER4> If IBM made it, we have nothing to worry about

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I wonder if this ~2012 project [1] was intended to supplement the Domain Awareness System jointly created by Microsoft, and then later added to the Public Security Privacy Guidelines [0] along with DAS? The article states the NYPD stopped using it in 2016? What changed in 2016?

[0] [http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/crime_prevention/...](http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/crime_prevention/public_security_privacy_guidelines.pdf) [1] [https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4452844/IBM- SVS-A...](https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4452844/IBM-SVS- Analytics-4-0-Plan-Update-for-NYPD-6.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER6> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_during_World_War_II](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_during_World_War_II)

Hmm....

</comment><comment><USER7> I wouldn't be surprised to read one day that Facebook permitted some 3rd party to use private nude photos of its users to train a nudity filter.

We need new rules and we need them now.</comment>


IE 8 beta 2 Ajax features - <AUTHOR> http://ajaxian.com/archives/ie-8-beta-2-ajax-features

<comment><USER2> Exciting times. Browser competition is getting hot, and we're going to have a bunch of neat new capabilities soon. Even IE is innovating!

<comment><USER3> Well, yeah. But where's the source code? IE 4 brought lots of innovation too, you know?

I'd take an open source IE 6 vs a super-duper IE 8, anytime.

<comment><USER4> The real value of the EOL'ed IE source code would be to see if there are any comments from the developers who knew they would be cocking up the industry for so long.</comment></comment></comment>


Code Anthem's Law - <AUTHOR> http://codeanthem.com/blog/index.php/2010/04/code-anthem-law/

<comment><USER2> "The less the median developer on a software project team is paid, the more the project will cost to complete."</comment>


A place spacecraft go to die - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-41683839 <comment><USER2> Tangentially related: [https://pro.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&ALID=2K...](https://pro.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&ALID=2K7O3RJHCE03)

Rocket debris in Kazakhstan. Which I am always looking for reasons to post.

<comment><USER3> I seent it

This is that Korolev cross with the four boosters maxing a cross pattern (at least that's what I remember this from) also a random cool thing is the yo-yo despin with the strings/mass pretty sweet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Note that this only applies to low earth orbit. Geosynchronous spacecraft don't re-enter; they instead are retired to the "graveyard", a supersynch orbit about 500 to 1000 km above GEO.

<comment><USER3> Curious is it safer to not just fly them off into space (requires more energy) or they want to know where it is rather than unkown?

<comment><USER5> Requires too much energy.

[https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/29785/is-the- esc...](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/29785/is-the-escape- velocity-at-geosynchronous-earth-orbit-0km-hr)

<comment><USER3> Not sure if I understand right to get to that circular orbital velocity 70% of escape velocity is required so since it's still in orbit it still has that 70% then is 1% enough or do you need the other 30%? And even if it's just 1% that's probably a lot with regard to mass shed from off the pad.

Laser space brooms haha. Or drone ion thrusters that can latch onto things and push them. Not sure if there is an exothermic rocket that is electric with high impulse (not take forever)

The drone thrusters is from the show The Expanse haha

<comment><USER5> If you're flying 70m/s at a stable circular orbit then you need to accelerate to 100m/s in order to escape. That's an increase of 42%.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Reminds me a lot of Skylab debris (mentioned in the article): [http://mentalfloss.com/article/70708/nasas- unpaid-400-litter...](http://mentalfloss.com/article/70708/nasas- unpaid-400-littering-ticket-skylab-debris-australia)

</comment><comment><USER7> Wasn't there some speculation about destroying satellites with ground-based high-powered lasers?

One could try to blast this thing into multiple smaller pieces, most of which would likely burn up in the atmosphere.

If it doesn't work, the failed attempt shouldn't increase the risk for anybody.

<comment><USER5> You can't destroy (melt?) a satellite with a ground-based laser. What you perhaps mean is to use a laser to slow down satellites such that they fall back to earth. Currently we don't have any efficient means to deorbit space debris. A laser is one possible method.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Is there a protocol for warning people if an out-of-control satellite crash is imminent in a populated area?

Who is responsible for covering damages caused by this satellite?

<comment><USER9> When skylab landed on australia they sent a littering bill to Nasa. The general rule is that, if you want your hardware back, you have to pay damages. A sat isn't generally a big deal even over a populated area. It's a lot less damaging than a small plane crash. Those happen every day.

Depending on who you talk to, much more natural rock falls to earth every day (asteroids etc) than satellites. A hundred pound rock might make a local newspaper headline but only if someone sees it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> what about the reactors? surely this must have some environmental impact...

<comment><USER11> Reactors? The article doesn't mention any reactors.

If you're talking about radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) used on spacecraft, they are limited to deep space (Voyager, Cassini, etc) and long duration planetary missions (Curiosity rover) only. Only a handful of 1960's military satellites used RTGs on Earth orbit [0].

RTGs also tend to be rather small, the environmental impact of the small amount of Pu-238 shouldn't be very large (compared to nuclear testing or nuclear incidents for example). There may be Hydrazine (propellant) or other nasty environmental hazards on spacecraft that would be more significant.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_ge...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator#Nuclear_power_systems_in_space)

<comment><USER10> thanks!</comment></comment></comment>


The World Cup of Dirty Dreams: Inside Brazil's Most Infamous Brothel - <AUTHOR> http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/the-world-cup-of-dirty-dreams-inside-brazils-most-infamous-brothel-20140626

<comment><USER2> NSFW pic at the top</comment>


Quartex Pascal, Status - <AUTHOR> https://jonlennartaasenden.wordpress.com/2020/09/14/quartex-pascal-status/ <comment><USER2> Grabbed this out of a post on that blog to maybe help explain what this is:

tldr? (i may be wrong) this is a Delphi like programming system for building applications - probably niche, but seems neat!

""" The QTX Framework was initially a library I created back in 2014, but it has later been completely overhauled and turned into a full RTL. It is not compatible with Smart Pascal and has a completely different architecture.

QTX Pascal is indirectly funded by the Amiga Retro Community (which might sound strange, but the technical level of that community is beyond anything I have encountered elsewhere) since QTX is central to the creation of the Quartex Media Desktop. It is a shame that Embarcadero decided to not back the project. The compiler and toolchain would have been a part of Delphi by now, and I wouldn't have to write a separate IDE. But when they see what this system can deliver in terms of services, database work, mobile and embedded -they might regret it. The project only accepts donation funding, I am not interested in investors or partners. If you want a vision turned into reality, you gotta do it yourself. Everything else just gets in the way.

For developers by developers

Quartex Pascal is made for the community. It will be free for students and open-source projects. And a commercial license will never exceed $300. It is a shareware license and the financial aspects is purely to help fund further research and development of the desktop cloud platform. The final goal (CloudForge) is to compile the IDE itself to JavaScript, so people only need a browser to write enterprise level applications via Quartex Media Desktop. When that is finished, my work is done – and people have a clear path to the future. """

</comment><comment><USER3> Amazing and great to see people making current and great projects with a Pascal variant.</comment>