When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/opinion/rich-getting-richer-taxes.html <comment><USER2> I wrote this a few years ago in response to a similar piece:

The problem is that the rich have the ability to take their income in alot of different ways.

Tax income more, they'll take it as dividends.

Tax dividends more, they'll take it as capital gains.

Tax capital gains, they won't realize their capital gains until they can offset them with realized losses or they'll just get bank loans again't their stock holdings.

Tax assets on death and they'll pass them o n in trusts. Some will move money off shore if they think they can get better returns that way.

The problem is that no tax code can close all loop holes because you just can't foresee the creative ways people will out maneuver the tax code.

Who would have thought 25 years ago that companies would buy other companies in different countries, not to acquire their products or markets, but to acquire their headquarters address to lower the tax paid in the US.

I don't think anything has changed.

<comment><USER3> "The problem is that no tax code can close all loop holes because you just can't foresee the creative ways people will out maneuver the tax code."

I disagree. I simple flat tax rate where everything is taxed at a single rate would close every single one of the loopholes above, if only by making it moot.

The fact that the rich can maneuver themselves into a much lower tax rate than the average person presents a significant, unfair advantage in my opinion. A flat tax rate would make things much more equitable. Plus it would asimplify the tax code tremendously.

<comment><USER4> A flat tax rate is not a good idea whatsoever; if you tax e.g. 20% of earnings ,do you believe people who earn $30k a year are impacted the same way as people earning $200k or more? Sure, those who earn more pay more, but it hits them in "extra" earnings, while the poor are taxed on money they need to survive.

A (very) progressive tax rate with a few ways of reducing the tax based on social (e.g. number of children, etc) criteria would probably work better here.

<comment><USER5> How about a flat tax rate, but have essential goods be tax free?

<comment><USER6> That seems like an income tax mixed with a sales tax credit? It sounds awkward because income tax comes out of your paycheck but the sales tax is applied at the point of sale. You'd have income tax withheld, buy food with the money you have left over, get credited for the essential goods you bought, then pay rent, then get a credit for that...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "The theory behind all those high-end tax cuts [...] was that it would unleash entrepreneurial energy [...] The first half of that theory may well have come true. Many of the world's most successful companies are American — not only Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google, but also Exxon Mobil, Walmart, Johnson & Johnson and JPMorgan Chase."

The article fails to mention that even when the tax code was 90% on the highest earners, most of the successful companies were American, including Exxon Mobil, GM, Ford, DuPont, AT&T...

Anecdotally, I don't think I have ever met anyone starting a business thinking "If I don't make more than 2 million a year for myself, I won't have a successful business." So increasing tax rate beyond a couple of millions a year, or even before, seems a no-brainer to me, at least until everybody gets healthcare and free education.

<comment><USER8> > So increasing tax rate beyond a couple of millions a year, or even before, > seems a no-brainer to me, at least until everybody gets healthcare and free > education.

How much money do you think that will take? I'm willing to bet your estimate is too low by a factor of 100. I've known multiple family friends who have easily used $500k+ a piece in government healthcare.

<comment><USER7> >How much money do you think that will take?

Most developed countries pay $3,000 to $4,000 per capita, according to Wikipedia. US pays about $7,400 per capita. So that would be the costs I guess. Beware there are more "capita" than taxpayers, and that all taxes are not paid through income taxes.

Hopefully we can find ideas from other countries to pay less than current prices.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_system#International_co...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_system#International_comparisons)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > The theory behind all those high-end tax cuts — a theory that I once found > persuasive, I admit — was that it would unleash entrepreneurial energy: The > lure of great wealth would inspire business leaders to work harder and > smarter, and the economy would flourish.

That's one reason I suppose but it's important to note that despite large differences in top marginal tax rates, the percentage of tax revenue as a percentage of GDP has stayed remarkably stable since the 40s. So perhaps something else is going on.

[0] [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/U.S._Fed...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/U.S._Federal_Tax_Receipts_as_a_Percentage_of_GDP_1945%E2%80%932015.jpg)

<comment><USER10> This is extremely interesting and deserves more attention.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> As CEO of GE, Jeffrey Immelt earned $17,744,236 last year.

GE has 330,000 employees.

If Immelt decided to take $0 and share his income equally with the remaining GE employees, he'd increase each worker's income by $53.77 per year. That's not going to do much to close either the wealth or income gaps.

Part of what we are seeing is simply that corporations are getting so much larger than they've ever been in history. Therefore, the pay granted to the CEO is for he or she to oversee larger and larger groups of people.

<comment><USER12> GE employed 304,000 people in 1955.

[http://247wallst.com/investing/2010/09/21/americas- biggest-c...](http://247wallst.com/investing/2010/09/21/americas-biggest- companies-then-and-now-1955-to-2010/2/)

<comment><USER11> Walmart employs 2,200,000 today.

McMillon's total pay is $19,800,000.

Per employee, that's $9.

<comment><USER12> I agree with your top level point about CEO pay not being significant compared to corporate budgets. I'm just saying that companies that employ a lot of people aren't exactly a new phenomenon.

<comment><USER11> What is material to me is the notion that somehow the wealthy are responsible for the plight of the middle and lower class. In the US, the wealth that some enjoy is a side-effect of the economy's behavior. The economy behaves in the way it was designed* (not saying the designs are sound in all respects, but it is intentionally designed and its behavior reflects that design).

I'm not convinced that the income/wealth gap itself is 'the problem'. Therefore, taxing the wealthy at a greater level will not be 'the fix'.

What we want is for lower and middle income families to have more disposable income, less financial stress, and overall better quality of life. I believe that the most potent knob to affect that is the number of jobs available. Increasing the number of jobs increases the demand for workers. Increasing demand for workers increases the average pay. We can talk about the quality of the jobs as well, but I believe the primary influence from a macro-economic view is the number of jobs.

US unemployment is at a 10 year low[0]. So we should see pay (and inflation) creeping up over the next few years, barring some unforeseen economic disaster, and the lower and middle class will benefit.

[0] [https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000](https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000)

* One illustration that keeps coming to mind: Two investors invest in the same instrument. That instrument returns 10% per year. They hold the investment for 5 years.

Investor A invests $10,000 Investor B invests $100,000.

At time 0 the 'wealth gap' is $90,000. At 5 years, A's investment is worth $16,100 and B's is worth $161,000. The wealth gap has grown to $145,000. It seems to me that people are making the observation that this gap is increasing, and it is, but in reality, it's a natural manifestation of capitalist economies. We've been in a bull market for 7 years, it's borderline unprecedented, and one observable effect is that the gap in absolute $ between rich and poor is increasing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The business leaders who really matter are motivated by their passion and curiosity, shaping their legacy, changing the world, etc. I don't think a personal tax rate of 90% would stop the next Steve Jobs from doing important work.

If we're talking about a class of people who don't enjoy their work and won't keep at it without outsized financial incentives, I really don't think we're describing visionaries that we depend on for realizing our potential as a species. I'm 100% ok if hedge fund managers who underperform the market anyway decide to close up shop and sip pina coladas all day.

<comment><USER14> I dislike the myth that business leaders and entrepreneurs who are motivated by money do not matter. There are plenty of income-motivated people who are building meaningful products.

<comment><USER15> Sure, but income and wealth inequality is affecting our sociopolitical stability. Should we really prioritize their success over the lower and middle classes? How much higher should executive pay be compared to the workers? Why should executives get tens of millions per year while the laborers make $20-40k/yr?

<comment><USER14> Not totally sure what you're responding to. I was just commenting on this statement from the parent -

>The business leaders who really matter are motivated by their passion and curiosity, shaping their legacy, changing the world, etc.

I agree though. Most laborers work 10x harder than I do. I'm just rewarded from having some obscure knowledge. I do not necessarily agree that we should be going after individuals though. I think corporations are the correct target.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Like most treatments of this topic, when comparing tax rates from the 1950s and 1960s to today, it fails to note that very few people actually _paid_ this much higher marginal rates. Instead, the high taxation on the upper income brackets encouraged companies to offer perks and benefits that would not be classified as income, and the wealthy would take advantage of these instead.

Furthermore, yes, tax rates are lower today _if_ you exclude Social Security and OASDI[0], but tax revenue as a percentage of national income is _higher_. That's a sign that the higher tax rates did actually suppress economic activity, and that both the government and its citizens are actually better off with tax rates closer to what they are today than what they were 50-70 years ago.

[0] SS/OASDI tax rates have increased sevenfold since they were introduced in the late 1930s

<comment><USER17> > _the high taxation on the upper income brackets encouraged companies to > offer perks and benefits that would not be classified as income, and the > wealthy would take advantage of these instead_

An interesting anecdote on this is in the origin of American private health insurance. It came about from war-era wage freezes. Companies wanted to differentiate, were barred from doing so with price, and so shifted to benefits [1].

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_in_the_United...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_in_the_United_States#History)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I wonder how many more jobs would actually be created if CEOs pay was funneled into R&D or expansion or how many job cuts would have been avoided through the years

<comment><USER12> In 2016 GE (for example) spent 5.5 billion on R&D. Their CEO Jeffrey Immelt made about 20 million.

I don't think a 0.363% increase in the R&D budget would make much of a difference.

<comment><USER19> So, if I could hire 20 researchers and spend $1m/year each on their salaries and equipment... your guess is that I would accomplish nothing?

<comment><USER20> If you couldn't have managed that with $5.5Bn then why does an extra $20M help?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I don't understand the obsession with financially successful people.

If you have ambitions for financial success, learn a skill that is in high demand or find another way to create value for society.

If you have no ambitions for financial success, you have no right to go around complaining about the success of others.

Stop fetishizing successful people who deprecate their success. Some, like Warren Buffet, are disingenuous and fairly transparent panderers. Others, like George Romney here, may well be sincere. But they achieved success by creating value and making careful and studied decisions about the allocation of capital.

> Quite often in the pursuit of more wealth, they trample on the little guys, > leaving them to struggle more.

Show evidence.

> Or through fraud, graft, and knowing who to bribe (see "campaign finance").

Show evidence. Not baseless allegations.

<comment><USER22> "But they achieved success by creating value and making careful and studied decisions about the allocation of capital."

Or through fraud, graft, and knowing who to bribe (see "campaign finance").

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> The damning phrase in the article is "which has left less money for everyone else."

The economy is not a zero sum game.

<comment><USER19> It's not zero-sum, but it's also not the case that your money and mine are unrelated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> When people talk about complex tax codes and the "end of the quarter", they don't really consider how these things have evolved into farms of nearly- enslaved workers (accountants). Such horrendous workplaces _do_ exist inside big companies: the job is to figure out how to pay the least tax, and time is of the essence. I knew someone who worked as such a finance person, at a contracting company for the oil industry, 7 days a week from 6 AM to midnight. Oh, he had a day "off" every few months but that was only because the quarter had just ended and literally the next day they started a new march of insanity, all for the numbers. Dozens of workers, hundreds; they all swore at each other, it was a disaster of over-stress and anger, and it was actually more common to find divorced people there than not.

</comment><comment><USER25> Guess I'm the only one that thinks you should just keep your money if you earn it? The article begins by talking about Romney's character and how he didn't try to take every possible dollar, then tries to attribute this to progressive tax codes. Maybe the "problems" we have are due to the erosion of basic virtues, and trying to make an airtight "system" where no one trusts anyone and we assume total greed and power hunger by every citizen is doomed to failure. Also there's little evidence that charging higher taxes is helping anyone (note highest spending by government in history, wages and income stagnant) -- guess its a given in this forum that higher taxes are assumed to be good...

<comment><USER26> > keep your money if you earn it

Earned? My ass.

A fortune amassed from profits skimmed off of HFT isn't earned and produces nothing of value.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Hard to make $$ in a country that worships established wealth without getting into the old boys club. You can make great money with a good idea but working two jobs for 170K gets old.

<comment><USER28> Probably not as old as working 2 jobs for 17K. Perspective.

<comment><USER27> I'd suggest the same (perspective) to you. I understand fully what you are trying to say but this world is not about pity and never has been. It is about making the best of things and helping who you can as you can while remaining sane.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I think the thing we keep forgetting is if "everyone" makes more the only thing that is going to change is housing and food prices and you will gain 0.

<comment><USER30> If everyone makes $10,000 a year more then rich people will barely notice. Poor people would be able to afford to heat their homes and buy insurance. I think everyone who's poor would consider that much a gain.

<comment><USER31> So the energy and insurance tycoons are the big winners?

Also - What makes you think poor people will make such practical spending decisions? I hardly believe they will buy insurance. More likely to buy nicer food/dining out/entertainment and nicer cars/clothes/signals of wealth. Again, this materializes mostly as profit in companies owned by the rich.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I was surprised when I clicked the link that I saw text there. Expected an empty page. :p

</comment><comment><USER33> There is only one real tax on the wealthy: a revolution in which all property rights are reset. Everything else is a war between the wealthy themselves to redistribute things in their favor.

<comment><USER8> And there you sit with probably $50k-100k in assets while the average African has less than one thousand dollars.

If you truly wanted the "revolution" to be fair, then all the money would go to third world countries and you'd be left with $3000. But nope, you actually want to be allowed to steal from the rich so you can live an American middle class life without having to work.

<comment><USER19> The parent post didn't say "and I'll benefit from this". Why can't they have made an honest post -- a truly fair economy would start with most citizens of first-world countries losing everything we've got.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I'm not sure why so many people look up to the rich. They fail at kinder- garden. I have to work very hard to help my 4 year old to understand how to share.

If your using money to keep score your probably using the wrong system to keep score.

I've been using weight watchers lately and keep score with the right system helps a lot.

<comment><USER35> > If your using money to keep score your probably using the wrong system to > keep score.

I think another side of the problem is 99% of people who are not rich are using the same score and since they are "losing" they hate the rich. If we all stop using money as the score we'd all be better off.

<comment><USER36> What quantifiable system of keeping score is as universally applicaple as money? Money is an awful way to keep score on a global scale, but it seems to be the best we have.

<comment> wu-ikkyu What does the score of money measure?

<comment><USER34> I think that's the point. It's a great way to trade trinkets. It's an ok system for other things. It's horrible for tracking role models and life work. Taxes are a "quick fix"</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


New York's success provides road map for others taking aim at pedestrian deaths - <AUTHOR> https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/new-york-s-vision-zero-success-provides-road-map-for-others-taking-aim-at-pedestrian-deaths-1.4771286 <comment><USER2> For those interested in this, I can highly recommend "What Seattle can learn from Dutch street design" [1]. It's a presentation that gives an overview of all sorts of small infrastructural measures, similar to the Queens Boulervard redesign, taken in the Netherlands to prevent traffic deaths. What makes it especially interesting is that e.g. rather than reducing the speed limit, cars are nudged to slow down through using different material for the road, or by simply making the road less wide.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0GA901oGe4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0GA901oGe4)

<comment><USER3> The most interesting concept is that of shared spaces- it's a bit counter intuitive, but if you put cars on the same level (figuratively and literally) as pedestrians, cyclists and other road users you can significantly reduce accident rates. You do this by removing curbs, signage, lane markings etc. This encourages road users to pay attention to the road ahead and slow down, and also makes the whole area a nicer place to be in.

The journey time may seem slower to car drivers, but given you eliminate most major accidents the average journey time is probably the same.

<comment><USER4> Presumably there is a limit to this, after all at some point in the distant past we started adding curbs, signage etc in an attempt to improve road safety.

<comment><USER5> To make way for faster cars. We have collectively conceded our streets to cars. Making shared spaces requires cars go very slow. In city centers and precincts it makes total sense. Cars shouldn't dominante the CBD traffic flow.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> As a New Yorker and a driver, I can tell you I've been gobsmacked by the resistance put up to fight protected bike lanes and speed cameras (which we just lost in bulk as the legislation supporting them was not renewed). Madness.

<comment><USER7> As a former Phoenix resident, I completely understand the resistance to speed cameras. They are always touted as a public safety measure, but widely regarded as little more than a revenue machine. In my experience, the trigger speed was always perilously close to the natural flow of traffic which (at least in the places where I have lived) is consistently the speed limit + some amount. The net effect was always a sudden, dramatic slowing of traffic in the camera zone followed by a return to business-as-usual.

Edit: I should clarify that these were freeway speed cameras. Maybe they are more effective as a safety device in pedestrian-heavy areas, but I have no experience with the cameras is that context.

<comment><USER8> In South Korea, this is taken to an extreme. Every freeway speed camera is indicated on the default Maps app. It beeps (shorter and louder as the camera gets closer) and then stops.

So everyone just slows down as their maps beep and speed up again once they pass the camera. But, I think this is accepted practice and my suspicion is that a lot of these cameras aren't even real.

Just by having them placed along the freeway every x metres, they force cars to constantly slow down.

<comment><USER9> people dramatically slowing down then speeding up is likely more dangerous than everyone maintaining a speed higher than the posted limit, which makes the cameras a net negative from a safety perspective. Highways built for safety and limited speed differential across users is so much safer than limiting top speeds.

<comment><USER10> More dangerous to drivers (especially those inclined to drive at dangerous speeds), maybe. More dangerous for pedestrians? I'm not sure about that -- especially if nobody's obeying the limit in the first place, getting drivers to slow down at all is a good thing. Or do you like to have drivers speeding at 50MPH down the narrow side street (signed at 20MPH) your kids cross every day to get to school?

<comment><USER11> They're talking about freeways and highways, not narrow side streets.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Cars must stop for pedestrians at crosswalks in Norway. I got very used to this. Occasionally drivers ignore that rule, but in general, it's a very nice thing.

However, in Oslo, the only thing that doesn't stop for pedestrians is trams. I don't know why.

<comment><USER13> The same is true in NYC (and I strongly suspect it is everywhere else in the U.S., too):

> When there is no traffic control signal, drivers must yield the right-of-way > to pedestrians in the crosswalk. (Sec. 1151).

[https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/opdm/local- progra...](https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/opdm/local-programs- bureau/repository/pedestrian/resources/faq.html)

<comment><USER14> There's a silly tendency in discussion of US issues to prefer examples from European countries over the almost-always more applicable examples from US states. This isn't to say European or other international examples aren't extremely useful, but when there are multiple possible _equivalent_ examples, the ones from places that are most closely related to the place under discussion are likely to be more informative. (For instance, people love to cite Sweden when discussing the US educational system, but it's usually more illuminating to look at similarly wealthy states like Massachusetts for information about what could actually be ported to the US.) </rant>

Anyways, in a minority of US states cars are required to stop for pedestrians in a crosswalk, while they are required to yield to them in _all_ states.

> Nine states and the District of Columbia require motorists to stop when > approaching a pedestrian in an uncontrolled crosswalk. Minnesota mandates > that a motorist stop when a pedestrian is in any portion of the roadway. Six > states and D.C. require a motorist to stop when a pedestrian is upon the > same half of the roadway or within one lane of the lane that the motorist is > traveling upon, and two states require a motorist to stop when a pedestrian > is upon the same half of the roadway or approaching closely enough from the > opposite side of the roadway to constitute a danger...The majority of > states, however, only require motorists to yield to, rather than stop for, > pedestrians crossing at uncontrolled crosswalks. Nineteen states require a > motorist to yield when a pedestrian is upon any portion of the roadway.

[http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/pedestrian- cross...](http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/pedestrian- crossing-50-state-summary.aspx)

<comment><USER12> I agree with you there is a silly tendency and it is pretty annoying to see it. But this is what I am seeing myself, since I grew up in NYC. I have grown used to having cars stop for me when crossing the street.

For all other places in Europe (like Paris), it's same as usual - cars just will zoom by, except for lights.

I have always been a tad uncomfortable after getting hit by a car when I was 14. I mean, it's nice to see cars stop, but I am still not trustful of those behind the wheel (and who should be anyway?)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> >"New York's transportation officials and safety advocates say the experience of the largest U.S. city offers a road map for others."

This is all very self-congratulatory and likely a PR piece that was put out on the news wire.

I imagine that the reduction in fatalities is almost exclusively due to the changes around pedestrian crossings on Queens Blvd. a horrid monstrosity that more closely resembles a highway than any kind of regular street.

It is actually rare to see police pulling over cars and issuing traffic tickets in NYC. And if anything as the congestion has worsened drivers have gotten more brazen. Cars regularly block the intersection, run red lights rather than stop, regularly block the cross walk and regularly fail to yield to pedestrians in cross walks. In fact these are the norm. Spend 5 to 10 minutes walking during rush hour you are pretty much guaranteed to observe all of these in the short time frame.

NYC is a road map for what a dysfunctional to non-existent traffic policy looks like.

</comment><comment><USER14> The number of pedestrian fatalities fell from 148 to 101.

[https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-city-traffic- fatalitie...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-city-traffic-fatalities- fell-in-2017-by-7-report-says-1521848322)

That's a saving of roughly $500M with the ~$10M/life figure used by government agencies like the EPA and the NHTSA, which works out to ~$60 per NYC citizen. Has anyone tried to estimate the value lost to less efficient traffic flow? Median household income is $50k, so valuing the median person's time at a few times the minimum wage, say $30/hour, suggest that initiative was worth it if it cost the typical person less than 2 hours over the year.

This should of course include the bike and pedestrian traffic flow, which has plausibly gotten _more_ efficient considering the type of changes being made.

<comment><USER16> Keep in mind this isn't just about pedestrian fatalities - traffic fatalities across all modes decreased.

I think sometimes these conversations get framed only as "driver convenience" vs "pedestrian and cyclist lives". Which, admittedly it sometimes comes down to, but these programs are saving drivers lives too.

<comment><USER17> >traffic fatalities across all modes decreased

The first couple lines of linked WSJ article says differently, though I don't have a WSJ account so I can't say if this is an actual rise or just the result of a higher driving population

<comment><USER16> > overall traffic fatalities down by 27 per cent. The first half of 2018 has > seen the fewest traffic-related fatalities in any six-month period ever > measured in America's most populated city, officials say.

Edit: From the original article, but you're right, 2017 showed an increase in certain modes, with a decrease overall.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Gridlock has gotten far worse in NYC. Cars constantly pull into and block intersections and crosswalks.

<comment><USER19> Hear, hear!

The issue is a total lack of enforcement. One can recognize the older NYC drivers by their _refusal_ to enter an intersection if they cannot be sure to clear it on green. It is because in the late nineties in Manhattan blocking the box was equivalent of doing 90mph in a 55 zone in front of a state trooper ( the only time one could get away with it if the said state trooper was already busy writing a ticket to someone else ) -- you would get the a $100-$500 dollar ticket _and_ you would get points on the license. Not it barely happens even on the streets with SBS lanes and traffic cops.

Let this sink in. $300 dollar and two points on a license for not clearing the box ( including crosswalks ) in 1996. It was when a spiffy dinner for two in NYC was about $80.

If NYC were to deploy a 1000 cops to write these tickets for a month today there would be no congestion in three months as no one would want to risk thousands of dollars in tickets for the $10 they could make by trying to squeeze the cars into the yellow light -- and the ones that would risk it are sure to lose the cars and licenses quite quick.

<comment><USER20> Please add honking to that list, it's out of control in lower Manhattan.

<comment><USER21> Not just Manhattan, everywhere in the City.

I had a car follow me laying on the horn non-stop for two straight blocks in Brooklyn, no exaggeration. I was going less than 45 miles per hour on a narrow residential street with cars parked on both sides, that was completely unacceptable. They eventually illegally passed me when it was clear I wasn't going to drive in a way to leave myself enough reaction time to be able to stop if an obstacle jutted out from between parked cars into the road.

That's just one example that sticks out in my head.

<comment><USER10> Given that those narrow residential streets are typically home to lots of kids, and that the speed limit on them is 25MPH, I hope you were driving not just under 45 but under 30.

<comment><USER21> I don't feel safer going over 20 on those sorts of streets.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> No mention of bulb outs. New York's streets probably don't have room for bulb outs like they've tried in SF. Most SF streets with bulbs really don't have the pedestrian congestion you see on NYC corners. There, you might see a dozen people standing in the crosswalk waiting for the light change and traffic racing past them. Many pedestrians trying to jump ahead of those standing on the curb.

But at least New Yorkers use the crosswalks. Market, Van Ness, Tenderloin, SF multi-lanes jaywalkers Xanadu.

<comment><USER23> For the non-SF, similarly unenlightened (like me):

Bulb out:

 _Curb extensions (also called bulb-outs) extend the sidewalk into the parking lane to narrow the roadway and provide additional pedestrian space at key locations; they can be used at corners and at mid-block. Curb extensions enhance pedestrian safety by increasing pedestrian visibility, shortening crossing distances, slowing turning vehicles, and visually narrowing the roadway._

[https://www.sfbetterstreets.org/find-project- types/pedestria...](https://www.sfbetterstreets.org/find-project- types/pedestrian-safety-and-traffic-calming/traffic-calming-overview/curb- extensions/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Somewhat-related: The US Department of Transportation recently released finalized rules regarding low-speed audible warning sounds for hybrid and battery-electric vehicles to prevent pedestrian injury:

[https://cleantechnica.com/2018/03/06/us-dot-finally- finalize...](https://cleantechnica.com/2018/03/06/us-dot-finally-finalizes- low-speed-noise-maker-rules-evs/)

<comment><USER25> I really don't like that plan. It may not be bad, depending on what the noise is, but unless it's done well it will be a new, annoying sound that I have to hear all the time.

I don't see the safety benefits either. Cars going less than 20 mph are not particularly dangerous. On top that that, in most situations where you're going less than 20 it's the drivers responsibility to watch for pedestrians, not the other way around. (Parking lots, big streets in cities where there's crosswalks every couple hundred feet, shared spaces where pedestrians and cars are in the same lane).

It's probably more likely to let people drive faster through parking lots (as people hear the car behind them and move over) than create any safety improvements.

<comment><USER24> I'm not sure I understand your argument with regard to responsibility. When I'm laying on the pavement, I don't think I'll care that much whose responsibility it was to avoid the collision.

To your last point, why would a car emitting noise result in people speeding through parking lots? Most cars on the road are already emitting noise. This is just bringing hybrid and electric cars into parity with existing vehicles.

If you happen to witness a Fisker Karma cruising around at low speed, you'll hear their take on it. I didn't find it too offensive- it sounds like the guitar tone from that Morrissey song "How Soon is Now?".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Uber induced congestion makes jaywalking much safer.

<comment><USER27> Ubergestion?

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Alternate theory: increased traffic congestion leads to lower speeds resulting in fewer pedestrian deaths

</comment><comment><USER29> Probably helps to have a paramilitarized police force with an annual budget of $5.6 billion and nearly as many employees as there are active personnel in the Canadian Armed Forces. :)

<comment><USER30> Your comment got me wondering about the NYPD. Specifically, when I visited New York last March I was struck by the number of police vehicles visible on the street. It felt like there was barely a block which didn't have one or two police cruisers parked on it.

I live in London and by comparison it feels rare to see a police vehicle at all. Nevermind just parked along a random street.

I guess this was mostly due to timing; it was just after a major snow storm. Comparing the budget and number of officers it's not that different £3.2B and 30000 officers vs $5.6B and 40000 officers.

<comment><USER31> I suspect visible presence would be a bit higher for the NYPD, just because NYC has more officers in an area that's half the size of London.

<comment><USER30> Ah yes! That would do it. So they have more officers (though not drastically more) and quite a bit smaller area to cover. That probably goes some way to explaining what I observed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> >New York strategically increased enforcement on six traffic violations it identified as being the most likely to kill or injure, including:

        Speeding.
        Failing to yield to a pedestrian.
        Failing to stop on a signal.
        Improper turns.
        Cellphone use.
        Disobeying signs.

The 1 and 3, 4 and 6 entries are almost wholly dependent on context and the 2 is sort of a tautology.

As a pedestrian (I walk ~2mi in the Boston area daily) I really have no problem with people violating the posted speed limit, running reds that were very recently yellow or taking a right on red where prohibited as long as they travel at somewhat reasonable speeds, don't flagrantly run reds, and ignore signs in a predicable manner.

Cars acting in an unpredictable manner and cars with distracted drivers (#5) are what results in them trying to occupy the same physical space as pedestrians (#2). As I see it four of the six things listed don't actually impact the danger to me any more than the inherent difference among drivers.

As a pedestrian I'd actually prefer the cops write less tickets because the blue lights distract drivers and throw a wrench into predictable traffic flow. A good chunk of drivers act like a spooked horse when the cops are out hunting and that's not good for my safety, attention paid to the cop who's pulling someone over is attention not paid to not hitting me.

If the cops want to post officers on a random street corners with point and shoot cameras and nab people for texting and driving then I can definitely get behind that. Based on my experience and observation I don't think telling them to go hog wild on everything else would be a net positive in terms of safety (that said, I'll take real cops enforcing traffic laws over automated enforcement any day).

edit:pun not intended but I'm leaving it because I like it.

edit2: Downvoted because people are too lazy to type out why I'm so wrong. Typical Reddit.

edit3: Maybe I wasn't clear enough why I'm opposed to prioritizing enforcement of traffic law. As long as traffic is consistent I can deal. When it becomes inconsistent (possibly because people fear strict traffic enforcement) you get more opportunities for pedestrians and drivers conflicting all the time and inconsistent traffic takes the attention of the drivers away from other things, like pedestrians. As a pedestrian I want nothing to do with an intersection where a cop is sitting or an intersection where there's a known cameras because driver's attention is allocated away from possible road hazards (like me) in order to more strictly adhere to the letter of the law. Most of the violations that NYC wants to prioritize pose no threat to me by themselves whereas aggressive enforcement creates more inconsistent traffic which is a danger to me. When someone slams on their brakes for a yellow the drivers who have to change what they're doing in response to that become more dangerous to me. Attention is finite. You can't handle the dev tickets when prod is burning and drivers are no different, aggressive traffic enforcement is another potential distraction to them and a danger to me.

<comment><USER33> You are downvoted because these violations have been identified as "the most likely to kill or injure", and you haven't made any argument against that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Why not require cars made by a certain date to slow down and stop when they detect or predict a pedestrian crossing? Worst case your car slows down.

</comment><comment><USER35> I live in a suburb and the biggest problem I see isn't drivers, it is pedestrians. They do not use cross walks. If there is not a cross walk directly outside the shop they are leaving, they just cross the road whenever they feel like it.

Pedestrians also just stand and talk in the middle of street. It blows my mind. I have lived around the US and this is a distinctly NY thing.

And they also have the weird habit of doing their run...in the middle of the road. Even if there is an empty sidewalk with no crossings, people will just do their run in the road like they're a car.

Drivers are also to blame but there would be even fewer if pedestrians were held to some standards of road safety. Police don't even need to give tickets, just scare pedestrians into using common courtesy.

<comment><USER36> Why should drivers get the right of way and implicit use of all of the road? Why not people? Cars should be second class citizens to people on the roads, unless they are specifically highways.

<comment><USER37> Drivers are people, my friend</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Your thoughts on Yo app being funded? - <AUTHOR>

Ok I'm angry. Is that what SV has come to? But before I rant about this (stupid) investment, I'd like to see what others think. <comment><USER2> Back in 2009 Blippy came out and I thought it was dumbest thing I'd ever heard of. They got something like 13M in funding and I was flabbergasted. Colbert sort of sarcastically did a piece on them and soon after they were deadpooled.

The 1M for Yo was from some oil magnate/cofounder of Yo. Maybe to oil magnates, 1M is like a nickel to us. But Colbert did a sarcastic piece on Yo so empirically, they should be deadpooled soon.</comment>


The Tyranny of Free - <AUTHOR> http://www.macuser.com/software/the_tyranny_of_free.php

<comment><USER2> We are not entitled to 'free software'. Software makers are free to sell or give away software; giving it for free is nothing less than a marketing strategy (where the revenue stream can come from a premium subscription or ads).

The author does not make a difference between online software (service) and shrink-wrapped software (product).

And ads are not working so well in social networks, as she claims.

'Stealing music' is RIAA speak. Music is almost free nowadays (although label companies would tell you otherwise). Revenues are made mostly from concerts.

Very sarcastic article that confuses a few things.

</comment><comment><USER3> This reminds me of the talk at Startup School about charging for things.</comment>


Show HN: StockWatch – Keep watch of your favourite stock quotes and news headlines - <AUTHOR> https://itunes.apple.com/app/apple-store/id944024956?pt=117121201&ct=HN&mt=8 <comment><USER2> Every time I see someone use it I get a little iPhone envy. Can't wait to get my hands on an Android version!

</comment><comment><USER3> Love it. Especially the view of value change over time that is lacking from most stock apps.

</comment><comment><USER4> Pretty cool. Waiting for the Android version.

<comment><AUTHOR> I wrote this app to learn Swift. Maybe Its time to experiment with React Native... ;)

<comment><USER3> you should have probably done this with react native :)

<comment><AUTHOR> There was no React Native when I started. Plus I wanted to learn Swift ;)

But I can probably redo this now in React Native and support multiple platforms. The UI etc is pretty standard the only problematic areas I see is: 1\. Charts (need to find a good component) 2\. Twitter integration... No React Native Twitter SDK yet. Will probably need to wrap their native SDK

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Loving it!</comment>


How Fake News Turned a Small Town Upside Down - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/26/magazine/how-fake-news-turned-a-small-town-upside-down.html <comment><USER2> Is anyone else getting tired of this term?

<comment><USER3> I definitely am. Misinformation, propaganda, clickbait are all words with more specific semantics. Nothing incorrect about the term "fake news", just pretty information-sparse. It often ends up meaning "what I don't agree with, and wish to discredit with two words only"[1].

[1]: [https://i.redd.it/8sf59bhhz5oz.jpg](https://i.redd.it/8sf59bhhz5oz.jpg)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Besides the self inflicted drama, the most damning thing in the article is that Russian Intelligence was organizing events protesting immigrants in USA soil.

I feel that should've included more than an mention.

<comment><USER5> Well, it's mentioned, what else are they going to do with it? It's deserving of a story of its own, and people are writing those stories, but this particular story is about propaganda more broadly.

<comment><USER6> Anything more than a passing accusation. Some kind of reference would a been nice, given the way those kinds of claims have been used lately.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Cliffs:

Young girl is sexually assaulted buy foreign boys.

"The boys were from Sudan and Iraq"

"The family of the accused declined to comment."

<comment><USER8> Those seem to ignore a lot of important details in the story. No mention of the exaggerated and outright falsified accounts of the story? Nor the baseless conspiracy theories about the town and city council? All of which led to death threats to many involved?</comment></comment>


Virgil: a statically-typed language balancing functional and OO features - <AUTHOR> http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/4716 <comment><USER2> It seems very similar to Scala in several ways (var, def etc), but the way to declare immutable fields is different from Scala

Scala

      val x:Int = 10 // Immutable
      var x:Int = 10 // Mutable
      def x:Int = 10 // function

Virgil

      def x:Int = 10 // Immutable + function
      var x:Int = 10 // Mutable

I think I prefer Virgils method, it feels much purer to me, in keeping with functions as first class members, but I'm not sure how it would handle mutable datastructures.

<comment><USER3> It's actually more complex than that. You can use val and def in the same places. The difference is when it is evaluated. val has the right hand side evaluated immediately (such as, if it's a class member, it will be evaluated when the class is constructed). def has the right hand side evaluated every time it is referenced. So, val x = 5+5 would evaluate 5+5 and assign to x. def x = 5+5 would set x to a function that takes no parameters and returns an int, but if you had, say x + x, that function would be called twice, resulting in a value of 20.

This difference is stark when you look at what it's doing, but allows for some interesting uses when combined with lazy vals. We use it pretty extensively in our configuration loader (using twitter-eval) that allows us to do per-value overrides of configuration files by using lazy vals assigned to defs and then using the defs in the application (of all the performance bottlenecks we have, the possibly optimized out function call generated for the defs is negligible). The end result is that you can derive values from configuration settings prior to the configuration finishing being loaded. This means we don't have to care what order the configuration files are loaded in (they're separated by what they're configuring, with many shared between applications).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Link to Google project page: <http://code.google.com/p/virgil/>

</comment><comment><USER5> Been there, done that: <http://caml.inria.fr/ocaml/>

<comment><USER6> CLOS goes back to 1986 :-)

<http://common-lisp.net/>

<comment><USER7> Except that Lisp is dynamic, and OCaml is static.

<comment><USER6> I overlooked that minor requirement. Sorry.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Doesn't Scala do this already?

</comment><comment><USER9> I'm a little annoyed at the name, because of Virgil, the Java-like language for embedded programming: <http://compilers.cs.ucla.edu/virgil/>

<comment><USER10> That's the same language, actually. Well, maybe a previous incarnation of it. But both are Ben Titzer's babies either way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> creating a special language is not hard, but it's really hard to make ppl feel exciting to use it.

<comment><USER12> Terse comments aren't hard, just bash the OP without offering constructive criticism.

The next programming language to become popular is going to provide some substantial gain in either productivity or performance. It'd be nice to see an argument for or against Virgil on that front.</comment></comment>


Why does one NGINX worker take all the load? - <AUTHOR> https://blog.cloudflare.com/the-sad-state-of-linux-socket-balancing/ <comment><USER2> Attackers might be trying to steal your information from blog.cloudflare.com (for example, passwords, messages, or credit cards). Learn more NET::ERR_CERT_REVOKED

<comment><AUTHOR> Where and how are you connecting?

Is this you? [https://twitter.com/Zurret/status/922450684599062529](https://twitter.com/Zurret/status/922450684599062529)

Because that's nothing to do with Cloudflare. That's your antivirus screwing with you.</comment></comment>


Which layout is best for speed and accuracy? - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@jessekorzan/makin-faces-a-design-sprint-to-test-layouts-for-efficiency-ae85750c41b1#.6g5zrl2t4 <comment><USER2> I like the look into the process of A/B testing, but what is not obvious that for large amounts of data multiple columns is going to be more effective?

<comment><AUTHOR> Any suggestions?

<comment><USER2> Sorry. That was a typo. Do you think that your data shows a clear number of items were it makes sense to use multiple columns. It looks like to me that the multiple column layout is more effective, but I can't see a clear cut-off point.

<comment><AUTHOR> Current results (if you didn't see): [https://jessekorzan.github.io/qUizList/scoreboard/](https://jessekorzan.github.io/qUizList/scoreboard/) (and thanks for checking out my project).

<comment><USER2> Having tried it on my phone, I think that you may have failed to account for the orientation of the device. The single column was better on my phone, as it was portrait. On my desktop the multi column version was better presumably as it was landscape.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


ClojureScript's persistent data structures in vanilla JavaScript - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/swannodette/mori <comment><USER2> Rationale and documentation here <http://swannodette.github.io/mori/>

Feedback welcome on what people would like to see. I prefer to use the data structures from ClojureScript but I thought it might be interesting to provide them to JavaScript developers. Note it's not a small dependency (~21K gzipped) so I think people are more likely to use them from Node.

The library also provides access to Clojure style reducers as well as Clojure's functional zippers.

I'm open to ideas about making the usage more idiomatic for JavaScript developers - pull requests welcome.

</comment><comment><USER3> Very cool. I like ClojureScript and believe that immutability is usually the better choice, but I don't always want to deal with the Closure compiler and somewhat involved build process. This takes some of the best qualities of ClojureScript and makes them portable. Writing highly functional CoffeeScript with these data structures sounds quite appealing in situations where ClojureScript might be overkill or doesn't fit well into the stack.

<comment><USER4> Use lein-cljsbuild to compile ClojureScript as soon as the file change is made. After the intial JVM startup, compilation is instant. <https://github.com/emezeske/lein-cljsbuild>

\-- more --

ClojureScript is the Clojure language compiler that targets JavaScript. It compiles to Google Closure (not Clojure) JavaScript, but it can also target NodeJS. ClojureScript lets you use Clojure in the browser, adds Clojure data types to the JavaScript language, and allows for JavaScript to interact with the Clojure datatypes. Here's the side by side comparison <https://himera.herokuapp.com/synonym.html>

One of the most obvious additions to JavaScript is the ability to partition your JavaScript with namespaces.

<comment><USER5> Definitely not instant compilation. The app I'm currently working on has 6k lines of code and the incremental compilations take a little over 6 seconds.

<comment><USER2> Hmm, sounds like you have a fairly large namespace instead of separate ones?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Can someone with some insight tell me what ClosureScript is exactly about, what it's for or if it's worth keeping an eye open for it? That would be great.

I did my own research but would like to hear one or two more opinions. Thank you.

<comment><USER7> Like Scala/Clojure on the JVM, F#/ClojureCLR on .Net, or Coffeescript/Typescript on Javascript, it adds higher-level programming language semantics to programs running in a browser, NodeJS, Rhino, or any other javascript VM.

Features like namespaces, immutability, fast persistent data structures, and, if you are already using JVM Clojure in the same application, the Clojure language. Not to mention, the EDN data transport format, which means you can unify the server-side language, the client-side language, and the data transport format to Clojure (just like what javascript champions talk about with JS, JSON, and NodeJS).</comment></comment>


All-optical machine learning using diffractive deep neural networks - <AUTHOR> http://www.sciencemag.org/lookup/doi/10.1126/science.aat8084 <comment><USER2> This paper is misleading in calling their method a "deep neural network". It's only "deep" in the sense that it involves stacking multiple physical layers, not in the machine learning sense. From a neural network point of view, it's a single layer network, because the entire thing is linear. 92% accuracy on MNIST is exactly what you can achieve with a single layer network: [https://www.tensorflow.org/versions/r1.2/get_started/mnist/b...](https://www.tensorflow.org/versions/r1.2/get_started/mnist/beginners)</comment>


European Parliament Draft to Enforce End-To-End Encryption for Citizens' Privacy - <AUTHOR> http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2F%2FEP%2F%2FNONSGML%2BCOMPARL%2BPE-606.011%2B01%2BDOC%2BPDF%2BV0%2F%2FEN <comment><USER2> Contrast this to the 'soon to be former member of the EU' UK where Theresa May is trying to force companies to add backdoors and ban end to end encryption.

:-(

<comment><USER3> Hand in hand with new French president.

:-(

[https://www.buzzfeed.com/amphtml/patricksmith/france-and- the...](https://www.buzzfeed.com/amphtml/patricksmith/france-and-the-uk-are- calling-for-tougher-action-against)

<comment><USER4> The article doesn't say that.

<comment><USER5> That particular article might not, but the joint press conference after those talks made it about as clear as politicians ever are that they agree on this point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Any tldr? I have a very hard time getting through this, but as the founder of a Europe-based messaging company ([https://talkjs.com](https://talkjs.com)), I wonder whether this is trouble.

En-to-end encryption is great but it also kills quite a number of use cases. For example, our group conversations couldn't be e2e encrypted because then users can't see the message history from before they joined it. In whatsapp this is indeed the case, but for our platform it is a core feature. Same for Slack, I suppose. Similarly, Slack search would be totally out of the door. (unless, again, you make it only search the stuff sent to you)

<comment><USER7> Couldn't group chats be encrypted with a shared key that is provided to the new user by whoever invites them to the chat? The messages would still be encrypted and decrypted only at the ends.

<comment><USER6> In all honesty if you keep the key on a server you might as well not encrypt the messages to begin with (except in transmission ofc, but hey, https).

Storing the key right next to the encrypted messages makes it no more secure than ROT13'ing the messages.

<comment><USER7> The key doesn't have to be shared with the server.

<comment><USER6> Ahyes, good point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Apparently the EU Parliament is trolling Theresa May.

<comment><USER9> Not just EP, but the Council and Commission as well, since they initiated the legislative process. That means the 27 governments are also behind it, at the moment. This is very surprising to me - no government is free of authoritarian elements, especially in centralistic States like France, Hungary, Italy or Spain. Their unilateral disarmament would be peculiar.

I don't see this proposal going all the way, to be honest, it seems too idealistic. I expect it will be perverted into its opposite, e.g. justification for "review methods" that states could apply to "check if your encryption is secure", which would result in compromising that very security. Remember that EU law is adapted at individual state level; for generic stuff like this, there is plenty of space for _interpretation_ by national legislators.

As a supporter of the EU concept, I think this is dangerous territory for the Union, at a time when its popularity is pretty low. I hope I'll be proven wrong.

<comment><USER10> "27 governments" aren't behind this. Members of the EP from 27 states are behind this, but in many cases, they have nothing in common with the actual government of the country. So little voters care about and participate in the election (often less than 25%) it's easy to win - and the parties that participate in the government don't care at all, thus making EP election the ideal target for otherwise irrelevant parties.

<comment><USER4> The turnout in the most recent European elections was 43%. The makeup of the EP doesn't support your claim either. It is dominated by essentially the same parties that rule on a national level.

<comment><USER10> That's true for the western part of the union, but it's very different in the eastern part. In the Czech Republic, it's been 31%, 28% and 28% (since 2004), and our voters are participating the most compared to other eastern states.

<comment><USER4> 43% is the average across the EU. It's not surprising that it takes a while for new members to fully participate.

You are mistaken about Czech turnout though. It's the second lowest of all members: [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/elections2014-results/en/turno...](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/elections2014-results/en/turnout.html)

[Edit] For comparison: Turnout in the 2014 US mid-term elections was 36%. In the most recent presidential elections it was 55%.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It certainly seems the EU is becoming an actual land of the free

<comment><USER12> Well, apart from the protection racket aspects of it that are going on at the moment.

Ah, this is a nice country. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it. I'm so sorry you were thinking of leaving, and stopping paying us billions per year. We really must ask you to hand over a hundred billion before we'll talk about any kind of trading relationship with you -- it would be such a shame if we happened to design the barriers in such a way that would accidentally maximise harm to your economy. But you know you're always welcome to stay and keep paying us just a few billion each year.

<comment><USER13> Racket? Sorry, but this is nonsense that Daily Mail spreads. The £100bn is not a Brexit divorce bill, it's UK's financial commitments as a member state.

Just because you leave to live in another country, doesn't mean you can stop your mortgage payments and still expect to have a relationship with the lender.

Leave if you wish, but honour your financial commitments you agreed and signed by either paying the whole mortgage upfront or agree to pay over the X period (which is what will most likely happen during negotiations).

<comment><USER5> I don't want to get bogged down in Brexit politics, but someone should point out that the £100B figure is not something to take seriously.

Firstly, it's not an official figure but rather an estimate by outside observers of the maximum bill the UK could be landed with given the worst (for the UK) interpretation of a wide range of plausible criteria about what might or might not be included in any settlement. You have to make some quite one- sided assumptions to get to a figure this high, and typically the reports where these kinds of figures come from do show this, though of course headline writers don't tend to incorporate such nuance.

Secondly, even if it were some sort of official figure, it would be politically untenable for the UK to accept it. The UK's net contribution to the EU _as a member enjoying full membership benefits_ is about an order of magnitude smaller. The EU plans budgets on a 7-year cycle (the current one is 2013-2020) but the actual budgets are made annually. Those budgets normally do commit to future spending with quite a long tail, but the curve is very front- loaded and most money committed in any given year's budget is usually to be spent within 2-3 years.

So a figure in the region of £100B would be like asking the UK to pay for around another decade of full membership after it's left, a period far beyond most current spending commitments the EU is making. Moreover, the current EU position is that this needs to be negotiated independently, before any deal on any benefits the UK might retain in some form as a result of any future agreement or payments, so there would be little if any guarantee about the UK getting anything in return for that extra financial support to the EU.

Personally I'm still hoping for the professionals to take over from the politicians and come to a reasonable agreement. I don't think they have much chance of doing that in less than 2 years, but with an extra 2-3 years of some sort of transitional arrangement, it doesn't seem impossible. They could deal with the budgeting issues and current financial commitments at that notice, allowing a more graceful withdrawal by the UK without either anyone feeling they'd had funding cut off abruptly on the EU side or the UK putting up either a huge lump sum or any sort of ongoing financial support to the EU without getting something worthwhile in return.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> don't let yourselves be fooled, fools. if this takes any real form, it'll be gutted and ripped apart until there's nothing of essence left because it would mean the following ingenius legislation be repealed.

and. that. will. never. happen.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_data_rete...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_data_retention#European_Union)

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

<comment><USER15> Page 30:

> _When the processing of electronic communications data by providers of > electronic communications services falls within its scope, this Regulation > is without prejudice to the possibility for the Union or Member States under > specific conditions to restrict by law certain obligations and rights set > out in this Regulation when such a restriction is targeted at persons > suspected of having committed a criminal offence and constitutes a necessary > and proportionate measure in a democratic society to safeguard specific > public interests, including national security, defence, public security and > the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences > or the execution of criminal penalties, including the safeguarding against > and the prevention of threats to public security. Therefore, this Regulation > should not affect the ability of Member States to carry out lawful > interception of electronic communications or take other measures, if > necessary and proportionate to safeguard the public interests mentioned > above, in accordance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European > Union and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and > Fundamental Freedoms, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European > Union and of the European Court of Human Rights._

This is not about preventing state surveillance, this is about regulating _non-state_ actors' ability e.g. to track users without their consent.

Edit: However, on page 74

 _> The providers of electronic communications services shall ensure that there is sufficient protection in place against unauthorised access or alterations to the electronic communications data, and that the confidentiality and safety of the transmission are also guaranteed by the nature of the means of transmission used or by state-of-the-art end-to-end encryption of the electronic communications data. Furthermore, when encryption of electronic communications data is used, decryption, reverse engineering or monitoring of such communications shall be prohibited. Member States shall not impose any obligations on electronic communications service providers that would result in the weakening of the security and encryption of their networks and services._

It seems to me that this requires end-to-end encryption, but the regulation is scoped in such a way that the requirement may be lifted when it inconveniences law enforcement.

<comment><USER16> The key is the OR:

* "sufficient protection in place against unauthorised access or alterations"

* "guaranteed by the nature of the means of transmission used "

* "OR"

* "state-of-the-art end-to-end encryption of the electronic communications data"

aka:

\- HTTPS, non-ETE: fine

\- HTTP, non-ETE: not fine

\- HTTP, ETE: fine

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Trying to make sense of these drafts still being written in English, given that with Brexit, none of the countries in EU zone have English as their first language (with exception of Ireland). Convention?

<comment><USER18> We still need English to talk amongst ourselves. Thanks UK for leaving this parting gift.

<comment><USER19> Actually, this is a huge opportunity. The EU really needs an official language. So far, politics have prevented selecting the language of one large member state to the point where there were proposals to select latin. This document shows that English is the de-facto most common language in the EU. After Brexit, there would be less political opposition to make English official, after all only Ireland uses it as its official language so far.

As a German, I would be equally happy if it were French, as long as we finally get an "official" language throughout the EU, but English is much more a likely candidate now, so we should seize the opportunity.

<comment><USER20> > after all only Ireland uses it as its official language so far

don't forget Malta!

<comment><USER21> Cyprus, de facto, also is English-spoken.

English also is a recognized regional language in two of the three Caribbean parts of the Netherlands (Saba and Sint Eustatius), which means it can be used in communication with the government ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territorial_entities_w...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territorial_entities_where_English_is_an_official_language#Country_subdivisions))

(As another indication of the weird status of these regions, they also have the US dollar as the official currency.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Please append [pdf] to the title.

</comment><comment><USER23> tldr?

<comment><AUTHOR> Perhaps this article?

[http://www.tomshardware.com/news/european-parliament-end- to-...](http://www.tomshardware.com/news/european-parliament-end-to-end- encryption-communications,34809.html)</comment></comment>


Why a Bitcoin future will always end up in centralization - <AUTHOR> https://thenextweb.com/syndication/2018/01/21/bitcoin-future-will-always-end-centralization/ <comment><USER2> In case anyone wants to know about how sizing works in bitcoin, I have written this post [1]

250 bytes is the lowest end of a block size. Most of the blocks are nearly 360 bytes in size. Though Segwit should apparently help with the sizing.

The most interesting thing is block sizing and transaction ramping are not same. 1GB blocks were tested[2]

But, there are multiple bottlenecks which need to be resolved before it is usable. For one the mempool,

 _Mempool admission is no longer the bottleneck, as we've demonstrated mempool admission rates over 10,000 tx /sec already._

But the same thing has not been achieved in transaction confirmations:

 _"Our baseline results with BU essentially 'as is' — A few days ago we achieved 300 tx /sec sustained thanks to Andrew Stone's work streamlining mempool admission," explains Rizun. I think we'll hit ~1,000 tx/sec sustained on the next ramp we attempt."_

[1]: [https://email@example.com/fees-calculation-in- bitcoin-a...](https://firstname.lastname@example.com/fees-calculation-in-bitcoin-and- other-cryptocurrencies-explained-ef2f9ca35320)

[2]: [https://news.bitcoin.com/gigablock-testnet-researchers- mine-...](https://news.bitcoin.com/gigablock-testnet-researchers-mine-the- worlds-first-1gb-block/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Too bad the author did not mention Lightning Network. The issue covered in this article is one of the reasons LN was chosen as the scaling solution instead of the block size increase (i.e. bcash).

<comment><USER4> I hope you're not getting paid in BTC for your shill posts.

<comment><USER5> It's much simpler than that - they simply need to own the crypto-asset(s) they're wanting to succeed, for their value to go up.

<comment><USER6> Like the BitConnect coin?

<comment><USER5> The crypto-asset community is happy to throw anyone under the bus who's not playing along with the straw man narratives that the crypto-assets structured with incentives like Bitcoin and Ethereum's Ether et al use - in order to protect their projected image that they are legitimate and not inherently bad for society.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The author takes a large enough block for Visa or Master card volume like transaction and makes an educated guess.

His argument is _true_ in the same way saying that you could only fit a calculator in a hangar using vacuum tubes is true. If Cryptocurrencies are to succeed they need their silicon transistor.

To me the transistor of crypto is sharding. I'd bet Vitalik knows that and that is why he is putting R&D into it. I do hope Ethereum (or another one) succeed.

</comment><comment><USER8> Ctrl+f "lightning". Zero mentions.

This is bad journalism and has nothing to do on HN.

</comment><comment><USER9> Not having centralization, as with some of the altcoins, has resulted in the price of NVidia and Radeon graphics cards more than doubling and the supply disappearing.[1]

[1] [https://arstechnica.com/tech- policy/2018/01/cryptocurrency-b...](https://arstechnica.com/tech- policy/2018/01/cryptocurrency-boom-creates-insane-global-graphics-card- shortage/)</comment>


Construction Crew Severs Secret 'Black Line' (2009/2000) - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/06/blackline/

<comment><USER2> Now that the location of this black line is revealed to the world, do they need to bury a new one? Or, since fibre is so hard to tap into (and presumably communications are super-duper-securely encrypted), is that not a problem?

</comment><comment><USER3> Really? No redundancy?

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't think it was redundancy that they were worried about as much as someone trying to install a passive fiber tap (yes, it's been done).

Installing such a tap is pretty dicey, if the fiber breaks your goose is cooked. The response time was likely such that they would have had a chance of bagging the guy that did it, in this case it was just an accident.

Personally I'm quite impressed with the response speed, if all authorities were that quick when there is trouble there wouldn't be many unsolved crimes left.</comment></comment>


The inconsistencies in your site's color palette - <AUTHOR> http://coderwall.com/p/u7kzua

<comment><USER2> Our perception of color varies a lot based on context—size of the swatch, background color, surrounding colors, etc. It is unsurprising that even on sites with a seemingly-consistent color palette, you'd see a lot of variation. Colors that are "the same" will also vary based on how they're being used, e.g. I might use "the same" blue for a highlight as I do for a shadow, but if you look at the RGB values, they're totally different. The reason is that your brain is seeing a shadow, and separating the brightness component (reduced, since it's a shadow), from the color component. Man, isn't your brain incredible.

It would be interesting to take this script and make it so that it does some kind of clustering, or looks at different components of the color—for example, you could just count the hues. One might expect to see a lot variation in lightness, but relatively little in hue, for example. On the other hand, maybe it's not that scientific, and designers just grab a color picker and fiddle until it looks right.

</comment><comment><USER3> Although a site may have a primary color palette, colors will often look very different in context. Our vision is full of tricks and assumptions that can cause the same color value to look drastically different in different situations. The color in your swatch might look different when used on a different background color, or might not appear as bright when used as a link color, and so on. It's reasonable to expect some variation in the color palette to deal with these issues. Some of these counts seem a bit excessive, though.

<comment><USER4> Exactly. Sass/Less have functions to adjust brightness and saturation for just this reason. I routinely tweak saturation so link and hover colors "read" the same on a white background versus even a light grey header.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> As a pixel artist, here's my take on it:

You ought to choose a palette that is _as small as possible_ while remaining versatile. Each entry should serve a distinct purpose, and should look different (and look good) next to various other entries.

For example: a mid-saturation, mid-lightness violet, say around #793D58, can be used as (1) a dark background for light elements, (2) a text or link colour on a light background, or (3) a shadow for bluish or reddish elements. Knowing how colours are perceived, and how to use them well, drastically reduces the size of a palette—the vast majority of pixel art uses fewer than 20 colours, and fewer than 10 is common.

In particular, there is usually no need to create ad-hoc colours for different contexts, such as with LESS colour transformations. These can be useful tools, but they can also create inconsistency because they take control out of your hands. And when it comes to design, I for one prefer not to leave things to chance.

</comment><comment><USER6> Could some of the 'used once' colors just be a shading or bevel on an element of the main color? Rather than just someone picking a color that is 'close enough'.

</comment><comment><USER7> It would be nice if results would be presented as colored boxes rather than color codes.

</comment><comment><USER8> I'd bet part of why this happens on some of the more egregious 'offenders' (although it's arguable whether this is actually a problem or not) is the use of CSS preprocessors. It's a lot easier for a designer to add in one-off slight variations to a color when you have something like Compass or LESS's color manipulation functions.

<comment><USER9> The converse is that if you're not using a preprocessor, it's very easy to 'adjust' a color and miss a few instances of it.

<comment><USER10> Search replace? :)

Agree that if you've got well defined color variables setup the preprocessor route is potentially simpler.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> If a site use css gradients with carefully tuned values -say, for glass buttons- they will easily "use" 5-10 colors for each gradient.

It would still look like a solid color + gloss, caustics and shadow, so from a design point of view it might be fair to treat each gradient as one "color".

<comment><USER12> Exactly. My first thought, in regards to the great number of colors used by some sites, was also gradients.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> How is it the site with one of the most conservative designs -- Github -- has by & large the most colors? From memory, I only see a few shades of gray when I picture the site, though I know there's a few colors that accent the UI, but hell, 331 is more than the entire old "web safe palette".

I wonder if there's some sort of anomaly or bug causing the number to be so high... perhaps they use far less images, and instead use CSS instead? Maybe they have a CSS-based color-picker somewhere in their source?

<comment><USER14> Among other things, I'm sure syntax highlighting doesn't help.

<comment><USER15> That would be my guess as to what's propelling it so high.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Main branding colors should be consistent - where unique colors will crop up is for things like borders, hover-states, text-shadows that will not necessarily work again in another context.

Coderwall also deliberately has a slightly different color palette for each area of the site so it's not a big surprise to see our colors quickly stack up to the 44 colors the article mentions.

It might be a little excessive to have >100 colors like some of the sites mentioned.

</comment><comment><USER17> This is often due to color profiles. You take a screenshot (or a mockup), grab the color, and use that value. If you didn't explicitly disable color management beforehand, you've created a new color.

Another reason are JPEGs. You get a mockup as JPEG and you use color values from that image.

I recommend to put a list of colors at the top of your primary style sheet. That's where others will look for it.

</comment><comment><USER18> One thing I do is start with something like 5 base colors and then in my stylesheets (with SASS), I lighten or darken those colors.

Using this analysis it would appear that we're all over the place. But in reality there are subtle changes using lighten and darken in sass to address what notJim is talking about in his comment -- "perception of color varies on size, background color, surrounding colors".

</comment><comment><USER19> Script does not take care of images and image backgrounds.

You can use, <http://cutycapt.sourceforge.net/> to render the site into png, and analyze the pixels from it.

<comment><USER20> Yes but one jpg of, say, a tree might contain thousands of colors and would completely throw off the data.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'm surprised the author chose to visualise this data the way they did. This is crying out for a stacked bar-graph, where each 'bar' is the colour in question, and the height of the bar is the frequency.

<comment><USER22> This made me laugh. I've never heard anyone so passionately call for a stacked bar chart before - rightfully so it seems.

Good job.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Interesting. I understand the value of keeping design simple and CSS readable, but are there performance implications (page load times, &c.) to using a large color palette?

<comment><USER24> Unlikely with modern computers and bandwidth.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> HN has a orange background as inline HTML..

so actually this software it's just to extract color palette from CSS files

<comment><USER26> Yeah and several websites (google.com for instance) have their stylesheets on the HTML document to reduce the number of http requests, this program does not read them either.</comment></comment>


Chinese scientists are creating CRISPR babies - <AUTHOR> https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612458/exclusive-chinese-scientists-are-creating-crispr-babies/amp/ <comment><USER2> Discussion on front page: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18530906](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18530906)</comment>


Show HN: my weekend project buffero.me - <AUTHOR>

Hello HNers, Been lurking here for a while now, and finally I decided to be brave enough and show you my little weekend project - a simple twitter scheduler http://buffero.me
Why another twitter scheduler? Well, i've built this mainly for myself, to be able to schedule tweets by email and to be able to schedule a bunch of tweets at once.
Looking for your comments, suggestions and brutal honesty :)
Thank you. <comment><USER2> I run several Twitter accounts with lots of followers (in the hundreds of thousands). On some accounts, I tweet once a day, and on others I tweet 20+ times a day. I've tried timely.is, bufferapp.com, SocialOomph, TweetDeck, Hootsuite, and a bunch of other Twitter queue sites.

I really like the design of yours. And I _really_ like how you can bulk buffer tweets—the only other site I know that can do that is SocialOomph, and it's HORRIBLY designed (seriously, check it out.) But why not give the option to type the tweets in on your website rather than email? The emailing seems like a step that's convenient in some cases, but gets in the way when I just want to paste a list of tweets in.

Also, I read your FAQ so I know it's coming, but a customizable number of tweets per day would be great. Also, ability to link to multiple Twitter accounts!

I'll give buffero.me a try, and if I think of any other features/critique, will let you know here!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for the feedback! This is exactly what I was looking for :)

I heard this request a couple of times now - why not simply have the option to type tweets through the site - so I might really consider to implement it.

Thank you!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Kudos on building a slick looking product. How many weekends did this take you?

How is this different from buffer? Is it the bulk email feature?

What features will remain free?

</comment><comment><USER4> Love the idea - I had the same but didn't follow through on it. Love the clean design and tells you exactly how it works. Good luck!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you so much for taking the time to check it out :)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> clickable: <http://buffero.me></comment>


Facebook voter registration app asks for SSN without SSL - <AUTHOR> http://orthodoxanarchist.com/2008/01/05/facebook-voter-registration-app-asks-for-ssn-without-ssl/ <comment><USER2> Sensationalism and false alarm. The submission is an AJAX post to a secure address, and the form only requests the last 4 digits of your SSN in order to populate a PDF which you print out and mail in. There is no storage or unencrypted usage occurring whatsoever.

The involved group, Working Assets, is one which lobbies hard to product our freedoms and to encourage environmental responsibility.</comment>


Show HN: Covid-19 Vaccine Tracker - <AUTHOR> https://www.covidvax.news/progress/ <comment><USER2> Thank you! I found the newsletter option [0] most useful as I can't possibly be visiting the website everyday

[0][http://covidvax.everything.io/signup/](http://covidvax.everything.io/signup/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Glad to hear it. It took some convincing on my part to offer it because I felt maybe some people were like me, never reading the newsletters they subscribe to. Do you think I think you'll like about it is you get the whole article in the email. You're not required to visit the website and look at ads or anything

<comment><USER2> @Adam, Yup. I easily forget visiting my bookmarked websites but try to keep an Inbox Zero :)</comment></comment></comment>


Spy Kids [CIA children's site] - <AUTHOR> https://www.cia.gov/kids-page/index.html <comment><AUTHOR> Some decent parent and teacher things here, but also a couple of unusual and, I have to admit, quite fun games. Love this one:

[https://www.cia.gov/kids- page/games/games_aerial_analysis.ht...](https://www.cia.gov/kids- page/games/games_aerial_analysis.html)</comment>


Legal ruckus over Kindle 2's text-to-speech feature - <AUTHOR> http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/121556 I can see both sides of this argument. Certainly, authors don't want to be done out of the profits for separate audio book sales, on the other hand, if you're visually impaired, having a built-in audio feature comes in very handy. <comment><USER2> Already posted:

Here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=476584>

Here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=477216></comment>


World growth 'slowest since financial crisis' - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50047929 <comment><AUTHOR> This article has two titles, I used the one on: [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business)</comment>


China Speeds Up Advanced Chip Development - <AUTHOR> https://semiengineering.com/china-speeds-up-advanced-chip-development/ <comment><USER2> The only thing that matters is if China can remove ASML from the equation.

The USA already bans them from selling their photolithography machine to China.

If China can figure out the science, and get to the cutting edge of 5nm, then they have a chance at achieving parity with the west.

Otherwise, forget it.

But, China can still go their own way, and use slower chipsets, until such time, when they can achieve parity.

Then, they also need to replace all the software tool makers that are needed to design the chips. But, I'm assuming that if they can achieve building their own advanced photolithography machine, then the software design tools should be easier to develop, albeit still time consuming.

</comment><comment><USER3> per the article:

-SMIC is shipping 14nm finFETs, with a 7nm-like process in R&D. -Yangtze Memory Technologies (YMTC) recently entered the 3D NAND market with a 64-layer device. A 128-layer technology is in R&D. -ChangXin Memory Technology (CXMT) is shipping its first product, a 19nm DRAM line. -China is expanding into compound semis, including gallium nitride (GaN) and silicon carbide (SiC). -China's OSATs are developing more advanced packages.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Does China pose a threat in semiconductors?</comment>


Thousands of U.S. locales where lead poisoning is worse than in Flint - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-lead-testing/ <comment><USER2> This is a public health disaster. It's tough to really fathom the number of children across the country that will suffer mental and behavioral problems for life because of this.

Why are there not more lawsuits? Is the scope of the damage too difficult to quantify, or the negligent parties too diffuse/remote to sue?

As much as our litigation-based culture is vilified, it can help spur action by changing the cost/benefit of doing nothing and force companies/governments to step up and fix this before more people are hurt. The risk of Mesothelioma lawsuits, for example, help add some seriousness to asbestos exposure claims.

<comment><USER3> I'd bet that's down the road. Only recently has testing your water for lead/etc become cheap, easy, and relevant. If you tested your water for lead 10 years ago society would probably label you paranoid - still might in many places.

<comment><USER4> > _If you tested your water for lead 10 years ago society would probably label > you paranoid_

New York City sends you a free lead test kit, if you ask for it [1].

[1] [http://www1.nyc.gov/nyc-resources/service/1266/water-lead- te...](http://www1.nyc.gov/nyc-resources/service/1266/water-lead-test-kit- request)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Aside from the disturbing levels of lead poisoning in some locations, this also reveals how little is publicly knowable about lead levels in some areas. It really paints a picture of widespread problems and obstructions to shining a light on them.

</comment><comment><USER6> I went to my water utility's website to find out their numbers. First I was shocked that they publish their numbers only once a year! And even in that report they say last lead measurement was in 2013 because Department of Health only requites measurement every 3 years! With Trump about to set loose entire Oil, gas and fracking industry like never before this might get lot worse.

</comment><comment><USER7> _Instead, Reuters sought testing data at the neighborhood level, in census tracts or zip code areas, submitting records requests to all 50 states._

Too bed there's no way to study the dataset directly short of repeating the process.

<comment><USER8> I'll pay for and perform the FOIA requests through muckrock.com if you do the analysis.

<comment><USER9> Here is my experience FOIA requesting 100+ universities:

[http://austingwalters.com/foia- requesting-100-universities/](http://austingwalters.com/foia- requesting-100-universities/)

In short, you often have to get on the phone, email, snail mail, go in person, and pay quite a bit to get records. It's a very painful process. Careful what you offer lol

<comment><USER10> summary of the new star wars movie: the tale of an extremely complicated and costly FOIA request

<comment><USER11> This is the best star wars joke Ive read in a long time. Brilliant. :D

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I put together a search engine[1] for this very thing a few months ago. The data is publicly available, but obscure and usually buried in poorly described .gov city pages.

[1][http://bit.ly/2h5yGNg](http://bit.ly/2h5yGNg)

</comment><comment><USER13> I remember reading years ago about how water utilities were replacing chlorine with chloramine because it was cheaper. From what I understand, chloramine is more corrosive and it erodes the lining in the lead pipes. Does anyone know if it's standard practice for water companies to do their quality sampling at the taps?

</comment><comment><USER14> Will they get the same attention?

Will the nation ever upgrade and repair ancient and disastrous infrastructure?

<comment><USER15> In my area (Western PA), the water authority is working to replace lead service lines, but only to the curb. Unfortunately, it is up to the homeowner to replace the line from the curb to the house. This is quite expensive, and depending on the topography, requires a significant amount of digging.

This is not an excuse, but I think it's important to point out in some cases, the issues with lead are on private property, and some municipalities just can't afford to fix everything.

<comment><USER16> Wait, what? They have actual lead pipes for drinking water? That's insane.

<comment><USER8> It's safe as long as the water chemistry doesn't leach the pipes. If it does, and you're not using agents in the water to stop it, you get Flint, MI.

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

"The Flint water crisis is a drinking water contamination issue in Flint, Michigan, United States that started in April 2014. After Flint changed its water source from treated Detroit Water and Sewerage Department water (which was sourced from Lake Huron as well as the Detroit River) to the Flint River (to which officials had failed to apply corrosion inhibitors), its drinking water had a series of problems that culminated with lead contamination, creating a serious public health danger. The Flint River water that was treated improperly caused lead from aging pipes to leach into the water supply, causing extremely elevated levels of the heavy metal neurotoxin."

<comment><USER17> Is anyone else not totally cool with showering and drinking water with flouride, chlorine, and inhibitor chemicals? APEC Water makes a great counter- top tankless RO filtration system for $200 that takes 10 mins to install and doesn't require any permanent mounting (so it's fine to use in apartments). The only downside is that unlike filter taps with a reservoir tank, you only get the RO membrane rate of flow (~2GPH depending on your water pressure) so you kinda need to fill up a jug and keep it in the fridge, otherwise an 8oz glass of water takes about a minute to fill.

<comment><USER18> What's the risk here? Fluoride helps control dental health and chlorine keeps biological contaminants at bay. These are beneficial for your health! If you really don't want chlorine in your drinking water (or don't like the taste), you can let it sit in an open container for a couple hours - it will just evaporate...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> It looks like California is relatively clean on this scale, but what about the Superfund sites? I feel like those are gray areas that get much less attention than I would expect. With former semiconductor fab sites and former military sites getting increasingly developed with sometimes only a few feet of topsoil removed for cleanup (plus some kind of shielding material?), and a seeming lack of hard data for long term health impact, count me among the concerned.

(happy to have my worries put to rest by HN'ers!)

<comment><USER17> Yeah, can't wait for them to try bringing manufacturing back to America. Hopefully California will shut anything like that down.

<comment><USER20> Because having it elsewhere is better?

Here we'd have the resources to hopefully make it safe(r). China doesn't give a damn about the environment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> When it comes to testing your water, some counties offer home testing services to concerned residents for free. I urge everybody with kids or thinking of having them to check your local county government's website for information. Even if the water treatment facility in your area is free of lead, the pipes in your home or neighborhood might not be.

</comment><comment><USER22> It is hard to sue government. It is even harder to make them lose their jobs. When it comes to compensation they will simply use our own money to pay back.

Utilities remains a major pain in USA partly because of the ridiculous government control which invariably leads to corruption.

I have been exclusively using distilled water in Sunnyvale for last 3 years. Water in Sunnyvale has dangerous levels of pesticides if not lead.

<comment><USER23> I don't see any reason to think totally privatizing and deregulating utilities would be any safer.

<comment><USER24> Here's one: companies like repeat customers.

<comment><USER25> Remember PG&E and the San Bruno fire? Companies fight hard to deny liability when they harm their customers. There is no competition in many cases.

[http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/07/27/san-bruno-blast-pge- cr...](http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/07/27/san-bruno-blast-pge-criminal- case-goes-to-the-jury/)

<comment><USER23> Assuming you can even figure out you're being slowly poisoned.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> So Reuters is finally getting around to doing their job; moving beyond a sensationalized story which sells ads, to the unglamorous work of uncovering the truth, that Flint isn't special at all and that the government knew that and has been covering it up.

It's a shame they couldn't get around to reporting the truth behind the sensation a year ago when public outcry was enough to get substantial Federal funding allocated to fixing this nation-wide.

First there should be a Federal law requiring disclosure of testing data nationwide, and the full sets should be put online in standardized formats.

Childhood lead rates should be shown next to walkability score and crime stats on Realtor sites. Home sellers should be mandated to report their local area exposure rates at the time of sale.

Second, setup a super-fund type cash pool which provides for remediation of the top X% of effected areas.

Third, new laws for mandatory testing and reporting, and fines and felonies for underreporting, misreporting, or falsifying reports of childhood lead exposure.

Here's to hoping that major infrastructure spending includes the unglamorous water mains replacements as much as the more glamorous monument-style projects.

<comment><USER27> Flint made news because the problem was new. Flint water used to be safe, and then it became unsafe.

There are a lot of problems nobody bothers with because they're not new problems.

<comment><USER28> Flint also made news because local control was subverted by the state to make the decision.

<comment><USER29> Not the state as a generic entity, _Republicans_ specifically, neocons with a very specific ideological privatization agenda practicing good old disaster capitalism by wrecking the state budget then claiming the need to privatize and cut budgets. It's important to point out what actually happened (is happening, will continue to happen), and not gloss over it by pretending it's a generic government problem.

<comment><USER27> >Not the state as a generic entity, Republicans specifically, neocons with a very specific ideological privatization agenda practicing good old disaster capitalism...

That's biased enough to be wrong. Flint wasn't in receivership because of Republicans, and in fact the mayor, a Democrat, signed on to the plan to use water from the Flint river. A plan which, by the way, was conceived by the city's emergency manager, also a Democrat.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Concept-Oriented Programming - <AUTHOR> http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=47699

<comment><USER2> _Each concept has two definitions for each method provided in its reference class and object class._

Because Java-style OOP just doesn't have enough boilerplate. It sounds like the problems this solves have already been solved better by CLOS.

<comment><USER3> Can you help me out - what is the problem they are trying to solve in the first place?

<comment><USER4> The problem that different kinds of composition are not equally easy to specify. Some, non-blessed ones you have to put together with design patterns. He has an abstraction / implementation method that makes it all as easy as pie. At least that's what I took from it.</comment></comment></comment>