Agile considered harmful? - <AUTHOR>

A report on a survey of users of Agile methods comes to some highly critical conclusions. http://www.vokeinc.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=136&Itemid=206 (paid for content)
There is substantial comment : http://jordanbortz.wordpress.com/2012/07/16/voke-releases-research-report-on-agile-realities/ http://adtmag.com/articles/2012/07/13/report-says-agile-a-scam.aspx
My company has applied Agile patchily, and so this is very important for me as an issue that is live and difficult - there are highly valued employees who passionately advocate it and produce very significant and high quality work while using it, but we are simply unable to use it with some teams and projects, and worse, we have tried in the past in other places in the business and suffered some failures.
I feel we lack real evidence.
The "Hated Slashdot" has a long uniformed discussion on the topic, but I wondered if HN people had specific insights on either killer arguments & studies around using or not using Agile or specific anecdotes that could be used in the debate? <comment><USER2> It's people that deliver software projects not processes.

I good and well motivated developer will deliver results regardless of the process used. A process will work well on a team if that team wants to implement it.

I wouldn't say Agile was a scam it has a lot of good ideas, ideas borrowed from best practices from numerous sources.

What it lacks that most processes lack is a true understanding of what motivates developers to deliver. If you're a manager and you don't know how to motivate your team then you're in trouble regardless of the process you use.</comment>


Engineers: Build businesses not apps - <AUTHOR> http://emphaticsolutions.com/2010/12/10/build-businesses-not-apps.html

<comment><USER2> Or, build apps, lots of them, keep them alive, find distribution channels to push them through (platforms), improve the winners, sideline the losers, find a niche, build apps for the niche, keep slugging away at it, build up a portfolio of complementary things.. and then build a business out of it.

I mean, its very very hard to get it right the first time and hit one out of the park, so you have to try a million tiny things to find some things that stick. The trick is knowing when you're on to something and when you need to double-down. If you can't do that yourself, get outside people involved when you think you have something. If everyone walks away disinterested, you may not have anything yet... keep going.

<comment><USER3> "Or, build apps, lots of them, keep them alive, find distribution channels to push them through (platforms), improve the winners, sideline the losers, find a niche, build apps for the niche, keep slugging away at it, build up a portfolio of complementary things.."

Isn't that a business? :)

<comment><USER2> When the first deposit from a paying customer hits your bank account, or the first serious investor opens their wallet to validate you, or you convince some innocent wide-eyed soul to quit their job and join you, then you can call it a business. Before that, I'd just call it an expensive hobby.

<comment><USER4> Yikes. I have several expensive hobbies on the go right now.

<comment><USER2> App Engine and Heroku have recently taken a couple of my projects infrastructure costs down to nil... so it is getting less expensive. However, the opportunity costs are still eating me alive. :)

<comment><USER5> That will always be the case. Just know that the opportunity costs of not doing it will be a little bit higher.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is the counter point to business types saying "I have an idea, all I need is a coder to build it"... "I have an app, all I need is to turn it into a business"

<comment><USER7> It is also good to partner up with someone who is good at building business.

<comment><USER8> There should be an App for that!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I've noticed this with lots of engineering type people... We love to build, to push boundaries, test limits, apply new ideas and technology, but don't generally like to think about all of the other stuff because it doesn't seem quite as cool or exciting.

I'm launching a business soon and I must say, there's a lot more that goes into it than I expected from the get go. Pricing plans, the front-facing website -- what information goes on it, how do I sell it, what do I focus on, etc -- logo, business cards, hosting options, funding, lawyers, incorporating, beta testing, etc... There's so much extra stuff involved and decisions to make.

It's really not for everyone though; so engineers, keep building apps if thats what you like to do. If the other stuff excites or interests you, then do that. Just know that if you want to build a business, there's a lot of extra crap you'll have to do that is gonna either suck, or if you're like me, excite you even more.

<comment><USER10> I'm not sure that it's because the other stuff isn't "doesn't seem quite as cool or exciting", I've realized that the buzz associated with fixing bugs or implementing new features is addictive because of the _immediate_ feedback and associated warm glow of self satisfaction when all the unit tests are green, the bug is fixed or that cool new feature is added.

I've only realized this fairly recently and I know that it means a significant changes in my behavior is required....

<comment><USER9> I'm guessing you came to that realization from actually having to do it? I was just saying that sometimes the prospect of having to do all of that "extra stuff" in the beginning isn't enticing. Once you get going you find that it is actually addictive and exciting (for some).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The author makes a very good point, yet I fail to see practical advices about how to tackle the "business" side of things.

In the Milo.com example, it seems they succeeded because they were able to establish relationships with the big retailers. Yet I doubt that, had the author picked up the phone and called these retailers, he would have had any luck. It's possible, but business deals seem to be a lot about "relationships". Would the solution be to partner with a business person? Maybe, but how would you go about finding that person? They should be someone with knowledge and relationships in the particular business area (here, retailers), and yet it seems most of the successful business partnerships seem to have been between people who knew each other for a while (e.g. college friends, etc), probably because trust is essential. And yet in that case, it seems very difficult to find a matching relationship between the people involved and the "business idea" / "epiphany".

It would be interesting to learn about how an engineer can learn more about the business-side of things, and how to successfully partner with business people.

<comment><USER12> Establishing a relationship could be signing up for their affiliate program and making use of its product feed. Pretty low barrier to entry.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is something I realized last year.

It turns out the same kind of detail oriented "hacker"-minded thinking that goes into coding can be applied to a lot of other things. Just takes patience and the willingness to be a beginner again.

</comment><comment><USER14> Or my related self-admonition: build the business before you buy the domain name.

There are better and cheaper ways to keep track of good ideas than a GoDaddy account!

</comment><comment><USER15> Been there. I had the "that was my idea" moment a few days ago when I saw <http://skillsapp.com/> which is something I had been toying with in my mind.

The thing is, as with apps, there is always room for competition. So what if someone "takes" your idea first? You can execute on it too and build something worth paying for; maybe even a better one.

<comment><USER8> >So what if someone "takes" your idea first? You can execute on it too and build something worth paying for; maybe even a better one.

Meta-ration (meta iteration?)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> _Get the giant retailers first, where there is huge impact with a single business integration._

Though this wasn't the point of the article, this sector specific point is worth considering for any online business trying to do "local."

</comment><comment><USER17> Interesting, if somewhat standard issue, article - however, it seems to me that the author wasn't really building an app at all. A shopping portal with a search function - whoop dee doo. Might be an interesting business, but at this point that doesn't qualify as an app so much as it qualifies as a remedial exercise any halfway competent webdev could throw together in a day or two. It seems to me the "build businesses not apps" crowd tends to confuse businesses that use technology with businesses that ARE technology. The two are very distinct businesses with very different sets of requirements.

</comment><comment><USER7> With the advent of the app stores on mobile phones, I think it is possible to generate revenue (and profits too) by creating apps. Someone who is a game developer can build a business writing games for all the mobile platforms. If your business is not writing (and selling) games, I think you need to partner up with different players to increase the value of your service.

I think the app stores are letting us developers test our little apps without a business in the foreseeable future, which I think is great. If the app is a success then we can think of building a business around it.</comment>


The MAKWA Password Hashing Function [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.bolet.org/makwa/makwa-spec-20150422.pdf <comment><USER2> MAKWA is a Password Hashing Competition finalist, for what it's worth.

</comment><comment><USER3> Interesting. See also "Another huge security problem" posted a few minutes ago here. Maybe CBCrypt can use MAKWA.</comment>


What is going on with the editing of submission titles? - <AUTHOR>

Twice now, I've seen my submission titles edited by someone else (probably Graham or his admins, if he has any for this site).
Both times, the edits were innocuous (the first one improved the title ever so slightly) but unnecessary.
It's not a huge problem, but it is a bit annoying. <comment><USER2> Editors edit submission titles for two reasons:

1\. To keep the site clean (no spelling mistakes, gratuitously long titles, SHOUTING!!!, etc.)

2\. To keep titles fairly neutral. People have a right to say what they want in comments, but because a story can only be submitted once, if we didn't edit submission titles, the first submitter could put whatever spin on the story, and all readers would have to read it as that.

<comment><USER3> I think we're quickly approaching a slippery slope here. Seeing as a username is attached to every post, isn't the user somewhat responsible for every link (s)he posts? It now constitutes part of their reputation. Now, if an editor modifies the post but the username is still attached to the post and their is no indication that it's been edited , is the original poster still responsible for the post? (S)he can turn around and say, "That's not what I posted. I don't want that attached to my submission history. I don't want any karma that's associated with that altered post, whether good or bad."

<comment><USER2> We may be on a slippery slope, but we're not quickly approaching one. Editors have fixed titles from day 1.

I think the best plan is just to make it policy that submission titles have a different status from comments. They have to, because all the users have to share the same title for each link.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not sure I understand that explanation.

So we share the same title for each link (yes, we do), but we see different comments?

No, we don't: if there's a ridiculous/obnoxious/puerile/etc. comment posted, we all share that, too.

Why should the editing policy for titles be different from comments?

<comment><USER4> He may have meant that different users should give a specific submission the same title, one without spelling mistakes and bias. So if a user titles a submission with spelling mistakes or bias then it would be reasonable to edit the title to the correct form.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think it'd be nice if there were some simple page displaying what instructions the admins are operating under. They're white knights not gestapo, right? :-)

<comment><USER4> Why's it matter? They have our interests in mind. This works because we're small and Paul's visible.

I'm sure there are no specific 'instructions'. They're trying to keep the site nice because it's a reflection of YCombinator.

<comment><USER5> Doesn't need to be very formal. Just a little friendly transparency to avoid theses kinds of threads being repeated frequently.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> We're wasting a lot of time, time is money! We are trying to start our own companies, and come here for meeting people and learning. This doesn't fall in either category. We don't have a lot of time in starting our companies, but I guess this is good because while you guys are being distracted by all this, I'll have read the important links and maybe make some breakthrough in my "killer app".

</comment><comment><USER7> What were the changes?

<comment><AUTHOR> They were minor edits for brevity, just the removal of one or two adjectives and conjunctions.

I.e., they were the types of things that if I were writing a paper and a draft reviewer suggested removing them, I would have said "ok".

But that's not the point.

<comment><USER7> Agreed. I was just wondering out of interest.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think its fine - anyone who things otherwise will find plenty of non editor places to hang out on the net.</comment>


UK: Snowden reporter's partner involved in 'espionage' and 'terrorism' - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/01/us-uk-nsa-idUSBRE9A013O20131101?p=1

<comment><USER2> I especially like this reasoning: "Additionally the disclosure, or threat of disclosure, is designed to influence a government and is made for the purpose of promoting a political or ideological cause. This therefore falls within the definition of terrorism..." (from the "Ports Circulation Sheet" document cited in the article.)

By this token, any kind of lobbying is also terrorism. Hell, any kind of activism in a political space "is designed to influence a government and is made for the purpose of promoting a political or ideological cause".

Seems like a perfect illustration of the kind of slippery slope the world is on.

This article seems to also parallel well with the Russian detention of a Greenpeace ship and charging crew with piracy: [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-02/piracy-charges- against...](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-02/piracy-charges-against- greenpeace-activists-not-dropped/5065792). Effectively, "it's piracy because we say so", just like "it's terrorism because we say so" logic in the "Ports Circulation Sheet" document.

<comment><USER3> The first part of that statement is: "We assess that Miranda is knowingly carrying material the release of which would endanger people's lives."

Most lobbyists and activists aren't carrying around NSA documents.

<comment><USER2> True, but the quoted statement appears to be self-contained. It is that much more interesting that the author of the document seemed to feel the need to add justification beyond the assertion that the documents could endanger people's lives. It is this added justification that strikes me especially problematic.

The definition of terrorism that is implied is so vague and arbitrary that it seems that it can be attributed to almost any political process.

<comment><USER4> It's a quote from another document so we have no idea if it's self contained without seeing the original document.

It's also worth remembering that Greenwald chose that quote to go in his article so would have chosen to put it in a context that emphasises his viewpoint.

I still don't understand why Miranda flew though the UK when he was carrying UK intelligence materials - still looks like a baited trap for publicity to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This kind of response is not new sadly. On Netflix, there is a documentary on Daniel Elisberg and his leaking of the Pentagon Papers [1] - The Most Dangerous Man in America [2]. If you watch it and you'll see some of the parallels to today with the responses between the State and Journalism.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers) [2] [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/daniel_ellsberg_doc/](http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/daniel_ellsberg_doc/)

<comment><AUTHOR> There is an interesting comment [1] from Ellsberg on Snowden as well:

[1][http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-07-07/opinions/40427...](http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-07-07/opinions/40427629_1_daniel- ellsberg-pentagon-papers-snowden-s)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> How do they know that his storage media contains 58,000 documents. Were the files not transferred in an encrypted archive?

</comment><comment><USER7> Since it's probably going to be changed soon, original submission's title: The UK just equated journalism and terrorism...

<comment><AUTHOR> Should I change the title? I don't see how it violates any rules? It's not click-baiting either. Unfortunately it's quite a summary of what the article says ...

<comment><USER8> UK was asserting that Miranda was involved in espionage and terrorism, but you're asserting that it was journalism (carrying documents on behalf of Greenwald) and I don't think that's really accurate.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well he was carrying documents meant for a journalist, that where to be published by a legit newspapers. Sounds like being a part in a journalistic process to me.

Sure the title maybe a bit edgy, but that it what it comes down to. That is the important (and very bad) message.

<comment><USER9> Exactly. To the extent that he wasn't involved in journalism, he also wasn't involved in _the disclosure, or threat of disclosure... "_.

That is to say, if he wasn't participating in journalism, then how can it be said that he was disclosing, or threatening to disclose, anything?

They _really did_ equate journalism with terrorism. The title, while editorialized, is not an exaggeration.

<comment><USER10> For some values of "they", not including (yet) the court where this document was read out, right?

Because at the moment that value of "they" includes (from the article) Scotland Yard, and (from outside the article) a few other similar organisations (maybe GCHQ, MI5, MI6, etc)

But certainly not "the UK". So the title, as well as being editorialized, is an exaggeration.

EDIT: But let's see what happens with the court case, I guess.

<comment><USER11> Pretty much any member of parliament introducing a non-trivial bill into the house for debate is a terrorist under this definition as well.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Burnout: How to Manage and Avoid It - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@lsjroberts/burnout-how-to-manage-and-avoid-it-f887fe77ddde <comment><AUTHOR> This is just based on my experience, so feel free to disagree! I'd be interested to hear others experiences and what worked for them.</comment>


California Employers Must Provide Salary Ranges When Asked - <AUTHOR> https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB168 <comment><USER2> I've been watching this for a while. I think it's great but afraid it might be another piece of barely enforceable employment law.

</comment><comment><USER3> Is "0 to ∞" a valid answer to salary range? If not, how narrow does the range have to be?

<comment><USER2> It has to be the actual salary range for the position.

<comment><USER4> And that can be very wide. For example, for my employer, a typical job where the midpoint of the salary range is X will have a range from 0.6X to 1.4X.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thought I'd repost this - given it took effect on January 1st. Employers can also no longer ask for, or try to obtain, salary history as well.

<comment><USER5> And even if it falls in their lap, can't use it set salary for new employees.

 _Except_ if the applicant has salary history that is public information under state or federal law (basically, public employees), in which case the salary history provisions of the new law do not apply at all: not only can they ask for and try to obtain such history (unsurprising, as it is public), they can use it as a basis for setting salary offers.</comment></comment>


The Oblivion of Adam: What if you could remember every poem in the next life? - <AUTHOR> http://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2016/11/01/the-oblivion-of-adam/ <comment><USER2> What a delightful read! I'm going to check out the "Epistle of Forgiveness", which apparently has a translation available on Amazon!

</comment><comment><USER3> Why on earth is this on the front page of HN?

<comment><USER4> You should check out the submission guidelines: [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

note that it says:

On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.

Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off- topic.

This post doesn't fall clearly in the "Off-Topic" section, so it seems completely appropriate.

<comment><USER3> Okay, thanks for the explanation. It's just frustrating that something like this that is somewhat offtopic makes it onto the front page for quite a long time with only 18 upvotes and no discussion. Mysteries of the algo, I guess... or abuse.

<comment><USER5> AFAIK the algorithm is very naive, only taking into account number of up-votes and how long since it was posted to determine whether it goes on the FP and how quickly, and humans manually moderate to filter reposts and other against- the-rules content out of FP.

So basically, this is on the FP because enough people are interested in it.

Now if you're wondering why they're interested in this enough to up-vote it to FP even though it's not about start-ups, techs, or futurism, well that's more of a coincidence than anything else.

HN is ostensibly a forum for intellectual conversation, and that's it. This link tries to do just that, so it counts. In reality though HN is a business move. It's basically a niche forum geared towards the target customer base of YC and YC's affiliates and start-ups. That's how they advertise to them.

The real mystery here is why I'm not putting this kind of knowledge and insight to work toward making me a millionaire. I'm literally the same age as Sam Altman, yet I'm barely able to feed a family of 7. FFS.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


No handshakes. A bad economy. These car salesmen shifted tactics– and succeeded - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/08/12/with-handshakes-barred-an-economy-trouble-car-salesman-tries-seal-deal/ <comment><USER2> I tried to buy a new car and ended up not buying anything due to stubbornness of salesmen.

I couldn't care less about personal interaction with sleazy salesman and when buying new car I just need the right price, not the sales dance done in person and all this "let me talk to the manager" BS.

When salesman quotes me MSRP on my answer on the best deal - this is conversation over.

When they stop treating customers like idiots they'll get more business and more sales.

<comment><USER3> It's not uncommon for popular models to sell at MSRP or above. That's just supply & demand.

The dance is extremely annoying, though. I've leased 4 cars since 2011: 3 Mercedes and 1 Honda CR-V. I wanted to lease another CR-V, but the dealership reneged on the price so we just went back to our trusty sales rep at the Mercedes dealership who always comes back with something reasonable in a matter of hours--not especially low, but no B.S. and no pressure tactics. The Mercedes is of course more expensive, but after splurging the first time it's hard to stop the cycle given the customer experience.

I want to buy something to replace our 20-year-old Civic. Probably not a Mercedes, because of long-term costs, unless we buy over our current lease. But it's really no fun dealing with typical dealerships, and the good family cars (e.g. Telluride, CR-V, etc) are really popular and the dealerships know this.

I recently learned that there's a boutique car shopping consulting industry where you pay a few hundred dollars for someone to provide advice on models (including family haulers, not just high-end sports cars), and then to solicit and _secure_ offers on your preferred models. I might try that next time around.

<comment><USER4> Do you have any referrals or links to those types of places? I'd pay that gladly.

<comment><USER3> I saw some names recommended in the leasehackr.com forums, but only the forum handles. I haven't gone back to track down proper contacts. But that piqued my curiosity and when Googling one of the first hits was [https://automatchconsulting.com/](https://automatchconsulting.com/). I haven't dug any deeper since then. The other recommendations else thread look promising, too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> So what exactly is the new tactic? I scoured the article but they never seemed to explain what the new tactic is, other than the phrase "working deals over Zoom and text messages."

<comment><USER6> There's no new tatic, it's just adjusting to a different communication style.

What boggles me is the lady who drove the Lincoln and tried the Wrangler. The salesman should have suggested a different vehicle.

<comment><USER7> She wasn't ready but is looking to change carstyle. I think she'll have come back, if he gave her a hassle free non sexist chance to enjoy the Jeep. Telling a customer what she wants is a good way to make her walk, my partner does, every single time.

<comment><USER6> The Wrangler drives very differently than a Lincoln. They look awesome, but they are the polar opposite of a luxury vehicle. Heavy, slow, loud, limited towing, "outdated" manual transfer case... Makes sense for going off-road, or for customizing, but not as a luxury SUV. (And my wife talked me out of one twice! _)

The other Jeeps are just cheap crossovers.

_ I found a perfect 4-door, 10-year-old Wrangler to buy while I waited for my Tesla, and then keep to take on the beach, but my wife decided she wanted a minivan instead.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Car salesmen might have carved for the personal connection and face to face deals, customers dread it. It's much better to have a impersonal buying experience over phone and internet. No wonder dealerships adapted to the new approach thrive.

</comment><comment><USER9> It was not mentioned in the article, but it seems like there's also lower inventory on car lots due to the slowdowns and closures of auto plants in the spring.

<comment><USER10> Barely. The demand also went down, and thousands cars are stuck in ports [1] and even on ships [2],

[1] [https://driving.ca/nissan/auto-news/news/suvs-on-cargo- ships...](https://driving.ca/nissan/auto-news/news/suvs-on-cargo-ships-stuck- in-the-ocean-as-u-s-ports-crowded-with-unsold-cars)

[2] [https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=cars+st...](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=cars+stuck+ports)

<comment><USER9> That was true a few months ago, but things have changed.

Many North American factories closed down or curtailed production in the March-April-May timeframe. There was a rebound in demand as spring turned into summer (which was a major point in the article), but the supply chain to deliver the vehicles to meet that demand had stalled.

"growth in supply has yet to catch up to demand" (11 Aug)

[https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news- insights...](https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news- insights/latest-news-headlines/tight-us-auto-inventory-likely-to-hit-already- depressed-car-sales-experts-say-59776691)

"Auto dealers in states with new virus outbreaks have a bigger problem: low inventory" (20 July)

[https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/2020/07/20/...](https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/2020/07/20/covid- hotspots-auto-dealers-low-inventory/5446996002/)

"The car shortage is a big story. Between people moving to the suburbs and avoiding public transportation (so they need cars) and the factories having shut down or slowed down due to COVID, we're running out of available cars." (5 Aug)

[https://twitter.com/TheStalwart/status/1291110174879514628](https://twitter.com/TheStalwart/status/1291110174879514628)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> No HN thread on car sales would be complete without a mention of this classic: [http://www.dougsrepublic.com/PDF/carsalesman.pdf](http://www.dougsrepublic.com/PDF/carsalesman.pdf)

(I'd link to the original on Edmunds.com, but it seems to be hopelessly borked with 404s all over the place.)

</comment><comment><USER7> Two cars in a row on the line are not identical. Options and finish and engine and suspension and extra and milage and maintenance history and colour and metallic or plain.. the idea a car purchase is cookie cutter is probably as flawed as the idea all ThinkPad are the same.

<comment><USER12> Weird how customers are able to compare models and purchase in almost all other walks of life

<comment><USER9> I'm buying my first pickup. These are not cookie-cutter vehicles. The MSRP is a floor for sticker prices. Once you factor in trim levels, packages, engine choices, etc there's a continuous gradient that runs from MSRP to 2x MSRP or more. When you have specific capacities for towing and payload that you're after, plus some other options, it gets complex. The manufacturer's site did not allow faceted search at the level that I wanted, so I wrote software to scrape the inventory, parse the option codes and stick the results in a Sqlite file so I could track inventory in the region.

<comment><USER12> My point is not that it's easy, or that having a guide is unhelpful.

My point is that the pretend song-and-dance of current car buying is ridiculous and anti-consumer.

And lots of people don't have complex requirements for their vehicles. Size, color, type etc. Which could probably literally be managed via an Amazon-style listing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> While it's a terrible situation, it is endearing to see people think on their feet during the pandemic. It would be nice to see some of these methods spread and stick around.

It's nothing personal but I loathe negotiating and dealing with car salesmen in the traditional process. I want people to get paid fairly without feeling like I'm being taken advantage of.

<comment><USER14> I just bought a car and at a certain point during the negotiation I was like... this is weird, subaru is gonna sell thousands of 2020 outbacks, why is there not just a set advertised price.

<comment><USER15> In most of the US, car manufacturers cannot sell directly to consumers, and by law must sell through dealers.

Some companies, most notably Tesla, have come under fire in various states for selling directly: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_US_dealership_disputes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_US_dealership_disputes)

<comment><USER16> I agree that is how it works presently in the US. Nonetheless, parent's comment is interesting to consider. Why is it that way? Why don't Subaru etc just set a price, you buy the car, and be done with it? The answer is either that it works better or that it's too hard to change. The latter explanation seems facile; with so much money, people and tech involved, it seems likely that the status quo would have already changed to having fixed prices.

Years ago, Saturn dealerships sold new cars at a fixed price. No negotiations. I considered one and rejected it as the price seemed too high. Didn't even talk to a sales rep. The current car sales regime nearly forces me to talk to somebody, and then they can hound me until I buy or they give up.

It might be possible for car manufacturers to motivate sales through some other means, but apparently this way works, no matter how sucky it is.

<comment><USER17> It really is that car dealerships are very wealthy and have a lot of political clout. There were also early rulings that a manufacturer can't order a car dealership how to operate - the basics of the case were that American manufacturers were lending or outright granting money for people to start dealerships. Those dealerships started trying to sell foreign cars, the manufacturers said "no way", the dealerships fought back, and the dealerships won.

Basically it's become a textbook example of the entrenched parties setting up barriers to entry. They have lots of money, and are often active in their local communities, so people generally like them.

Edit: basically, I'm saying it really is too hard to change because the law is on the dealerships side, and there's a lot of momentum and status quo to overcome.

<comment><USER18> I don't mean this as a joke, but I thought people generally hated car salesmen?

Here in Japan, the manufacturers do actually set a recommended retail price that is slightly higher that what dealers often sell at. Example using the Subaru Outback mentioned up top, shows three available grades sold starting at 3,410,000yen. Roughly us$30k.

[https://members.subaru.jp/estimate_simulation/index.html?car...](https://members.subaru.jp/estimate_simulation/index.html?carm=legacy_obk&btc=BW0G01&tcode=BS9G5LC&mop=ABC&ext=1U&int=20)

<comment><USER17> They hate car salesmen, yes. But oddly enough "Family Jones Chevrolet/Ford/Toyota/Nissan/etc." has been sponsoring the local little league team for 20 years, so they don't have to do much to convince the locals to tell their state legislators that "protecting" these "family-owned" dealerships is good.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Space Plan From China Broadens Challenge to U.S. - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/30/world/asia/china-unveils-ambitious-plan-to-explore-space.html

<comment><USER2> Hopefully China has a great decade and doesn't falter. Their rise has been truly impressive. The Economist is predicting they will pass the US economy in 2018. Having another country as big as the US pushing boundaries in science, engineering, etc will accelerate progress.

What's really missing is for China to have a few dozen universities doing research at the most advanced levels.

<comment><USER2> Why the downvote? It's not my fault that America exported its middle class, its manufacturing, and its future. If you ask the average American, they'd say "why are we spending so money on NASA, when we've got problems on earth?" Then they'd run off to Walmart to buy all that cheap crap from China. At least China is doing to cool stuff with the money. A space program, thousands of miles of high-speed rail, etc.

<comment><USER3> > "why are we spending so money on NASA, when we've got problems on earth?"

> doing [...] cool stuff with the money

is that the best reason you have? i think the money would be better spent curing diseases

<comment><USER2> We already spend a lot more money on medical research than space exploration. The NIH budget is bigger than NASA's.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institutes_of_Health>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I don't understand stories like these at all. Why are still seeing this from a Cold War perspective?

First, in what possible sense is a Chinese manned spaceflight program a _challenge_ to the U.S. If we apply the same standard to the Russians, haven't we've already "lost"? What's with the International Space Station, can China not join the club? The first item in the National Aeronautics and Space Act [1]:

      >(a) Devotion of Space Activities to Peaceful Purposes for Benefit of All
      >Humankind.--Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States that
      >activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of
      >all humankind.

Second, why no division of labor? Let China do manned spaceflight. Hell, let's chip in (aside from debt service on all those T-bills). We can do plenty of cool stuff: start flinging bacterial spores into interstellar space, submersible probe(s) on Europa, etc.

[1]: <http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/about/space_act1.html#POLICY>

</comment><comment><USER5> I don't get it. Where's the challenge? If the Chinese are able to excel in their space program, how does that have any effect (particularly a negative one) on the rest of the world? This, as with economics, is not a zero sum game.

Space... is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mindbogglingly big it is...

<comment><USER6> The challenge is on

a) challenging US domination of the space

b) China might (and probably will) deploy weapons in the space, just like the US does.

<comment><USER4> Two questions: (1) What does domination of space look like, number of military satellites?; (2) What weapons has the US deployed in space?

<comment><USER7> [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12/30/chinese_space_white_...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12/30/chinese_space_white_paper/)

<comment><USER4> I suppose my point is that China, like Russia and the United States, see a comprehensive space program as important to its interests. As the article linked to in the parent notes, these technologies are necessarily dual use, but I see no reason for that to lock us into a Sino-US space race.

China's leaders have ambitious long-term goals for their space program that will be almost impossible to meet on its own (the cost of a Mars mission would be staggering), so cooperation with the US is in their interests as well as ours. China gains access to dual-use technology, we get to massage China's nationalism into something less virulent, and if nothing else, we both get to delay a strategic confrontation.

Hey, I'm just some guy on the internet. But it seems wise to avoid repeating the mistakes of the 20th century and do a better job of accepting the reality of China's rise to great power status and accommodating them into the international system.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The challenge from China on space needs to be kept in perspective the chinese still spend much less than the US on space technologies. The real failure has been the constant insistence by political leaders that NASA utilize shuttle derived components. After having to cancel the constellation project due to questions about whether the ares rockets would ever fly it is disconcerting that a similar approach is now being tried again. The new approach is probably workable in the sense that it will fly but it will continue to use shuttle derived components that will promise a high cost and limited flexibility for very little benefit over commercial approaches.

</comment><comment><USER9> I can't help but compare this to the US government, which can't even seem to pull itself together for an annual budget. With respect to space, hopefully SpaceX and other private efforts will be able to propel the US in ways that NASA hasn't been able to.

</comment><comment><USER10> It's only a challenge if the challenged has the ability and intention to rise to it.

</comment><comment><USER11> This century (the next 88 years) can be summed up in one word: China....</comment>


What Happens When a Suburb Begins to Die? - <AUTHOR> https://psmag.com/news/when-a-suburb-begins-to-die <comment><USER2> > _Once part of the central city, the suburb gains a high-profile mayor in the > public spotlight who is now responsible for what happens there. It becomes > part of a city with diverse neighborhoods and housing types that will rise > and fall on different cycles. And there are the assets of a big city > downtown to draw on to help finance services._

Why would a city agree to merge with a distressed, money-draining suburb?

There is no solution for these suburbs: they aren't economically sustainable, their income and household density is too small to support the vast infrastructure they require. The lower the density, the more miles of roads, pipes, wires are needed per capita, and more policing, fire services, etc.

Let them fail and wipe them out. Instead of wasting money trying to sustain a broken system, provide resources to facilitate moving to mid and high-density housing in the central city.

If people still want to live in large houses in low-density areas, let them pay for it.

<comment><USER3> > If people still want to live in large houses in low-density areas, let them > pay for it.

Excellent! Same with urban mass transit, then.

<comment><USER4> Cool, cool, as long as we're moving to user fees for everything, let's also have that apply to roadways which are not remotely covered by the gas tax.

<comment><USER5> At least on the federal level, considering the federal gas tax hasn't been raised since 1993, it does a pretty good job at covering the costs of roads.

[https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwaytrustfund/](https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwaytrustfund/)

<comment><USER4> That link is only showing the state of the gas tax fund, and shows none of the transfers from the general fund to prop up shortfalls.

Second, local roads (i.e. the majority) are mostly funded through the general fund of municipalities.

Here's an overview of how laughably short gas taxes fall when it comes to paying for the roads: [http://frontiergroup.org/reports/fg/do-roads-pay- themselves](http://frontiergroup.org/reports/fg/do-roads-pay-themselves)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Annexation was a strategy used by Columbus OH some years ago to continue growth past the limits of its suburban sprawl (and officially past the size of Cleveland, making it defacto the largest city in Ohio). Cleveland has been talking about doing the same for some time now, but I don't think the state government has been very supportive. Cleveland proper isn't large in itself, but the metro area is about the size of Austin: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistic...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas)

A negotiation for merger between Cleveland and East Cleveland was shot down last year because of some pretty ridiculous demands by the EC leadership:

[http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2016/08/east_clevel...](http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2016/08/east_cleveland_wants_to_keep_r.html#incart_m- rpt-1)

Some discussion at the time: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Cleveland/comments/4zeubq/east_clev...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Cleveland/comments/4zeubq/east_cleveland_has_conditions_for_cleveland_merger/)

<comment><USER7> As a resident of the Columbus Ohio area for many years the equivalent to East Cleveland would be Whitehall. Whitehall is an inner-belt suburb that has nothing but [now] dirt cheap housing with a high crime rate. Meanwhile a 20 minute drive to the north is one of the fastest growing areas in the country, Delaware County. All suburb with upper six figure homes, retail, medical, and a near zero crime rate. One can use Columbus as the perfect example of what happens when affluent people keep moving further away from the city core. Far flung suburbs are building like crazy, like Dublin and Westerville in Deleware County. Gahanna is getting swallowed by Columbus annexing, New Albany's aggressive annexing may save part of the city from going "ghetto" in 25-30 years. Reynoldsburg, Pickerington, and Pataskala all annexed to block Columbus from swallowing them whole too.

Inner suburbia like Whitehall is not coming back. Highway infrastructue shuffles more traffic between suburbs around Columbus and many other citys rather than traffic into the city core. Poor people displaced from hip new downtown building are moving into these abandoned inner burbs and bringing all the crime with them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> _By not merging, those black residents are cut off from the tax base being created by the technology and medical industry booms happening in the city of Pittsburgh next door. Black control in many of these suburbs has meant inheriting a community where previous generations of residents did the equivalent of running up 250,000 miles on the odometer, then handed over the keys to what 's now used-up jalopy and walked away._

That's not how real estate works. It's not a car. Usually, when a city experiences a boom, its suburbs benefit by housing workers from the booming industries.

If people choose to extend their commute or pay higher prices for residences in the city just to avoid you, I'm guessing you gave them a very good reason to avoid you. Why did the original middle class residents leave?

<comment><USER9> Why did original middle class residents leave? Because American suburbs are built unsustainably. Because maintaining or replacing infrastructure built 30 years ago and designed to last 25 years costs more (prohibitively so) than new greenfield development. Because they're moving into the city to shorten their commutes rather than further out to lengthen them.

<comment><USER8> Why does it cost prohibitively more to raze a house and build a new one? Or repave a road over building a new one?

At least some infrastructure is reusable and you get residences closer to the city therefore much more valuable than outer suburbs which are doing better. You beat the city by offering a real backyard. There, sold.

Some people will still live farther out and others will remain in the city but you should have no trouble finding younger families happy to live there. This is not the issue.

<comment><USER9> It's not uncommon for new development to be subsidized by regional or state (or in the case of building roads, federal) entities in a way that maintenance and replacement are not. Plus maintenance/replacement disrupts other infrastructure and activity in ways that greenfield development doesn't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It's funny, we created communities that are too low density, and which contain almost no commercial or industrial development to support the tax base, and then we act surprised that they can't sustain themselves.

These communities seem to me like unsustainable resorts built for the upper middle class of fifty years ago.

<comment><USER4> This is my feeling as well. The marginal cost of expensive infrastructure such as sewer, water, transportation, etc. is intrinsically higher the further out you go. When you were building on greenfields during suburban expansion, you overlooked that because relatively affluent people were getting a bargain on the land and thus the development costs looked more reasonable. Now the deferred maintenance on those bits of infrastructure is catching up and they want the central cities—the places where the marginal cost of infrastructure is low—to subsidize repairs to the infrastructure that allows for low density sprawl.

To be fair, the article is talking about relatively close-in suburbs. Things will look worse when the even more farflung exurbs start having a lot of deferred maintenance catch up to them.

<comment><USER11> In many areas, far flung "exurbs" long predate many of the closer-in suburbs. The town I'm in was founded in 1653 or something like that. So this narrative that infrastructure for living outside of cities only exists because of subsidized greenfield development. Yes, many people in those outlying towns commute to work elsewhere but many of those jobs aren't actually in the major nearby cities. They're in other suburbs.

<comment><USER12> Then it would more properly be classified as a small town rather than an exurb.

<comment><USER11> "Small towns" constitute the vast majority of people living in more spread-out communities outside of New England cities. Some are more built up than others but most of them date to some degree or other to well before highways. FWIW ESRI classifies where I live an an exurb.

New England is an older part of the US and patterns are obviously different with newer cities.

<comment><USER13> New England really isn't interesting to discuss for the most part when discussing US suburbs. New England is as close to "europe" style development as we get.

The flyover states are really where this conversation needs to be focused on, as these are the communities that will first be hit hard.

Small towns that eventually got absorbed into a giant metroplex are not the usual in the country. I think most folks see them as entirely different when it comes to sustainability models/etc.

<comment><USER11> That's somewhat fair although I'll point out that migration out of the urban cores in Boston/Cambridge was the norm until not that many years ago. So the dynamics weren't all that different. And there were basically no significant tech jobs left in the core urban area until about 20 years ago.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> If this inner ring suburb is dying then the city is also dying. Inner ring suburbs are usually one of the first to benefit as city workers, looking for a shorter commute, buy housing nearby.

My city, Miami, dilapidated shacks are being snatched up for 300-500k, cash. And they are <20 minutes from the city core. That is what a ring suburb in a thriving city looks like.

If they aren't getting developers sniffing around driving up the tax base then merging with the city won't fix it.

<comment><USER15> Not necessarily. Chicago is experiencing a trend where the city center and north/west side are booming but the inner suburbs are slowly dying while the outer suburbs are booming.

<comment><USER14> I remain to be convinced. The last figures I could find was for 2015, 2010-2015 population grew 0.9% [0]. Not necessarily booming.

[0] [http://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/chicago- populatio...](http://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/chicago-population/)

<comment><USER15> It's more of the poor are leaving and the middle/upper class is arriving.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I thought British local government was a mess, but it seems US local government is much worse.

One thing that jumps out as soon as you look at a map is that East Cleveland isn't a geographically distinct built-up-area. It's not really a city of its own, I suspect much of its employment comes from Cleveland proper.

It seems to me that a lot of these urban sprawls should be merged into what the UK would call "unitary authorities", which could then better make area- wide planning decisions.

<comment><USER17> Yes, every time I hear calls from politicians to devolve more powers to regions in the UK I wonder what the outcome will be. It seems like an invitation for them to become fiscally irresponsible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> It seems like the problems are from low density so I wonder if there's a way to set up an economic incentive for residents of suburbs to congregate in naturally growing/shrinking high density clusters so empty areas remain completely empty instead of sparsely populated and can have their services shut down.

Perhaps property tax grows the fewer property tax-paying people are in a street/small area. Ulitimately making the one guy at the end of a deserted street pay for the sewer pipe and road going all the way up the street.

<comment><USER19> so in that case real estate prices in suburbs will drop to zero because nobody would want to have house with sky-high taxes for services and poor people will become poorer and be forced to move out of suburbs. And given that they already have little or no money, they would not have where to go, and they would need to purchase new apartments in city which will be expensive and they would need to take a loan for it, which most likely would not be granted because of a low income.

<comment><USER20> They should be able to purchase/rent _inexpensive_ apartments in the city. Because the apartments are higher density, they ought to be cheaper.

It must be a result of inefficient and damaging market forces, poorly planned maintenance expenses, and selfish political manipulations that make it cheaper for one person to live at the end of a culdesac than to live in an apartment building.

Think about it. Individual electric, sewer, water, roads, foundations, roofs, garages, exteriors, etc. on each house, with services and businesses like groceries, trash pickup, police/fire/ambulance, and transport spread over a broad area, should not be able to compete with a system in which these costs are shared and services are concentrated between many residents.

Yes, there are downsides to apartment living. I personally own my house, and enjoy that. But it's absurd that I can buy 2300 square feet of house and 2 acres of land for $1200/mo in mortgage, taxes, bills and maintenance when a 2-bedroom apartment outside my small Midwestern city rents for $1100/mo. And I paid extra for a newer house, larger lot, and nicer neighborhoods - you can buy less desirable spots for $800/mo, less than renting in less desirable apartments (assuming you have decent credit and a small down payment)! I should be paying way more, or they should be paying way less, if we're going to have balanced costs on the local economy.

<comment><USER21> > Because the apartments are higher density, they ought to be cheaper.

In my experience, that is not true because of the location of the apartment buildings. Anecdotally, most apartments I know of are in an area where space, thus housing supply, is at a premium and demand is high, not out in the suburbs where land and housing are already cheap. Why would you pay $X/month for an apartment when $X/month will also suffice for a mortgage?

<comment><USER20> Yep, I don't deny that your points are currently true.

I'm trying to say that a more rational system would put efficient, inexpensive apartment buildings where they would be cheaper, and more accurately ascribe higher costs to inefficient, expensive suburban single-family homes.

It's because the system is stupid and ineffective that apartments are in premium locations and suburban housing is artificially cheap. This ineffectiveness results in arguments like the parent article where people propose that the artificially cheap suburbs should be propped up by 'merging' with the wealthier and more efficient city who would be able to afford their poor choices.

<comment><USER19> why it is "artificially cheap" ? price is result of supply / demand , and if nobody wants to live in suburbs then price will also be low. I agree that police/emergency/firefighters will be subsidised by district, but for example trash services could have higher pricing to compensate longer trips to locations. same applies for water/gas services. For example my dad recently build tiny house in suburbs of one small city and he paid his own money to do some pipe works in order to have city's water supply. Same for sewage. But still pricing is lower compared to city's more central places because of prestige and comfort, so it makes sense to have cheaper pricing in suburbs.

I understand what you are trying to say but it contradicts how currently market is working, because in order to make sense city's apartments should be cheaper compared to suburbs, but given that population in cities is increasing, it means demand for apartments in cities is increasing, so increasing pricing too, and then we go back to square one - suburbs are cheaper to acquire.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> These suburbs are "dying" because the majority of their population are low- skilled, low-educated people who have fewer and fewer opportunities to prosper in an economy that is becoming more and more automated and skills-oriented. The blight and decay is just a symptom of the actual problem, which is decreasing opportunity for these people.

That's one of the reasons I oppose opening our borders to a flood of additional low-skilled, low-educated people. It hurts the ones who are already here.

I'm sure this will attract a lot of downvotes, and I'm perfectly fine with that, but I'd appreciate it if the downvoters would also point out the flaws they perceive in my logic.

</comment><comment><USER23> One only needs to fly over Detroit to see what happens when suburbs die. At night, huge areas of houses with only 1 or 2 having lights on. In the day, you see giant areas where there are no people, houses are falling apart, and some areas where they've simply torn down the buildings and left the land empty.

How many more cities will see this fate happen to their outer edges?

</comment><comment><USER24> China could deal with this problem pretty easily. They don't have that pesky _strong property rights_ issue like the US does. They could just relocate everyone and bulldoze the suburb.

<comment><USER25> Where exactly would the money come from to do that? Bulldozers don't drive and fuel themselves.

<comment><USER26> Read the thread: [https://twitter.com/StephanieKelton/status/90661446671188377...](https://twitter.com/StephanieKelton/status/906614466711883776)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> It is almost as if the US has been promoting unsustainable development and poor land use for decades and it is starting to bite cities and states in the ass.

<comment><USER27> Do you really think the US was 'promoting unsustainable development and poor land use', or do you think maybe it was more the case that things may have changed in the last 50-100 years, and we may have gotten a little wiser?

It's utterly silly to think that building suburbs in the 50s and 60s was malignant, purposeful behavior. Things change, our population has increased and our understanding about economics, technology and our resources has evolved.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Two of the terrible things that increase: crime and grocery stores closing.

</comment><comment><USER29> In Canada, the provinces often force cities to amalgamate. Is this not possible in the US?

</comment><comment><USER30> I'm always genuinely surprised that we don't build down instead of building up, especially when it comes to cities. Sure there are drainage issues but the difference in heating and cooling needs would prove beneficial. The only real reason I can think of is the risk of collapse, which we already have with above ground buildings. This would provide more affordable housing to those in cities themselves.

While it wouldn't solve the immediate issue it might mitigate some of the issues that cause the flight to suburbs in the first place.

<comment><USER31> Light, and you gotta move all that dirt, and the view out the window is less than inspiring.

<comment><USER32> Though probably not what the OP had in mind, your rebuttal is moot if one considers what we (humans) do with deep pit mining.

Essentially, we make a huge tapering hole in the ground, with each "tier" being part of the roadway for trucks and other mining equipment.

Light isn't really an issue, except at the very bottom, but even it receives some light during the day. Moving the dirt isn't a problem either - I'm not sure where it goes, but the tailings end up somewhere (it isn't all consumed in the mining operation).

As far as a view? Well - if such a construction was done for housing, the tiers could be rows and rows of buildings hugging the sides of the pit, potentially looking out and over at other buildings across a large expanse - like looking out over a valley (if you've never been to a deep pit mine, take a trip to one sometime - it's quite amazing). With trees, plants, etc - perhaps water features and maybe a lake at the bottom - I think (in theory) it could be quite lovely to look at and live in.

It would be nice if the deep pit mines we already have dug could be repurposed, but the problem with many are the amount of contamination caused by the mining and other activities during the operation of the mine; I doubt it would or could ever be fit to live in. Some of these mines are backfilled with the tailings afterward, but not all.

<comment><USER30> That's actually a somewhat ingenious solution to housing tbh. You could also utilize the interior space for hydroponic farming, etc, which would create attractive greenery.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> East Cleveland went down with the incandescent lightbulb. It's home to Nela Park, the first industrial park, built in 1901 by the National Electric Lamp Association and later acquired by General Electric. For most of a century, the East Cleveland Lamp Works source of incandescent light bulbs. There were R&D facilities; the compact fluorescent lamp was invented there, but not produced there.

Now Nela Park is down to about 300 people and GE is looking at exiting the lighting business completely.

</comment><comment><USER34> Good relation with a blog post i read recently: [https://econimica.blogspot.bg/2017/10/the-tale-of-two- americ...](https://econimica.blogspot.bg/2017/10/the-tale-of-two- americasurban-rise.html)</comment>


Comparing Mercedes-Benz E-Class DrivePilot and Tesla Model S AutoPilot - <AUTHOR> http://www.thedrive.com/tech/4591/the-war-for-autonomous-driving-2017-mercedes-benz-e-class-vs-2017-tesla-model-s <comment><USER2> Good comparison.

Every time the Tesla autopilot comes up, someone mentions that it is all hype and that other luxury car makers have had the same system for a while.

Apparently not so much.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12011419#12013113](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12011419#12013113) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12082893#12084011](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12082893#12084011) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12027270#12030017](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12027270#12030017) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10483181#10483796](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10483181#10483796) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10651085#10669959](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10651085#10669959) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12072957#12074227](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12072957#12074227) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12011635#12012305](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12011635#12012305) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12027270#12027745](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12027270#12027745) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9235002#9235548](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9235002#9235548) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8436280#8436433](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8436280#8436433) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8436280#8436399](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8436280#8436399)

I could go on.

</comment><comment><USER3> This article is very good at explaining what the UI for Tesla's AutoPilot is -- much of the discussion of it recently on HN has been from people who've never seen it.</comment>


Ask HN: A Good Reference to MS Office Automation, Please - <AUTHOR> Hello! I know that the web is littered with questions on this matter, but I still haven't been able to apply the answers I can find to my situation. I hence kindly beseech HNers to share your wisdom on this rather outdated issue.
I realize there is VBA, but I always disliked having the program/macro living inside the (say) Excel file, with the resulting bloat, security warnings, etc. I'm thinking along the lines of a VBScript that works on a set of Excel files while leaving them macro-free. Now, I've been able to "paint the first column blue" for all files in a directory following this approach, but I need to do more complex operations (charts, pivot tables, etc.), which could greatly benefit from the additional tools found in VBA.
For this specific example knowing how to remove all macros from all files after processing would be enough, but all suggestions are welcome. Any good references? (+) Any advice on how to best approach external batch processing of Excel files and its Office cousins?
Thanks!
(+) Even if the reference is, "Ask in this other website: _____." <comment><USER2> <http://oreilly.com/catalog/9781565926219> \- Python Programming on Win32 has some good info and some stories on "batch processing" of office docs. Good case study on "Applied Biometrics" capturing of drug testing process. I've used the py/com stuff to do some of what you want - build xls files with "macros" for calculations, etc. You have the option of doing it in python or inserting the excel code into cells. You can also find other "excel" controls for python that create csv file versions of spreadsheets (so likely none of the macro capabilities) - same for perl, etc</comment>


Ask HN: Learning computer science with Python? - <AUTHOR>

I'm not enrolled in school at the moment just self-learning how to program and I'm looking for a good Python book or videos explaining how to learn Algorithms or data structures through the use of Python? Understanding computer science concepts such as Stacks, Binary Trees, Recursion and Queues and how to implement them in Python? <comment><USER2> I'm not sure about the things you mentioned, but responding to your title here is the de facto learning-programming-via-python:

[http://www.greenteapress.com/thinkpython/](http://www.greenteapress.com/thinkpython/)</comment>


The Case Against an Autonomous Military - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/blog/the-case-against-an-autonomous-military <comment><USER2> I don't see 'autonomous' weapons as being developed by the US military as ever being banned under international law. Let us examine weapons that have been banned.

Chemical and biological weapons were banned under international law because they aren't all that much more effective than conventional weapons yet cause an undue amount of suffering in comparison. You get no benefits, only downsides.

The other example, anti-personnel mines, is more instructive. International law bans them because historically, belligerents who have employed them for area denial purposes never stick around and de-mine the area after the conflict is over, leaving the civilian population to suffer.

The United States refuses to sign a blanket ban on landmines, as her position is that her landmines are different, they self-destruct after a set period of time, therefore they don't threaten civilians long after the war is over.

There are two takeaways here. First, weapons are not banned before they are tested in a conflict. Second, effectiveness trumps morals, if a weapon of war is effective, that can tip it's acceptability status even in the face of "collateral" damage. This is the case with nuclear weaponry, which imposes costs on civilians but is considered worth it for their sheer power to end a conflict in minutes.

This is, after all, the entire premise upon which war is waged, for the good of the many over the few who are harmed. AI controlled weapons, unless they're left in a battlefield for civilians to contend with, something that appears fairly unlikely, at least at the moment, does not change this basic equation.

<comment><USER3> Calling this an "equation" seems overly fatalistic, as if it were inevitable. I'm pessimistic about this as well, but there certainly are attempts to prevent nuclear weapons from spreading, and efforts to reduce the arsenals of countries that have them.

These attempts often don't work, but they do matter because sometimes they do.

<comment><USER2> People that I know in the military wish strong states with strong weaponry to act as a deterrent to conflict. They trust in the professionalism of other states' armed forces and the diplomatic process, which evolved over centuries of war to prevent accidents and human failings. This was greatly tested during the Cold War and the policies and procedures held conflicts down to a relative minimum, the unfortunate proxy war in Vietnam aside.

Once it became clear to planners that MAD wasn't a real scenario and that the most effective strategy for nuclear weaponry involves smaller, more numerous weapons, targeted at enemy military installations, focus shifted on ensuring that enough weapons are available to fully end a conflict.

Disarmament agreements unfortunately ensure that there is strategic space for a nuclear exchange to not fully end a conflict. This raises the probabilities of major conflict rather than reduces them.

Great in theory, not in practice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> We can argue about the implications all we want... but given the choice between sending an American soldier overseas to die or a robot to get destroyed... the choice is pretty obvious to me.

<comment><USER5> how about not sending anyone overseas? Why isn't this choice being presented? Let's draw up the stakeholders of 'sending entities abroad to kill' and find out why this choice is not considered in the first place instead of fighting over the philosophy of who or what kills to push forward a sick foreign policy.

I see this every day in American politics. Couple of days ago people were fighting over what constitutes an 'assault riffle'. Mission accomplished: the actual original debate (banning guns) was already abandoned.

<comment><USER6> "Banning guns" violates the USC and simply is not going to happen without a Constitutional amendment, which politically will never happen to 2A.

<comment><USER7> Banning gun clips is viable, even cartridges seem to be optional as ball and powder is clearly a gun. Single shot weapons are good enough for home defense and vastly reduce the impact of gun violence.

<comment><USER8> > home defense

But this is not what the second amendment is about. In the words of Hammilton:

> This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if > circumstances should at any time oblige the Government to form an army of > any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the > People, while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior > to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their > own rights, and those of their fellow-citizens.

<comment><USER9> People make this mistake a lot (anti-gun people make it, too). The point was never that the American people would be able to repel an oppressive force using only their personal weaponry. That was ludicrous even back in the 1700's.

The key point is that, when the rebels inevitably capture weaponry or receive foreign assistance in that form, they would be generally familiar with its use. They would have skills like marksmanship, trigger discipline, and maintenance. They might need to learn the specifics, but these skills largely transfer.

Edit: Now, I don't think banning breech-loaded firearms makes sense, but that is for reasons unrelated to the original purpose of the second amendment.

<comment><USER8> Fair enough. Granted, the quote I throw at OP also included the words 'little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms', which isn't all that applicable either...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The arguments presented are fairly weak.

The two main suppositions are that "AI can be used to target racial groups." and "AI weapons could end up in the hands of ISIS, et. al."

While both of these are true, and certainly cause for concern, the author greatly ignores the game theory aspect of AI powered weapons.

Namely, if our enemies are building them, we _must_ too.

I'm not trying to fear monger, but US and China are _already_ engaged in an AI arms race. It's illogical for _either_ party at this point to stop development.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/technology/artificial- int...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/technology/artificial-intelligence- china-united-states.html)

<comment><USER6> So do you think the best solution is to return to a Cold War-era MAD environment?

<comment><USER11> Does MAD apply to AI-centered weapons? I thought the Cold War's MAD environment had more to do with the advantages that a nation would have if it were to _preemptively_ attack, because the weapons act so fast over such long distances.

<comment><USER12> MAD is predicated on the fact that ICBMs take time to arrive at their target, and are effectively unstoppable. The idea is that if nuclear state A was to target nuclear state B, B would be able to launch their own arsenal at A before B was obliterated.

Additional methods of delivery such as sub nukes, strategic bombers, Carriers with nukes, etc. further reinforce the concept as B would be able to retaliate even after its destruction.

Now, the modern context has weakened MAD somewhat, because it's strictly an interpretation of nation-state level nuclear conflict. With the proliferation of (plausibly deniable) non-state actors in the 21st century, the concept breaks down as it makes it much harder to 'attribute' a target to blanket nuke in response.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Arguing against an autonomous military is like arguing against machine guns or any other major technological innovation that makes it easier to kill people.

The only things we have generally outlawed is mass killing devices such as gases and nuclear weapons and I guess firebombing in retrospect (e.g. Dresden.)

<comment><USER14> Nuclear weapons are not outlawed. The US has thousands.

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

<comment><USER13> They are at least controlled and not practically used at the moment. And most people see them as lines not to be crossed.

<comment><USER14> This is the relevant voluntary treaty:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non- Proliferatio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non- Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons)

The treaty admits the US, Russia, UK, France and China to maintain nuclear weapons. Israel, India and Pakistan never agreed, and North Korea acceded.

Some of those countries can deliver a nuke to anywhere on the planet in an hour.

edit: added Israel to the list of non-signatories.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Unfortunately I don't know if it the the government we need to worry about.

We assume that the military will be the one to implement this... drone technology is very cheap now (relatively) and so are image recognition systems.

A rouge / non-state organization could easily and relatively cheaply create automated turrets and automated drones. Heck, Youtube has tons of videos of Americans doing it in their backyard just for "fun".

Would they be as good as a state military's $10MM drone? Probably not. But when you can build 10k of them from the price of one, who cares?

Really we should be worried about both.

</comment><comment><USER16> >"autonomous weapons are ideal for tasks such as assassinations, destabilizing nations, subduing populations and selectively killing a particular ethnic group."

This is not the first time this has come up. Even remotely controlled weapons are incredibly dangerous. I think the solution is not to ban autonomous weapons, they will be then used by non-state actors or "non-state actors". Governments need to enable better protection of citizens privacy. Currently any time I get mail, there is my physical address combined with my name. My phone number, current location and name are also bundled and probably visible to all kinds of people for all kinds of purposes.

It would be terribly easy to find my home address, tie small bomb to cheap drone and crash that to my bedroom window while I'm asleep. It's a perfect crime. All this could be done because I have said "I don't like nazies" or "I oppose Sharia in my country" in facebook post.

</comment><comment><USER17> Arguments are fairly weak. I think saying "It's certainly not far-fetched to suppose that a group like ISIS, for example, could acquire A.I. capabilities." is almost equal to saying they could acquire F-22 fighters or B-2 bombers as well. Developing sophisticated AI-based integrated weapon system is not that easy.

</comment><comment><USER18> On the other hand a case for autonomy is you could potentially kill less people. Say the enemy have a bunch of tanks doing bad stuff, humans fighting them are probably going to blow them up killing the crews before they can get you. With AI you could maybe use smaller drone like things designed to disable the tanks without killing the crews. And if the crews kill the drones who cares - they are only drones, send some more. I quite like the idea of AI that could take out military hardware and perhaps injure a few fighters without killing anyone. Maybe like T2 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEztkckjRtE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEztkckjRtE)

</comment><comment><USER19> We already have autonomous militaries. We have for a long time. Nuclear Weapons don't have pilots, after all. I'm in favour autonomous militaries amongst non-pariah states. At least insomuch as I'm in favour of militaries in general: Temporary, necessary evils.

What is different is the plummeting costs of killbots. We should do everything in our power to stop these from proliferating to lesser states or terrorist groups. Just as we do with nuclear weapons. But at the end of the day autonomous devices are going to kill people and terrorists are going to do some of the killing. We need to accept that fact and design around it, not plead that the reality be different.

<comment><USER20> What crazier is I could (but WONT) whip up a pretty effective geneva convention style device. A blinder. It's one of the most horrific styles of weaponry - you don't even have the decency to kill them.

All you do is monitor motion via a webcam. Once you see motion, you turn on an array of high power IR lasers with lenses to make an arc of laser light. There's no blink response, and the damage is already done.

It would cost what, $500 total for the platform, including batteries for lengthy operation off grid.

To be honest, I'd rather build stuff that bolsters all of humanity, and not just 1 tribe other another. I wish we'd get out of that "us vs them" mindset. Maybe someday.

<comment><USER19> Yeah, I've quietly / privately worried about this as well. One watt lasers are easy to get. Though I think you're looking at way more than $500 for anything reliable. Thankfully there are international agreements against using these weapons on the battlefield.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The best way to avid killing people in warfare is to avoid going to war, I think. Though, to some degree conflict is always going to be inevitable so we've got to prepare for it.

I don't really see a situation in which autonomous weapons would be much worse that humans. Humans can (and do) conduct genocides. If the concern is some rogue actor like North Korea getting new more powerful weapons, I don't see the benefit for the West to avoid their research and development as other countries could easily pursue autonomous weapons independently by applying civilian AI techniques to warfare.

<comment><USER22> Autonomous weapons are much worse. If in 2003 the US had had autonomous weapons they probably would still be occupying Iraq because it would just cost money and no (American) lives. Unnecessary wars will be much easier if they only cost money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> There's nowhere near enough discussion of the point that ""AI"" or other weapons with autonomous fire control are a huge target for "cyberwarfare", including outside of a conventional war.

While ISIS aren't going to develop their own AI they could concievably develop some zero-days in US systems. Turn missile defence systems against civilian airliners, for example.

</comment><comment><USER24> Relevant side analysis of the Rule of Law / International legal precedents RE: autonomous weapons systems, for those who are interested:

[https://breakingdefense.com/2018/04/a-treaty-to-ban- autonomo...](https://breakingdefense.com/2018/04/a-treaty-to-ban-autonomous- intelligence-weapons/)

</comment><comment><USER25> Relevant recent story. Now imagine if these were autonomous:

[https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/russia-has-figured- out...](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/russia-has-figured-out-how-jam- u-s-drones-syria-n863931)

</comment><comment><USER26> I would think James Cameron articulated quite a compelling case against one 35 years ago.

</comment><comment><USER27> Has there been any technology that hasn't been used in a military conflict?

<comment><USER28> We walked back from chem/bio to a great degree, but only really because we had something bigger/better (nuclear).

A bunch of relatively useless things (blinding lasers, stuff like that) have been eliminated/banned, but again mainly because they're not militarily particularly useful.

<comment><USER29> I believe that, unfortunately, only weapons with little military use are banned. Take, for instance, chemical weapons. These are pretty much useless in modern (highly mobile) warfare.

Take another example, mines. There is a treaty on banning them but it has not been ratified by the worst actors [1].

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

<comment><USER27> Mines are extremely useful in modern warfare. The ability to shape an opponents maneuverability is critical. Mines (especially stuff like DPICM) allow defenses to attrit attackers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> The Framers of the US Constitution were rightly concerned about standing armies. Not that anyone cares about any of it at this point--we're all going to go through hell again, probably nuclear hell, then people will understand.

Seriously, how much death and destruction does the US need to mete out on an annual basis, regardless of drones or what have you? All this tech has done is empower the worst, most brutal people.</comment>


The Caffeinated Lives of Bees - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/19/science/the-caffeinated-lives-of-bees.html?action=click&contentCollection=science&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront <comment><USER2> Their conclusions are confusing. The simplest explanation does not involve any bee psychology assumptions, but instead:

increased waggle dance from caffeine -> more energy exerted -> more trips to nectar to keep up energy levels

this assumes that caffeine has a stimulating effect the bees, but it still seems to be the simplest explanation

EDIT: now that I look at it, it's also possible that flowers containing caffeine have higher quality nectar under typical conditions, and so on....there are a lot of possibilities

<comment><USER3> It's right here:

> But the caffeinated nectar was not nutritionally better than the plain > nectar. In effect, Dr. Couvillon said, caffeine "causes the bee to > overestimate the quality of the resource."

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The report had a weird take that the caffeine must be tricking the bees, to their detriment. More likely is that the bees recognize that caffeine is good and healthy. The body of research on caffeine's vitamin like health benefits is enormous. It's simply not to be consider a vice or something to avoid.

<comment><USER5> > The body of research on caffeine's vitamin like health benefits is enormous.

Vague not-really-scientific claims like this make me immediately suspicious. People who make claims like this usually fall into one of two categories:

1\. They're trying to sell something.

2\. They're crazy.

I looked back through your post history and found this:

> Cannabis is de facto legal throughout the USA. I repeat: marijuana is in > practice legal in America, and all these people talking about drug charges > ruining lives don't know what they're talking about.

Yep, you're crazy.

<comment><USER6> That's not really a crazy statement at all.

Marijuana is, in practice, legal in America.

Yes, this person is misinformed as to the number of ridiculous petty drug charges in America. Still not crazy.

And while I wouldn't say caffeine has "vitamin like" health benefits, since you know, the research on vitamins shows their health benefits are questionable, I would say the body of research on caffeine's health benefits is enormous.

<comment><USER5> > Marijuana is, in practice, legal in America.

I'm really not sure what happened to your brain that causes it to concoct this delusion, but I'm sorry to see that there are two of you with the same problem.

<comment><USER6> I don't understand the issue with that statement. You understand what "in practice" means right?

I'm not saying it's technically legal, just that the legal repercussions are so low that no one seriously considers them when choosing whether or not to smoke marijuana.

Is that not an accurate statement?

<comment><USER5> > I'm not saying it's technically legal, just that the legal repercussions are > so low that no one seriously considers them when choosing whether or not to > smoke marijuana.

> Is that not an accurate statement?

That is not an accurate statement. Incarceration isn't enough of a legal repercussion for you? Plenty of people are incarcerated each year for possession.

Also, you've significantly backpedaled by saying "choosing whether to smoke marijuana". "Marijuana is legal" is a statement about a lot more crimes than smoking (which in fact is actually legal--if somehow a lit joint fell out of the sky and landed on your lips, it would be legal to inhale). Possession, manufacture, sale, and paraphernalia are all illegal. A large portion of people incarcerated for marijuana-related crimes are incarcerated for crimes that aren't smoking or even possession.

And that's not even looking at drug testing and its employment implications.

<comment><USER6> Yeah I don't think I'm backpedalling. I'm actually starting to question your sanity, but I guess we'll have to disagree.

<comment><USER5> "Marijuana is de-facto legal" to "smoking marijuana is de-facto legal" is a huge backpedal.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Thoughts on Instagram Marketing and Customer Service - <AUTHOR> http://blog.reamaze.com/2016/07/19/thoughts-on-instagram-marketing-and-customer-service/ <comment><USER2> For most companies instagram is just a fire and forget thing. I've asked questions on instagram posts before for some brands i follow and i rarely get a reply :( then again i guess it's not easy to sift through all the comments, some of which are spam</comment>