Kofi Annan on Why It's Time to Legalize Drugs - <AUTHOR> http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/kofi-annan-on-why-drug-bans-are-ineffective-a-1078402.html <comment><USER4> The drug problem was studied years ago by the RAND corporation and the US Military - a pure cost-benefit analysis. They found that treatment and education are the most cost effective way to deal with the drug problem, and that prohibition was the most costly and ineffective means of dealing with it.

Therefore the government understands that the war on drugs is likely to be unsuccessful, and we have to ask ourselves, why do they persist with it? A few reasons present themselves: Ideological motivations, they just don't like the drugs. The fact that if you terrify the population you can use that as means for greater political control and discipline. And the fact that Tobacco and Alcohol companies would likely suffer as a result of drug legalisation, like cannabis.

Lastly the CIA has been found to be involved in the drug trade on a vast scale. This is not a conspiracy, there are many well-documented books on this. They need large sums of untraceable money for clandestine operations, and drugs are an ideal source of this.

[http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR331.html](http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR331.html)

Noam Chomsky on the War on Drugs: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-JX0yXDlh8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-JX0yXDlh8)

<comment><USER5> I always wonder what would happen to drug use if it was widely and easily available. Would usage drop because it wouldn't be "rebellious" to get drugs?

That was at least the motivation for a lot of younger drug users I know.

In my country (India), there is a region in the Himalayas - Kasaul - <USER2> marijuana grows in the wild. It is so easily accessible that you can literally pluck some on a walk through the forest.

You'd expect with such easy availability, the locals would be all addled on weed/hashish all the time. Yet, most locals tend to be non-users. Most users tend to be tourists and outsiders who come solely for the purportedly "best in the world" hashish

<comment><USER6> In the US culture, I think a lot would depend on marketing and advertising. Consider the marketing of high fructose corn syrup, which is cheap, legal, hardly "rebellious," possibly a sort of low-grade high, and consumed in toxic quantities.

I'm not arguing against legalization. But I had a similar conversation with my kids about legalizing pot. I told them that whatever the health aspects of pot use are, the pot industry would use all of the tactics of the tobacco industry, to market pot as "cool" and perfectly safe.

<comment><USER7> High fructose corn syrup isn't marketed to consumers. It's marketed to corporations that otherwise would use sugar. Sugar is much more expensive in the US than elsewhere because of BS tariffs advocated for by Florida sugar barons.

<comment><USER6> True, the analogy isn't perfect, but I think it serves as a model for designing and marketing substances that are cheap, addictive, and ultimately toxic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Here's what we have in Switzerland:

[http://www.premiereligne.ch/quai9/](http://www.premiereligne.ch/quai9/)

(basically, a drug user's paradise: a "consumption space" injection rooms, clean drugs available, medical attention and reanimation in case of overdose, therapy programs and support programs with the intention to help people quit drugs without stigmatizing them and pushing them to it).

It is immensely successful. Drug crime becoming nonexistent here. The number of drug users is also decreasing, as drugs are now decriminalized, uncool, readily available and coming with friendly doctors and therapists.

<comment> saiya-jin Wait, you are talking maybe about heroin addicts beyond saving. But if you just want to buy some weed, you definitely must go to shady characters standing on corners of dark streets in the night, and buy overpriced at-best- mediocre-quality stuff from there (I am not racist or anything, but 100% of them in Geneva are black - that's 5 years of experience). Police guys are constantly patrolling these areas (often with dogs), dealers are super suspicious that you are an undercover cop etc.

if you get caught with tiny amount (< 1g) at the border, you will face harsh fine, full body cavity inspection etc.

Nah, this country is definitely not a paradise, just there are worse places.

<comment><USER9> "I am not racist or anything, but 100% of them in Geneva are black - that's 5 years of experience"

...it doesn't seem far of a stretch to make the leap to using your statement here to indicate that you may in fact be racist.

There was no reason to indicate their race, so why do it? Did they have blue eyes, too? What can I infer from shady blue-eyed people on street corners selling me drugs?

<comment><USER10> Geneva is something like 0.1% black. If in 5 years of buying drugs, you find that ~80% of your dealers are black, then I think you can make the assumption that most drug dealers in Geneva are black. I don't see that as racism - that's just a statement of fact.

Now, if you carried that one step further and said that black people in Geneva are probably drug dealers, then yeah, that's racist...

<comment><USER11> I think the idea is that the racial parenthetical is completely irrelevant. It adds no meaning except to underline the point about "shady characters."

<comment> saiya-jin that was not the intent... those guys have probably some tough lives behind them and no future here, living often without permit on the fringe of society. it's just that meeting them in dark alleys after dark, being surrounded by suspicion etc. ain't activity I do for pleasure or some weird kick out of it; just a necessary evil.

<comment><USER11> OK, but their race is still irrelevant.

<comment><USER12> But there is no reason not to point it out. He made an observation about the drug dealers in his area, and mentioned it. I don't see why there would be anything more to it than that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Portugal seems to be doing better from decriminalising (obviously not the same as legalisation).

Source: [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal- decr...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal- decriminalised-drugs-14-years-ago-and-now-hardly-anyone-dies-from- overdosing-10301780.html)

Source: [http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blog/drug-decriminalisation- portugal-...](http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blog/drug-decriminalisation-portugal- setting-record-straight)

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

<comment><USER14> I'm Portuguese, so let me give a local perspective. It is important to note that Portugal had a very low crime rate to begin with and, in comparison, drug problems smaller than the US. The experience may not translate directly.

Nevertheless, decriminalization of consumption (not traffic), has allowed drug users to reach out for treatment, which led to better statistics on drug use, better approaches to treatment and an overall decrease in hard-core drug use (cocaine, meth and such). Cannabis use is up from then, but that is perhaps an observation bias (better statistics).

The result of lower hard drug use is a lower crime rate. That effect is clear as water. It is now obvious that most crime had drug use as its cause.

Interestingly, there was a social effect that may be hard to reproduce. Hard drugs fell out of fashion. While cannabis is widespread in youth events, hard drug use is socially shunned. Perhaps the visibility of its effects hit the population, perhaps the relative personal cost became obvious, but it is certainly uncool to be a hard drug user.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I've always thought that, in the US, that States could provide a perfect market testing platform for various social ideas.

You don't want abortion? Make Kansas, say, a no abortion state.

Legalized drugs? Head your head to Colorado.

Socialism? Sure New Hampshire is almost there already anyway.

Well, you get the point. It's been proven that actual markets almost always work as well if not better than diktat, so these "experiments" could be monitored and all the rest.

I mean, why not give something totally new a try?

What we have now is killing people and ruining their lives as I personally live through its failings everyday.

<comment><USER16> The US works well because it's united at the federal level. What you are suggesting would only work if that level didn't exist.

<comment><USER17> This is a funny statement to me, since the initial federalization was supposed to exist without predisposing a much greater exercise in states rights than what we see today. (far fewer constraints on state law from federal)

I'd adjust your statement: "What you are suggesting would only work if the level (of federal power we have NOW) didn't exist"

That all being said, I'm not even sure my full level of pessimism is merited; certain states had been independently experimenting with e.g. health care reform 10+ years ago which ended up forming the basis for the ACA. This sort of state based trial seems like it s exactly what the parent was suggesting, and what was alluded to in Brandeis's famous "Laboratories of democracy" quote that seems very apt to this discussion.

<comment><USER18> This is a funny statement to me, since it ignores everything that happened after 1789. The evolution of a more centralized government was the result of conscious decisions by the public and lawmakers to overcome the challenges of a loose confederation.

Hell, the Constitution itself was drafted to solve the problem of arbitrarily differing business rules and trade agreements between the several states.

<comment><USER17> I'm not sure how anything I said "ignores post 1789". In fact, my statement is precisely calling out that our history is one of incremental codification and precedent forming which has tended to constrain state vs federal power. In fact I feel like I'd be "ignoring" more had I argued the opposite point, that states still had as significant power as they once did, since that power balance was tested as quickly as 2 years later in 1791.

As you say; it was drafted to solve the problem of differing business rules/trade, but the scope was originally VERY limited to interstate commerce. I simply don't see how it can be argued against that the purview has pretty distinctly expanded from then on.

<comment><USER18> No you're right; I didn't fully comprehend your post. I thought you were disagreeing with the parent post but you were in fact qualifying it. I agree with everything you said.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The best argument I know for legalizing drugs is the _market_ argument. As long as demand exist (obvious, or nobody would care), supply will rise to meet it. Law enforcement tactics that see rising drug prices as a sign of success only make the market more profitable.

While many people engage in the popular delusion that people stop an activity when you pass laws banning, it's patently obvious that banning drugs is about as successful _de facto_ as banning abortions. This means the real question isn't about the _existence_ of a market for drugs.

Instead, laws that affect the market for drugs are about who is allowed to be the "supply" side of the equation. Obviously, some type of regulated market would be recommended if we want to have any amount of control over the market. Instead, we pass laws that ban legitimate businesses from entering this market, which is _by definition_ a _choice_ to turn the drug market over to criminals. By definition.

I suggest that _choosing_ to give organized crime and violent gangs the profits from this high-value market. Usually, this is when prohibitionists claim that they can force the market to not exist by giving the supply side even _more_ profit with ever stricter enforcement.

<comment><USER20> And when the market is more profitable, it becomes more worth your while to engage in violent crime in order to further your drug-dealing interests. Fast food franchises generally don't engage in turf wars, and that's because fast food is a low-margin business. If dealing drugs becomes similarly low-margin, I suspect that will deal with a lot of drug-related violence.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> There's a strong parallel between drug policy and sex education policy. If you acknowledge that sex is a thing people are simply going to do and you give them the information they need to do it safely and throw in a free condom or two, STDs and unwanted pregnancies are kept under good control. If your policy is "you don't need education and condoms if you just don't do it!" then STDs and unwanted pregnancies soar.

In the case of drugs, it is clear that people will use them regardless. So the question for policymakers can't be "how do we stop people using drugs?", it has to be "given that people will use drugs, how do we minimise the harm caused?"

The other interesting parallel is ashtrays in aeroplane toilets. Supposedly they're there because sometimes, despite the warnings and no-smoking signs, people light up in the loo anyway. It's better for them to have an ashtray to put the cigarette out in than to try to improvise and possibly start a fire. In a situation where a planeload of passenger's lives could be at stake, there's no room for moral grandstanding - they've done the pragmatic thing and realised that when total prohibition cannot be enforced, you simply do what you can to minimise the damage.

<comment><USER22> > how do we minimise the harm caused?"

I know one: we advertise drugs in movies and on billboards and put a liquor store on every other street corner, Oughta show'em.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> New video on drug war by Kurzgesagt (excellent to get an overview): [https://youtu.be/wJUXLqNHCaI](https://youtu.be/wJUXLqNHCaI)

<comment><USER24> Kurzgesagt videos are the best. I found this one very helpful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I love how all these world leaders always come out for drug legalization _after_ they are out of power. Great timing.

<comment><USER16> Actually the UN thinks this already but politics got in the way of a statement being released:

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11940643/United...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11940643/United- Nations-denies-global-drug-decriminalisation-claim-by-Sir-Richard- Branson.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> One problem is that some people's careers in law enforcement are built on the "war on drugs". They need drugs to be illegal in order to justify the existence of their jobs and the meaning of their entire working lives so far.

</comment><comment><USER27> legalize, standardize, regulate, tax, repeat. Why is this so difficult to understand?

<comment><USER28> We have enough problems with already legalized and standardized drugs: alcohol and tobacco. It is not wise to let smokers to increase burden on society.

<comment><USER29> You don't reduce usage of drugs by criminalising them. That's what this article is all about. If you're interested in seeing the negative effects of drug use decrease, then you should be looking at other approaches other than criminalisation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> > By contrast, there has been a near tripling of American deaths from heroin > overdoses between 2010 and 2013, even though the law and its severe > punishments remain unchanged.

But why heroin usage has raised?

I have read an (very convincing) argument that heroin usage is increasing due to the marijuana legalization. And no, it's not the typical "marijuana is a door the heavier drugs" thing, is merely supply and demand effect on the streets. Street dealers don't really sell weed as they used to now that better and legal weed exist, so they went on heroin. Heroin got a lot cheaper and widely available due to it (Unfortunately, I lost the article link).

I'm not arguing in favor or against legalization (I'm in favor all the way), my complain is how one folded the debate is. Numbers are great and they are definitely needed, but they may trick you into thinking that everything has a simple cause and effect when reality is much more complicated.

One striking example how lazy is legislation is the case of safer chemicals such as LSD or MDMA versus designer drugs such as 25i (nbomb). In some places such designer drugs are even legal (bath salts anyone?) due to how slow or careless the legislation is. As for LSD it's a long time in prison. The dealers are coerced to sell more dangerous substances.

<comment><USER31> "Street dealers don't really sell weed as they used to now that better and legal weed exist, so they went on heroin."

This is an extremely misguided statement. The demand for high quality weed has never been higher. It doesn't matter if you legalize it, because you are still taxing it 50%. The individual sellers and producers will keep doing their thing. I can tell you right now that people who sell weed don't just magically start selling heroin. The types of people who sell weed are TOTALLY different that the types of people who sell heroin.

Yes, some people exist who sell both - but those types of dealers have been selling every kind of drug they can get their hands on and will never stop.

I think you need to take another look at the supply and demand of high quality marijuana. It is hard to consistently produce high quality marijuana - <USER3> once you do cure it correctly and get it packaged, it flies off the shelf as fast as you can answer your phone, regardless of if you are in a state where it is legal or not. Furthermore, there are many people who deliver marijuana on bikes and in cars and make a very good living. These people are not going to loose business to legal dispensaries I can guarantee you. There is always demand for reliable dealers who deliver high quality to you asap. Independent producers and dealers will be able to consistently undercut dispensary prices because the government is taxing it 50%. Combined with the value of delivery and you are not going to see marijuana dealers switch to selling heroin because weed is legalized.... it doesnt work that way. Two completely different clientele/lifestyle/risk factors.

<comment><USER30> > The demand for high quality weed has never been higher.

That's my point too. And I believe that this increase in demand for high quality weed made many street dealers that sell shitty weed go for heroin. Now heroin is a cheap and common option at your local street corner.

> (...) those types of dealers have been selling every kind of drug they can > get their hands on and will never stop.

Exactly. As you put it, they will never stop. It's time to realize that and include them on the equation. Why there aren't policies coercing the typical street dealer to sell safer drugs rather than weird dangerous experimental stuff (like on LSD vs Nbomb)?

<comment><USER31> I guess to clarify is that what I see (Minneapolis-based) is that weed dealers tend to deal strictly with weed, and the other type of dealer just sells anything and everything they can get their hands on.

Furthermore, the weed dealers I know who have been doing it for 10 years+ have no intentions to stop making money when it is legalized here at some point. They are not going to start selling heroin.

In Minneapolis all of our high quality weed basically gets driven here from LA/Colorado/Anywhere people have grow houses. The keyword here is "high quality". Anybody selling low quality weed is definitely selling coke/heroin as well. That's just the nature of the market here.

I guess I am kind of rambling but I find the economics of black markets fascinating. My main point is that I contend your claim that street dealers who sell shitty weed are now "switching" to heroin. This is just not true, and doesnt make sense. If you are selling heroin, you are one of those dealers who will sell ANYTHING you can get your hands on, including shitty weed/good weed/coke/whaetever. Once a dealer decides to sell things that come with heavy jail time then they dont give a fuck what they are selling. They are just in it for the $$$

<comment><USER30> > Once a dealer decides to sell things that come with heavy jail time then > they dont give a fuck what they are selling. They are just in it for the $$$

They just don't care for the penalty (jail time) so they will sell anything for money, there's nothing we can do about it. This thinking is precisely what I'm criticizing, this one folded way to analyze the problem.

Let's take LSD vs Nbomb example once again. Making LSD is extremely hard specially because how hard is to find the ingredients. Nbomb is a piece of cake. Here's an example which there's nothing to do with addiction or punishment, it's just the plain practicality of dealing with the substances.

Maybe there's a way to set up an environment where the law breakers would still do it while causing less harm on society. That's the discussion I'm missing, how we coerce the bad guys to not be so bad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> We were taught both sides of the story in our "drug diversion impact on public health" classes. Decriminalisation opens opportunities up to reduce harm to the public through reduced drug-related crimes, safer injecting (of the hard stuff) and less blood-borne viruses spreading. Australia has its own version of decriminalization known as the "harm minimisation policy". While all drug- related activities are illegal there, the judicial and healthcare systems are not so black and white about enforcing the laws.

Nonetheless, the other hand always wants its share. In the case of Australia, harm minimisation has reduced drug-related crimes, but the prevalence of drug use in the general population continues to rise, especially with regard to pills and amphetamines. Blood borne viruses are also on the rise, despite the ubiquity of safe injecting rooms in every major city and availability of "sharps kits" in every retail pharmacy.

Interestingly, the conservative party temporarily swayed from this stance and implemented a "tough on drugs" policy for part of the 90s[1]. It was dubbed to the wider public as a "harm prevention" measure i.e. protecting those yet to experiment with drugs and the wider community that didn't use illicit drugs regularly. There was a significant reduction in every measure: drug use, drug crime and spread of blood-borne viruses. This policy did not cut safe injecting and drug use services, but increased police activity and ephemeral "say no to drugs" cut-through education programs. The policy was reversed in the early 2000s.

[1] [https://www.unodc.org/documents/ungass2016/Contributions/Civ...](https://www.unodc.org/documents/ungass2016/Contributions/Civil/Dalgarno/30Years_of_HarmMinimisation_FinalUNGASS.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER33> ALL drugs should be legal. At least in the sense that using is not a criminal offence. Once drugs are legalised, regulated, quality assured by the government, and of course taxed, a large proportion of crime will be eradicated. Why would I buy illegal dirty drugs when I can buy the cleaner official versions?

</comment><comment><USER34> Lots of money in law enforcement, prisons, etc.

Just like getting simple tax code, lots of accountants/lawyers, etc.

</comment><comment><USER35> I think if drugs themselves were legalized, non-violent drug offenders pardoned, and then former drug trafficking cartels treated legally as terrorist organizations - we would get somewhere. I really have no problem tight packing prisons if it's full of violent thugs. The only problem is how this could potentially affect the second amendment - because the war on drugs would no longer be on unarmed drug users, it would be solely on violence. Using an umbrella term like terrorism to encompass the actions of cartel gang members could potentially lead to further racial divides. It's tough. But legalize pot please, ha!

<comment><USER36> Treating terrorist organizations like terrorist organizations hasn't really helped either. The war on terror, is just as failed as the war on drugs. Basically the hard nosed simple approaches never work. You got to look and underlying causes and deal with those. But that is too intricate so people don't want to listen to such solutions.

Problem with tight packing is that lots of the criminals wont be violent but will become in these prisons, and those who are violent will become even more so. Unless you plan building prisons only for life sentences these people will come out of prison more violent and messed up than ever. That hardly a receipt for a more peaceful society.

As long as people are going to get out at some point, you can't ignore what happens to them while they are incarcerated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> What about people that are involved in illegal drug industry after legalizing drugs? Most of them know only how to deal drugs, know only crime, they will need to find new way to make money and probably it will not be a legal one. So i don't know if it's better that someone stay on corner and sell cocaine to people that WANT cocaine, without (in most cases) hurt anyone else in the process OR make that person steal, extort etc.

<comment><USER38> The beauty of drug dealing (from a criminal's perspective) is that it's _easy_ and _profitable_ \- there's a high demand from customers willing to spend a lot of money on drugs, and enforcement is very poor (judging from the ease end-users can buy drugs). Prostitution is very similar. So, if you legalize all businesses with which criminals easily earn a lot of money, a lot of them will be economically incentivised to start participating in legal businesses.

<comment><USER39> And the alternative ways to make money for a self respecting criminal are getting harder every day. Cars are more difficult to steal, people use a lot less cash, you have CCTVs everywhere, now the police even collects DNA for a robbery. I can't think of an obvious substitute to drug trafficking for these criminals. I would be also ready to bet that Tinder must have made a dent in the prostitution trade!

But not all drug traffickers are Tony Montanas, there are legions of petty criminals, or even workers who make money on the side dealing drugs.

<comment><USER40> They could always open a bank or become a hedge fund manager...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Forget questions of legality.

Stop and ask this question: Why do we as a society need more and more and MORE mind-altering substances to cope with life?

Seriously.

Is society headed in the right direction if almost everyone needs some type of external chemical influence just to get through the week?

I already have an answer.

<comment><USER42> > Stop and ask this question: Why do we as a society need more and more and > MORE mind-altering substances to cope with life?

Citation needed.

> Is society headed in the right direction if almost everyone needs some type > of external chemical influence just to get through the week?

Who are you to decide what the "right direction" is, for anyone but yourself? Right vs Wrong is a moral judgement, not a legal one. No one should have the right to tell me what I (or anyone else) can put into my body. On a similar note, I think assisted suicide should be legal as well, but that's a discussion for another day.

<comment><USER41> Believe me. People everywhere who think just like you have decided what the right direction is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> he did not say this when he still had anything to say. he could have made a difference.

</comment><comment><USER44> nitpick but important: it's time to _decriminalize_ , not _legalize_.

The distinction is that we need to maintain a government force to compel the non-use of drugs that cause public harm. We need to make drug-use punishable, on the level of littering, trespass, vandalism, and disturbing the peace.

We need to be able to confine people who lose control of themselves and cause public harm when they are high, or in service of their high, but that confinement should be treatment oriented, not punishment oriented.

<comment><USER45> > The distinction is that we need to maintain a government force to compel the > non-use of drugs that cause public harm. We need to make drug-use > punishable, on the level of littering, trespass, vandalism, and disturbing > the peace.

All of those except littering are generally nontrivial crimes (misdemeanors or felonies, not infractions), so making drug use punishable "on the level of" those is not only not legalization, its also not decriminalization.

(Actually, since drug _use_ isn't generally criminal now -- possession, which is usually a prerequisite to use, is -- it would just be plain _criminalization_ of drug use.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> It's cowardly to display these opinions after you have left office. When he had any kind of power to do anything, he toed the line.

</comment><comment><USER47> It will be interesting to see what happens when we reach a position where virtual drugs are possible, or virtual reality can be as addictive and detrimental to ones life as being addicted to chemicals.

Can you ban math(s)?

<comment><USER48> In terms of banning mathematics, the UK Government is trying its hardest to outlaw strong encryption, so...

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Decriminalising ganja will also boost textile industry.

<comment><USER50> Not really, since the textile plants are of different varieties of canabis, and already allowed in lots of countries.

<comment><USER49> I actually tried to make a business plan on that in one country. To my surprise there is a huge burden of proving what exact varieties are you growing and your entire textile crops can be destroyed by police raid just out of suspicion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> No one loves freedom anymore.

</comment><comment><USER40> What about the fact that drugs are incompatible with the lifestyle we want our society to have? Isn't it better instead of legalizing them to find the root cause which is forcing these people to seek escapism from reality in psychoactive substances?

I don't want to live in a society of drug addicts, I want to live among people of sound mind, body and spirit, who conduct themselves honestly and honourable among their peers.

<comment><USER52> > What about the fact that drugs are incompatible with the lifestyle we want > our society to have? Isn't it better instead of legalizing them to find the > root cause which is forcing these people to seek escapism from reality in > psychoactive substances?

Should we be fighting all forms of escapism? Movies, books, comics, computer games? Daydreaming?

If not, why are "drugs" different?

Does this apply to all psychoactive substances? Tobacco? Alcohol? Chocolate? Nutmeg?

> I don't want to live in a society of drug addicts, I want to live among > people of sound mind, body and spirit, who conduct themselves honestly and > honourable among their peers.

Wouldn't we all? I do not think that eradicating drug use will bring about this this utopia, though.

<comment><USER41> It's ridiculous and juvenile to make these kinds of comparisons.

Do people escape through books and movies? Not usually to the point that they become dangerous.

Let's be adults here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> It really is a difficult problem. Sweden legalized heroin in the 60s and it was a disaster. On the other hand, enforcement only has a moderate impact, but comes at a huge financial and social cost. And while I don't support it, the only country with a measure of success seems to be Singapore, where you just hang anyone who has more than single dose in their possession. Maybe the grim reality is hanging a few hundred people a year would cause less social harm than letting drugs fester away at society taking how many thousands of lives a year, not to mention the countless lives destroyed by mass incarceration and the financial burden to society.

<comment><USER54> Singapore is somewhat unique in that it's a country with very restricted freedoms, which have been given up in exchange for security/safety. It's extraordinarily rule-bound, and, in many ways, is the antithesis of the United States, in which freedoms reign. In such a structured, government controlled and monitored society, all sorts of rules can be laid down, and enforced through strict punishment. I wouldn't try and use it as a model for other countries.

But - hey, might be worth executing anybody who uses drugs to see what happens. But I hope you're going to start with the really destructive ones, like Alcohol and Nicotine _before_ you start looking at the less harmful ones such as cannabis.

<comment><USER55> >in which freedoms reign.

Really? Looking beyond what is drilled in to the population from birth and the US is very rule bound in my experience compared to Europe. Whilst over there I got ticketed for parking at the wrong angle, crossing the road in the wrong place. Granted not a rule, but got questions by police for walking and many other situations I forget.

Perhaps European countries have this many rules / laws but I have never experienced them being enforced

<comment><USER56> As a habitual rule-breaker since birth, I can confirm that the US is actually very rule-bound. In fact most rule-breaking is punished, _even in places that supposedly encourage breaking the rules_. And this has gotten even more so since 9/11\. Want proof? Just look at the evolution of university computer networks. I've spent a lot of time in university (doing nothing mostly) and the networks are _locked down_ compared to the atmosphere of open experimentation that was prevalent in the 90s. There are many, many examples to back the claim made by the parent. The US is _not_ as free of a nation as everyone says.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Is there evidence to show that legalizing drugs (I don't mean e.g. tobacco here; I mean the far more dangerous ones) won't significantly increase their consumption?

I ask because, unless there is, I'm afraid I do not understand why it would be rational to do so...

<comment><USER58> Far more dangerous ones, such as alcohol? Tobacco is already the 6th dangerous drug in the world.

[http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/whats-most- dangerous-...](http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/whats-most-dangerous- drug-world-according-science)

<comment><USER57> By "dangerous" I meant in the typical, colloquial sense (e.g. more likely to kill you in a shorter amount of time or what have you)...

<comment><USER59> I think you've taken in too much drug war propaganda.

Heroin, if unadulterated, is incredibly safe.

There are virtually no long-term health effects, and most overdoses/deaths are caused by it being unknown quality or cut with dangerous substances.[1] The only reason it's dangerous is prohibition

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin#Adverse_effects](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin#Adverse_effects)

<comment><USER60> So heroin isn't clinically addictive and one can't overdose on it?

<comment><USER61> Heroin isn't significantly more addictive than cigarettes.

You can also easily overdose from nicotine, its just that this is mitigated by the relatively slow delivery mechanism, which makes it so that you get terribly sick before you could consume lethal quantities.

If we can come up with an effective delivery method then heroin would be no more dangerous than cigarettes (sort of, you still can't, for example, drive on heroin, but also it doesn't destroy your body long term).

Perhaps heroin could be adultrated with a chemical that causes nausea when consumed in an amount proportional to a dangerous level of heroin. This would help heroin users build the same negative associations with high doses that cigarette smokers do, and could make them unable to consume more.

<comment><USER62> While I enjoy the concept that heroin might be in some way similar to nocotine beyond both of the substances being tangible psychoactive, it does frighten me that this is actually an opinion people legitimately have.

Given that when the supply chain of heroin is disrupted the most statistically significant cause of eratic behaviour in users is that it just _hurts so much_ I suspect its a little different to nicotine.

If you are interested in understanding drivers of addiction I would recommend looking at cases where people are forced into withdrawals.

For example: [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955395915...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955395915002455)

Although I recall another article published ages ago (early 80s) which had an interesting economic analysis of the elasticity of heroin prices, to paraphrase, resulting from what is essentially inflicting pain on users until they will pay yur asking price.

I would love someone to draw the connections to nictonine withdrawals

<comment><USER63> Absolutely.

Symptoms of nicotine withdrawal - agitation, anxiety, difficulty concentrating.

Without access to heroin or opiates, you are in for 7 days of anguish, intense feelings of guilt, shame, darkness, self recrimination, horrible introspection, and if given the chance to end the suffering you will take more heroin, putting you back at square one.

If you soldier on, you are in for at least 3 weeks of not feeling yourself.

Best bet is to detox with suboxone, then taper suboxone, do not stay on suboxone more than 30 days or you will just be addicted to that.

Gabapentin will really help the process, you will feel almost normal after stopping the suboxone.

If you have friends addicted, this is the most pain free way to get them off.

Heroin -> suboxone 30 days -> gabapentin 30-60 days.

That recipe can get anyone with a habit off heroin almost painlessly.

Depending on the length of your habit, you might still not feel great after all that. Cannabis and tianeptine are your best friends in that case. That will get you back in shape.

After this you will see that heroin, while beautifully seductive and glorious, is a dead end in prohibitionist america.

I believe it only would have a place for someone elderly and infirmed, who could take it without interruption for the rest of their life. For those cases I think it is underused.

If you are young and healthy, it will only make your life worse than it was before you started.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> One thing I am surprised by is that it is almost never mentioned how China became drug free after Britain made China into the biggest dope user through the Opium wars.

They virtually got rid of opium usage in a relatively short time, and they did it without any sort of war on drugs approach.

They certainly fought the drug usage but they did not imprison or blame drug users. Rather than told abusers they were victims who needed help. They were given education to cope with addiction, jobs etc. Even drug dealers were, except the worst ones who were imprisoned.

It might have helped the narrative that they could blame Britain as the evil doer.

While not the same as legalization it does have some resemblance to the Portuguese approach where the focus is on helping people taken for abuse rather than punishing or imprisoning.

<comment><USER64> China is virtually drug free?

In that case, Wikipedia could use your help cleaning up this and many related articles: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_drug_trade_in_China](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_drug_trade_in_China)

Don't forget to cite your sources! They're sticklers about that sort of thing.

<comment><USER36> > how China became drug free after Britain made China into the biggest dope > user through the Opium wars.

I referring to the period following the opium ban. I believe this was the 50s, not the present day. We are also comparing to an insanely high level were the claims was that 90% of inhabitants of certain provinces were users.

<comment><USER65> If you're referring to the 1850s that's simply false: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_opium_in_China#/med...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_opium_in_China#/media/File:Opium_imports_into_China_1650-1880_EN.svg)

If you're referring to the decades since the 1950s, under a communist regime the Chinese obviously had better things to worry about (like surviving, finding a meal or looking commie enough not to be singled out by their own children and 're-educated' in some hellish camp).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> In the meanwhile NASA found a planet covered with marijuana. [http://newswatch28.com/nasa-discovers-new-planet-covered- wit...](http://newswatch28.com/nasa-discovers-new-planet-covered-with- marijuana/) Can these two agencies be in cahoots?

<comment><USER66> That article is obviously fake, yet too unfunny to be a joke. Ouch.</comment></comment>


Hand powered drilling tools and machines (2010) - <AUTHOR> http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2010/12/hand-powered-drilling-tools-and-machines.html <comment><USER2> ~20 years ago I knew a guy who had done programming with a hand drill.

He was maintaining an old mainframe that ran a steel plant and had to modify the boot sequence. Originally the device booted from paper tape but over the years/decades the paper tape had been replaced by a stout piece of leather. So to modify the boot code he had to resort to a hand drill!

</comment><comment><USER3> One very good reason for using a hand drilling tool (one without gearing) is when you drill in hardwoods and you want the hole wall to be wood rather than charcoal. This is a very important thing when drilling up the holes for pins in old pianos, if the hole walls burn during the drilling then the piano will not keep tune.

By using a hand tool you are purposefully limiting your speed (you may still need to stop in between to let the wood cool).

Hand drilling tools still have their place, the above is just one example of many like it. But for most purposes a motorized tool (electricity, air, gasoline) is more convenient and a lot faster.

<comment><USER4> You can set your speed and feed rate much more precisely (even slower, if you like) on a drill press or lathe.

<comment><USER3> Try mounting your piano frame on a drill press or a lathe :)

There are actually magnetic drill presses specifically for the purpose that you somehow stick to a piece of nearby cast iron. tricky to get them lined up exactly with the old bore.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Bit braces (the C shaped tools) are also the finest Phillips screwdrivers available, I've found. The design makes it easy to exert a lot of force to prevent the bit from camming out, and the amount of torque one can generate is astounding. Braces are measured by the diameter of the rotation; most good ones are in the 8"-10" range, which is probably more appropriate for casual use. 14" and up were generally for driving big augers, and you need every bit of that torque. I have a 6" one that is cute and small but not actually all that useful due to jaw issues.

</comment><comment><USER6> The brace and bit is still the tool of choice for fine woodworking and cabinet making. It's much more precise than using a power tool and it's easier to control the speed and torque to avoid tearout. It's also useful when removing the bulk of the waste for joinery such as dados or mortises, before finishing the job with a chisel or a router plane or such.

A drill press is better if you have one available and the workpiece is small enough to fit. I wouldn't choose a hand tool for bigger construction projects if there's a very large number of holes to be drilled or screws to be attached.

</comment><comment><USER7> I use a hand drill for quick holes in soft material, because it is faster than dealing with the electric drill, extension cord, etc.

Not mentioned are air powered drills. Those tend to be powerful and very small, meaning they work great in tight spaces.

<comment><USER8> Lithium ion powered drills are very competitive in the convenience niche. The battery stays usefully charged for months at a time (an issue with other types of cordless drill batteries). The smaller ones aren't even all that expensive.

(Not that I'm down on the hand powered ones, their batteries never get stale...)

<comment><USER7> I gave up on battery drills. The battery would always run down with the screw halfway in. Then it's go get the corded drill anyway. Might as well start with the corded one.

<comment><USER9> You need to try one of these[1]. I finally bought one and everyone who has used it loves it, so far. I suppose it isn't really the best for putting in screws but it works wonders on any sort of drilling (bit or spade).

[1] - [http://www.gemplers.com/img/dewalt-cordless-impact- WEB163363...](http://www.gemplers.com/img/dewalt-cordless-impact- WEB163363.jpg)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The guy over at the primitive technology vlog on YouTube just added a neat video of himself making a cord drill and a pump drill. [http://youtu.be/ZEl-Y1NvBVI](http://youtu.be/ZEl-Y1NvBVI)

<comment><USER4> Discussed here a few days ago at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10956658](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10956658)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> >Hand braces have remained in use ever since, although they can be difficult to find today.

As bushcraft enthusiast/scout located in a Nordic country, this would be ideal. During a week long camp you might not be able to charge your drill. And during the winter Li-ion batteries die. I've been searching for one with three jaw chuck for some years now. (So it would be compatible with modern drill bits.) I've found one geared drill which had four jaw chuck, didn't hold any bit. And some very old and rusty ones that require special bits.

Seriously sell me one. I'd be willing to pay 30e for one, and maybe more.

<comment><USER12> > By far, my favorite brace is the North Bros. Yankee 2101A brace

> The alligator-style chuck jaws close tightly and quickly on square-shanked > auger bits or round-shanked twist bits.

From:

[http://www.popularwoodworking.com/woodworking-blogs/chris- sc...](http://www.popularwoodworking.com/woodworking-blogs/chris-schwarz- blog/the-essential-brace-bit)

There's a few listed on eBay now:

[http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2050601.m5...](http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2050601.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H0.TRS0&_nkw=Yankee+2101A+brace&_sacat=0)

<comment><USER11> Thanks for trying.

20$ shipping for 30$ tool, while they are mostly two jaw versions. So it's 50$ for something that might be crap and at very least would require me to hunt for vintage set of drill bits. Despite the fact that I already own two modern sets.

<comment> david-given Is there any reason why you couldn't retrofit a modern drill chuck onto a hand drill shaft? If all else fails, you could custom make a shaft which the old drill chuck could hold which you could attach the new chuck to.

<comment><USER11> Not really good reasons. It's just difficult to find them in Finland. All available shafts and chucks are about 30e individually. You can buy decent looking electric drill with that same 60e, so it sounds like ripoff.

Meanwhile any yanks should enjoy their big internal market. :P

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm not sure how the author missed the cole drill. Maybe he never wanted to drill holes in metal.

[http://coledrill.blogspot.com/](http://coledrill.blogspot.com/)</comment>


In Italy – Who gets a hospital bed? - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/who-gets-hospital-bed/607807/ <comment> T-A Previously mentioned here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22562384](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22562384)

It bears pointing out that this article was written by a political scientist in Washington DC [1], not an Italian medic. The colorful prose about "all those gasping for air" is not a first-hand account, and is not supported by available statistics. Here is a continuously updated summary of the numbers:

[https://www.newnotizie.it/2020/03/12/coronavirus-posti- letto...](https://www.newnotizie.it/2020/03/12/coronavirus-posti-letto- terapia-intensiva/)

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

</comment><comment><USER2> nonpaywall version of this anywhere?

<comment><USER3> [https://outline.com/rkhWgj](https://outline.com/rkhWgj)</comment></comment>


Queue Magazine: The Concurrency Problem (Many good articles) - <AUTHOR> http://mags.acm.org/queue/200809/

<comment><USER2> The Erlang article here by Jim Larson is very good.</comment>


Musk revises Mars ambitions - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/09/musk-revises-his-mars-ambitions-and-they-seem-a-little-bit-more-real/ <comment><USER2> I don't understand why people are so quick to dismiss SpaceX's ambitions as unrealistic.

They were the first to achieve re-usability of the first stage of an orbital class rocket, the first to prove out supersonic retro-propulsion and the first private company to re-fly a spacecraft (the Dragon Capsule). Given that, it seems like they should be given the benefit of the doubt when they say they are going to do something.

<comment><USER3> It's the colonizing Mars part

Getting into Mars is solvable technological problem. Colonizing Mars is more economical and sociological problem than technological problem.

Everyday living in high-tech place where everything is safety critical (like in a nuclear submarine or ISS) is extremely expensive. Productivity would have to be beyond everything that has ever existed for that becoming possibility.

If Elon Musk can crack Mars colonization economy, he has also invented something that can be used to drop F-35 fighter, nuclear submarine and aircraft carrier maintenance costs to level where they are negligible.

There is always counterarguments that are based on post-scarcity economy. I accept that argument. But we get faster into Mars if we first develop post- scarcity economy here on earth first. Then those who want to leave just move there. Those who want to go Mars now are thinking it wrong.

\--- EDIT:

In case I didn't make myself clear, I believe that Musk can get into Mars in his lifetime. There can be small research station and we can explore little.

But it will be a money sink. We will do some research and then leave and probably it takes another 50 years until someone visits in person again.

All the science fiction thing humans have achieved, microchips, computers, mobile phones, commercial air travel increase productivity and there is massive demand for them. Combined R&D over decades can be trillions and it's profitable. Interplanetary space travel is going nowhere fast because there is no profit motive. Getting into orbit is profitable business and that's what SpaceX is doing.

<comment> semi-extrinsic > Interplanetary space travel is going nowhere fast because there is no profit > motive.

This is so very true. We can do it for Science, and for fun, but not much else.

<comment><USER4> What happens when earth goes to actual shit and rich people want out?

<comment><USER5> Worst case scenario Earth still has 1g of gravity, a breathable atmosphere, a magnetic field keeping most radiation out, and a temperature that you can live in without dying in most places. It'll still be way more livable than Mars.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _Last year, it was the Interplanetary Transport System, but now Musk has regressed to using the original, cheeky "code name" BFR, in which the B stands for big, the R stands for rocket, and the F stands for fun. (Not really)._

I'm always astounded that apparently we still can't say _fuck_ lest some bogeyman (real or imaginary) jump out and make you regret it.

It's a fucking word. For fuck's sake. I mean, at the point where it's used more often as garnish in it's various adverb and noun forms than it's original verb form, you know, _to fuck_ , how bad can it really be and why do we need to penalize the usage so?

Now watch this get auto-depressed by HN's incendiary comment detection filters.

Edit: If you see this reach the top, please downvote or unvote. I'm interested in this topic, but it doesn't deserve to overshadow real discussion about the submission.

<comment><USER7> Is this an American cultural thing, or are other cultures just as averse to public swearing?

<comment><USER8> It's not particularly more professional to cheekily use an obvious substitute in place of 'fucking', either. If you are saying "big ... fun ... rocket" or "big freakin' rocket" anyone over the age of 6 will know what you are doing and, if they are inclined to feel uncomfortable or offended, will still be so.

So for the most part I would say "either swear or don't", but if you are going to play that game, you need to be better at it, and call it something like "a big functional rocket" or "a big futuristic rocket", which is plausible, _and then remain completely straight-faced, forever, never admitting in public or private there could be any other meaning for the acronym, ever_. Leave historians a hundred years from now guessing.

"Wink wink, I'm not cussing!!!" is just another version of "I'm not touching you!!!".

<comment><USER9> Big Falcon Rocket?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The article does not do his talk justice. It is definitely worth watching the whole thing: [https://youtu.be/S5V7R_se1Xc](https://youtu.be/S5V7R_se1Xc)

<comment><USER11> Agree. I don't entirely agree that he's "revised" so much as got more specific.

<comment><USER12> I think "revised" is fair. This vehicle differs significantly in technical specifics than the one proposed last year. Different size, engine configuration, stage/payload configuration, engine count, max thrust, even to some extent purpose. It's not just that there are more details; the details have changed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> As a little kid at Space Camp in the late 80s/90s we would 'dream' about what a moon base or a mars base would look like. I grew up thinking that it would be something my grandchildren would see. To even have this as a possibility now is something I think few fathom how important it is. Amazon & Google may not matter in 100 years, (go back 100 years and look up who the biggest companies were and how long they lasted) but getting to another planet and colonizing is a step that will forever be in the books as one of the crowning achievements of humanity. I applaud Musk and all he is doing, if my skill set ever fit what SpaceX needed, I would join in a heartbeat.

<comment><USER14> If SpaceX is able to realize its ambitions, I think it could certainly be a modern-day East India Company [0,1], if not more influential.

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

[1]: Some sources have estimated that, adjusted for inflation, the East India Company would have had an equivalent market cap of $7.6 trillion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm absolutely ecstatic that Musk is talking about the Moon. Mars is great, but Luna is near & here, and honestly, it's a strategic location (not just militarily) as the it's at the top of Earth's gravity well with a minimal well of it's own - great basecamp for interplanetary missions.

If we can't occupy the Moon, why should we shoot for colonizing Mars?

<comment><USER16> Another interesting aspect of a moon base -- would it be easier and/or cheaper to produce propellants there instead of sending four rockets up to fuel each Mars-bound ship?

<comment><USER17> On Mars you can use the Sabatier reaction to make Methane, and you can make Oxygen from Water or from CO2.

What would you use on the Moon to make the Methane?

<comment><USER16> Heat up regolith?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Sending humans to Mars seems less attractive to me than sending robots to Ceres. Is there an argument for Mars that doesn't include the phrase "multi- planet species"?

<comment><USER19> Do we really need more of an argument than "multi-planet species"?

And in the case that "multi-planet species" is the goal, is there a better target? I'm not aware of one.

<comment><USER20> > Do we really need more of an argument than "multi-planet species"?

Yes. I don't see what concrete benefits we gain becoming such a species, and I doubt it's possible to send live humans to Mars, or suspend life there. This is the new alchemy.

<comment><USER21> > and I doubt it's possible to send live humans to Mars ... This is the new > alchemy.

By the actual definition of alchemy, sending living people to Mars can't qualify as such: we know for a scientific _fact_ that it's possible. It's not even particularly challenging to successfully send (and land) living people there, it's extremely dangerous and risky to their well-being to do so. The idea is to not kill a lot of people in the process of attempting it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Who cares if Musk's predictions are realistic? He is doing us all a tremendous service by keeping Mars in the public conversation.

<comment><USER23> I still don't see why we should spend $$$ on mars when we have a perfectly good one here millions of light years in any direction. Maybe we should stop treating the only planet that supports life like shit and cherish it.

<comment><USER24> We should but some people don't care. A wise man hedges his bets.

<comment><USER23> a nuked earth will probably still be better than Mars after the dust has settled.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> > ...then why not go to other places on Earth as well?

I'm addressing this because I know someone will ask. Honestly my first reaction was to laugh, then I made sense of it.

Economically this does not make sense. Price points do not make sense for this, even from the most ambitious startups. You'd want to use a space plane.

BUT I still think it is a good idea. The reason being is that this is a quick way to get his technology to TRL 8/9 [1]. TRL 7-9 is the hardest progression in this scale. So I'm going to guess that Musk is going to make a loss on these flights because SpaceX needs to prove that the vehicle and related technology is flight ready. What better way then doing a bunch of flights close to home, where you can easily repair and monitor the vehicle? NASA is going to be extremely strict on them sending people to Mars. Earth and Moon are the way to go to show proof (even NASA is planning Moon mission before Mars).

Or I could be off base and this isn't what Musk is planning. But it is my hunch.

[1] [https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/trl.png](https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/trl.png)

<comment><USER26> Here is what Elon said on instrgram, "Fly to most places on Earth in under 30 mins and anywhere in under 60. Cost per seat should be about the same as full fare economy in an aircraft. Forgot to mention that."

Source : [https://www.instagram.com/p/BZnVfWxgdLe/?hl=en&taken- by=elon...](https://www.instagram.com/p/BZnVfWxgdLe/?hl=en&taken-by=elonmusk)

<comment><USER25> Which gives evidence to my guess. Because there is no way you can do a rocket for anywhere near that price. I mean, let's do some quick math. We'll even give him buffer room. Let's say you can get 50 passengers at $5k per ticket. That's $250k/flight. I just can't see how that would cover the flight (fuel), let alone things like: maintenance, licensing, insurance, and the staff to operate the facilities. Let alone doing it on $50k ($1k/ticket). I'm EXTREMELY skeptical. Elon's a pretty smart guy, and may see things that I'm not, but my best guess is that this isn't for the money. The money is just to lessen the losses.

<comment><USER27> He mentions in his presentation that the BFR will have more pressurized cargo space than an A380, which can carry 853 passengers in an all-economy configuration. Let's say the BFR would carry a bit more that that, and prices would be a bit less than $1k, that would bring the flight budget in the order of $500k to $1M very roughly.

Let's try to estimate fuel costs, according to Wikipedia ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_Transport_Syste...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_Transport_System)) propellant costs $168 per tonne, and the spaceship can hold 1950t of it, so assuming one full tank per trip, that's $328k for fuel.

The actual cost of the rocket is around $200M, assuming a service life of 1000 flights, that's a $200k amortized cost per flight.

Add a few hundred k for launchpad, personnel, administrative costs of various kinds, and you get in the $500k to $1M ballpark.

So on the back of the envelope it looks about break-even. Maybe there's a sufficient market of people willing to pay a premium for very fast travel to make this profitable.

<comment><USER25> I didn't realize he said 853 passengers. In the article it mentions 40 cabins. So I rounded to 50. We still don't get enough for fuel. And 1000 flights is pretty optimistic. Especially at this stage. Their rockets already aren't fully reusable (only just having tested reuse) and they have to replace parts. 10 flights is optimistic, let alone 1k. I'm sure we'll get there at some point, but I see no evidence of that technology currently.

I'm just saying that there are a lot of red flags and that one should be really skeptical.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I don't see them building their launch ports closer to cities than airports now are, nor do I see them (certainly initially) build launch ports next to each major city. So, for most civilian flights, those earth-to-earth trips would not be that much faster, if at all.

Also, those flights would have to be extremely safe to get in the same ballpark as current commercial flights. I think that is needed to make this a 'normal' thing.

I would guess those earth-to-earth trips could make more sense for the military than for civilians. Yes, there is the problem of refueling your rocket near a war zone, and a risk of your rocket getting shot down, but the ability to very rapidly deploy specialized troops and/or materials may eventually be worth that, and the military might fund it even if they aren't convinced the advantages will pan out.

</comment><comment><USER29> Musk is truly an inspiration for each one of us. He is the one who dreams big and works even harder. Musk's idea of connecting different parts of Earth using rockets is truly astounding and it would be great if all the government and private agencies come together and try to remove border barriers. It is inevitable that the days of flying cars and jetpack will come very soon and there may be drastic effects if border tension arises. [https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/26/16362868/boeing-go-fly- pr...](https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/26/16362868/boeing-go-fly-prize- jetpack-competition)

<comment><USER30> The funny thing is, there's nothing really new with the idea of suborbital planetary transport-- this was widely expected in the 60s and 70s. The problem was NASA was given a monopoly on space access, and many companies would never get permission to fly, or do any projects, without NASA approval, and NASA would never approve anything competitive with its own ambitions. (Always using "safety" as an excuse, but if you can't fly you can't prove safety.)

It was the X Prize and Scaled Composits that broke the logjam with their "we can launch from anywhere with a runway" system, which combined with the failure of the shuttle system and lack of funding for NASA has forced them out of a stranglehold position to the point where they basically funded much of SpaceX's early work.

But don't under estimate the effect of the X Prize-- because Virgin Galactic can launch from anywhere, NASA and the politicians had to decide if they were going to lose access to the space tourism business.

They still were kinda silly-- at one point Richard Branson who funded Virgin Galactic was blocked from seeing the designs for the Virgin Galactic ship due to the fact that he is a "foreign national" and the work was considered a "national security" issue.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I honestly do not get the whole concept of a solar storm shelter room on a space object that is shaped like a tower. Just turn the tower with gyroscopes into the solar wind... last room is perfectly sheltered (from solar radiation)- not from space radiation.

Also.. wouldnt a sun-shade providing drone with a water-ice container as ray shield always be superior?

<comment><USER32> Because if you were to magically turn off the sun and were placed somewhere in the solar system wearing a space suit you'd still be in a dangerous radiation environment from interstellar radiation. The Sun is not the only source of dangerous radiation when making interplanetary trips.

This NASA page has more info on that subject: [https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/real-martians-how-to- pr...](https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/real-martians-how-to-protect- astronauts-from-space-radiation-on-mars)

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Consolidating all their effort behind a single vehicle makes sense, but is there a large risk of the same thing that happened to the A380? Could the BFR end up being too big for servicing the existing market? Or does the existing market end up as 1/1000 the new market opened up by having the BFR?

<comment><USER34> "Too big" isn't a thing. "Too expensive per flight" is.

In aircraft, cost per flight is roughly proportional to aircraft size, so "too big" can be indirectly a problem.

With rockets, the difference between fully/rapidly reusable and expendable (or even partially reusable) is so vast that "too big" is basically irrelevant.

In his presentation, Musk showed the expected per-flight costs. BFR would be cheaper /per flight/ than Falcon1. ...and if you dig into last year's presentation, the projected per-flight costs are lower even than Rocketlab's Electron. PER FLIGHT.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Any idea how they will deal with radiation exposure? Outside the earth's magnetic field the astronauts would be exposed to lethal cosmic rays & solar flares for many months.

</comment><comment><USER36> It still seems rather ambitious to me. 2022 is coming up pretty quick. If I were a betting man I'd bet they will push back to 2025-2027.

<comment><USER37> He outright said that the 2022 timeline was "aspirational." That's basically an "if everything goes perfectly" date. We know everything won't go perfectly, and so does he, but he still likes to start with that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I think the new, smaller BFR is still too big. It seems to me like a rocket about the size of the New Glenn [1] would more sense.

But then I'm not a rocket scientist.

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

<comment><USER39> In defense of the idea, it's not called the Moderately Sized Rocket.

<comment><USER38> Ha! But in that vein, I suggest we start referring to New Glenn as the "Moderately Sized Rocket", or "MSR" for short.</comment></comment></comment>


3.	How can a company implement corporate social responsibility? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> A company with corporate social responsibility should support their stakeholders and have a positive impact towards the communities and environment. Pico is one of the companies that implement corporate social responsibility. It believes that human resources are one of the most important resources in a company. It pursues Talent Enrichment Programme that provides training on anti-corruption, safety and health awareness. It also proves remuneration and rewards scheme to motivate the employees. Besides, it provides a safe, smoke-free and healthy working environment for the employees.

Besides, Pico has an obligation towards the communities. "Pico Global Care in Action" contributes to the society by making several donations to different charitable organizations worldwide. It encourages its staff to participate in fund-raising activities such as Flag Day, charity walks, volunteer services etc. If you want to find more information about corporate social responsibility, you can visit [http://www.pico.com/en/company/#Vision](http://www.pico.com/en/company/#Vision)</comment>


Easy J (2002) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.jsoftware.com/books/pdf/easyj.pdf

<comment><USER2> Would anybody with experience with J like to share what they did/didn't like about the language or what they did and didn't expect from the language?

<comment><USER3> J is fun when you're just starting. Hey, you can take the average of a list of numbers with four characters of code!

When you go from that to writing a minimal CMS, things are less fun (actual assignment from a professor who loved J).

<comment><USER4> The hardest part of J is revisiting old code and trying to figure out what you were thinking when you wrote it.

The cognitive cost of writing the same program in J versus your current favorite functional language (let's assume Scheme) is basically the same. The J version will be much more concise, and probably quicker to write.

But I found it much harder to review and extend my own J code. Where the Scheme program I wrote last month will be mostly self-documenting and easy to modify, the equivalent J program may as well be machine code.

I feel like I _should_ appreciate J more, because it is powerful, but it may be too concise for me to be comfortable with.

-survived the same class (Hi Ryan!)

<comment><USER3> We run into each other every time there's a submission about J.

<comment><USER4> Just about. Same time in a year and a half?

<comment><USER3> I've marked my calendar.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Who Is Hiring Now (EU/ Remote)? - <AUTHOR> Special edition for people affected by Corona/economic changes.
European or remote jobs only for easy filtering.  I'm sure a US thread will also appear.
No internships or visa needs.
Please only post if you personally are part of the hiring company—no recruiting firms or job boards. Only one post per company. If it isn't a household name, explain what your company does.
Commenters: please don't reply to job posts to complain about something. It's off topic here.
Readers: please only email if you are personally interested in the job. <comment><USER2> Two points:

1\. Dang has mentioned that he's planning on making a special thread, likely called "Who is hiring right now?" later today: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22623533](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22623533)

2\. Per the FAQ, I thought only 'whoishiring' is allowed to submit "Who is hiring" posts?</comment>


Engineering a Beowulf-style Compute Cluster - <AUTHOR> http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Beowulf/beowulf_book/beowulf_book/index.html <comment><USER2> The book is also available in pdf here: <http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Beowulf/beowulf_book/></comment>


7 posts for entrepreneurs on motivation, fear of failure & more - <AUTHOR> http://blog.crowdspring.com/2010/05/twitter-link-roundup-39-design-copywriting-marketing-small-business-social-media-and-more/#startups

<comment><USER2> Frankly I'm confused why this has 8 votes. I like Crowdspring but I really wish they'd stop vote spamming HN with posts about links that they've linked to.

<comment><USER3> I agree, good company, good people, but this is total link spam. There is not real content, nothing to discuss, nothing. It's probably nothing but votes from people who work there too, which is sad.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How is you health? - <AUTHOR> Hi guys,
for me IT is one of most interesting and important field for now and definitely in future. It require a lot of knowledge, studying, problem solving skill, patience and intelligence. IT jobs are one of most well paid jobs today. Still, it`s very specific job because most of time you communicate with computer and nobody exactly know, what it can do to humans and human body.
So my question is simple. How is your health? Do you recognize in you or some of your friends or co-wokers any issues in your body, that are related to computer usage? It doesn't have to be only physical like excessive weight, neck pain or bad posture, it can also relate to your brain like depression, headache, eye sensitivity, mood swing, communication skill, sleep or any other you can think of and it`s probably related to computer usage. I appreciate every answer to get little bit more insight into this.
Thanks Martin <comment><USER2> Complete shit. Being 100% honest here.

Overweight from eating like crap, too many office snacks, drink 5+ cups of coffee a day, eat fast food, back pain from sitting too much, poor circulation, bad sleeping habits, carpal tunnel, high blood pressure, stressed out and depressed, think about ending life fairly often.

10 years into a career as a professional software developer, been writing software for 18 years though. 32 years old.

Through these sacrifices I have managed to make an absolutely ridiculous income, more then I ever dreamed of to be honest. In one year I make what my father made in 5 working for the federal government. I recently put in my notice and I am retiring. I hope to never write a line of code again in my life.

I love technology but being involved in software was not for me.

<comment><USER3> > Through these sacrifices I have managed to make an absolutely ridiculous > income

Beware of attribution error. Were these "sacrifices" necessary to gain the income? I strongly disagree that healthy lifestyle and productivity/income are mutually exclusive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I make time to workout and have a standing desk at work (alternate between sitting and standing). I'm 35, in the industry for about 10 years. Excellent health, strong, good mobility, flexible. You just have to watch your diet, make time to walk and exercise. You don't have to go crazy, even a little bit makes a difference. Also make sure your work space is ergonomically configured.

</comment><comment><USER5> Sitting will kill you. I managed to drop 60 lbs (205 to 145 at 5'8") but without excercise, and I mean _real_ regular cardio and resistance training, I'm a thin but unfit person.

The open office craze and being on call all the time might have affected my sanity, seriously.

Any employer that demands more than 45 hours a week, unreasonable on call demands, and isn't willing to let you take 1-2 breaks per hour isn't worth pursuing.

<comment><USER6> > I'm a thin but unfit person

> _real_ regular cardio and resistance training

I never understood this logic. Why you, as a thin person, do any cardio at all.

<comment><USER7> Having little body fat doesn't automatically make you fit. Cardio isn't just good for losing weight, but also for improving your endurance. Fitness and weight may be inversely correlated for most people, but not for everyone.

As another thin but untrained person, I'm still short for breath e.g. when the elevator is broken and I need to climb the stairs for 10 floors. Exercise has benefits beyond looking thin.

<comment><USER6> You burn your muscles on cardio if you don't have fat.

Why not eating surplus and lifting weights instead?

<comment><USER7> Interesting, I didn't consider the possibility to actually weaken the muscles with exercise. However, I'm unsure why you recommend weight lifting as an alternative. Why not eating surplus and cardio instead?

<comment><USER6> Yeah, also good idea. I guess we can agree that if person is thin and doing any sort of exercise it should eat surplus in order to not become even more thin.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I run regularly, averaging ~5 miles per week, but I have had plenty of 30+ mpw and plenty of 0 mpw. I have other active hobbies such as hiking, cycling, team sports and weight lifting.

On the flip side of this, I have a phone addiction. Drink more than the government recommends, use nicotine occasionally to boost performance and overall eat too much.

I could always be healthier, but time is my biggest hindrance from being so.

</comment><comment><USER9> I feel pretty healthy.

But I started lifting and climing a few years ago and I only work 4-6h a day.

</comment><comment><USER10> Go Sailing!.

</comment><comment><USER11> 24YO male. I guess it's OK, could be better!

I spend a lot of time sitting and looking at a monitor, which I am quite conscious of.

I've got back into running, and will run 3-4 times per week in the evenings after work. I do this to unwind, clear the mind and get rid of stress.

I walk about 3 miles to and from the office, which I suppose would be good if it wasn't for all the pollution in London.

I seldom eat junk food, and cook most nights of the week. I've started to snack on healthier food like plain Yoghurt and Soreen Malt Loaf, which I've acquired a taste for.

I do however have a Vanilla Nespresso Coffee and chocolate brioche roll each morning before I leave for work. On the weekend I'll make porridge though.</comment>


We don't know which species should be classed as 'human' - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160111-what-is-it-that-makes-you-a-human-and-not-something-else <comment><USER2> "We don't know if Neanderthals count as humans, or if chimps do, because we can't agree on the defining features of a human"

I don't think any scientist disagrees that chimps aren't humans. The issue in question here is how far back in our lineage do humans go, vs. some other species.

Given that evolution happens continuously, and not in a discreet way, it is completely impossible to objectively determine precisely when we "became" humans, something which is exacerbated by the fact that we're only looking at fossils.

Perhaps, like porn, we should not try to define it further, but there's no question that, when looking at today's existing species, you know a human when you see "it".

<comment><USER3> holy triple negative man

<comment><USER2> I try my best :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is very similar to a problem in linguistics (and in some ways "is" a linguistics problem).

You can define what an acorn is, and you can define a tree, but when does an acorn become a tree? Same with baldness. Everyone can identify a bald person and likewise someone who isn't bald, but when do you go from not bald to bald? This incidentally is part of the fundamental debate about abortion (when does a fetus become a child?).

And it is the same here -- we can define a human and "not human" but we're having trouble defining exactly when it goes from one to the next.

<comment><USER5> I saw the linguistics connection as being that distinguishing one genus/species from another is a very similar problem to distinguishing one language/dialect from another. In both cases the population of organisms or of language users doesn't break apart into disjoint subsets naturally---nobody has a label within them saying "homo sapiens" or "Farsi speaker". These distinctions are artificially imposed and ultimately arbitrary.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think our difficulty comes from the fact that we are unable to admit how exceptional we are. There is a fad at the moment, and it's been ongoing for a century or more, to assign a degree of banality to the biological classification of the human race.

The obvious problem we all have with this is that we are the ones doing the assigning. I'm reading articles like this on a machine designed and built by humans with, if nothing else, the ability to process mathematical equations at a speed far beyond any normal human ability. We do things that are so obviously exceptional and unique that to classify us alongside chimpanzees due to DNA similarities strikes us all as absurd (because it is).

When the article points out that you wouldn't assign a separate genus to an animal just because it uses tools, they're missing the fact that the difference between a bird using a stick to fetch a seed and one that doesn't is absurdly simplistic relative to LANDING ON THE F--KING MOON. At some point, perhaps something that doesn't factor in for other animals should be factored in for us due to the extreme amounts of difference between my DVR recorder and the special rock a chimp uses break open a nut.

To me, this comes across as biological tunnel vision. Since the differences between other animals fall into simpler categories like appearance and genetics, biologists don't want to introduce something like "behavior" into the mix for fear of it complicating the process. The problem is that in the case of homo sapiens, behavior is an unbelievably big deal.

<comment><USER7> Interestingly, neither you nor I can likely design a DVR or go to the moon. The difference between us and other apes is, we can cooperate by the thousands/millions to get something done. Maybe that's the critical difference.

<comment><USER6> Agreed, that was the essence of what I was trying to say.

<comment><USER8> If you one starts to look at the things we do as a classification, then it gets very messy very fast.

I work on magic boxes all day and construct intangible realities that spit out numbers. Am I still the same group as a member of a tribe untouched by modern civilization in the depths of the Amazon?

What about the same group as Kelly Johnson? Tim Berners-Lee? Vint Cerf? Jack Kilby or Robert Noyce? GalileoPascalNewtonFranklinEulerFourierMaxwellCurie? MandelaDeKlerkMLKGandi?

It seems pretty presumptuous to say "we (as a pan-global diaspora) have achieved great things, therefore we are all special."

<comment><USER7> The assertion is, that we as a race are special, right? Not 'all'

<comment><USER8> If not all then how can we as a race be special? I'd say that if we lump going to the moon onto our collective accolades, so do we lump the Holocaust and various other genocides.

My personal opinion, but it seems like there's a desire to overstate our differences with "other animals." Which generally seems like a prelude to exterminating them without feeling bad about it / trashing the environment / generally believing in our manifest destiny and right to same as humans. But that's my personal opinion.

<comment><USER6> I think you're reading more into my assertion than what was there. Don't assume that superiority gives us the right to abuse (I would argue quite the opposite) and don't assume that regarding ourselves as equal to other forms of life will somehow lead to virtuous behavior (I would argue the opposite here as well). However, those are debates of their own.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This debate does not even scratch surface. And I find it bit unsettling.

Most Europeans could claim Neanderthal ancestry, because they shared genes. Question if Neanderthals were human is not even theoretical.

Last Neanderthals walked 35K BC. There are tribes which were isolated for 50K or more years. In theory they have a huge genetic difference, also their morphological difference is big, Does that mean they are separate species? Species are often recognized by their shape rather than genes, for example grizzly and polar bear have practically identical genes.

And great apes? I find it insensible to make them humans, when 50% world population does not have even basic human rights. In Western Countries dogs have more rights than many people.

Bet lets assume that great apes are humans. Does it mean they have legal obligations? Could chimpanzee go to prison for torturing animals (bush babies). What if gang of chimpanzee kills other human?

</comment><comment><USER10> The book Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind[1] is relevant here (which I've been reading and thoroughly enjoying recently) if anyone wanted to seek out some longer-form information on this and the topics around human evolution and development. The semantics here are really interesting to me because the book immediately points out that not too long ago there were at least 6 species of human on earth at the same time (going by homo=humans, sapiens is what distinguishes us). That concept had never been so explicitly stated to me before, and I find it really fascinating to unpeel.

[1] [http://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/0062316095/ref=s9_simh_gw...](http://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/0062316095/ref=s9_simh_gw_p14_d0_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=desktop-1&pf_rd_r=1K24M8JRJ3T3WBP81KD2&pf_rd_t=36701&pf_rd_p=2079475242&pf_rd_i=desktop)

<comment><USER11> That's quite a good book but I think that _The Secret of Our Success_ did an even better job of zeroing in on what we can do that distinguishes us from other animals.

[http://smile.amazon.com/Secret-Our-Success-Evolution- Domesti...](http://smile.amazon.com/Secret-Our-Success-Evolution- Domesticating/dp/0691166854/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1452528949&sr=8-1)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I was always under the impression that species are separated over whether they can breed together successfully or not.

I honestly didn't think it needed to be such a big debate and thought this was long settled. "Can they interbreed?" and if the answer is no, it's a different species.

<comment><USER13> The natural question is then what about Ring species? With populations A, B, and C. A-B can breed, B-C can breed, but A-C can't.

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

<comment><USER14> As a thought experiment, if you imagine ring species in time almost anything can "breed" with almost anything else.

Eg each human can breed with a human in the previous generation. Each chimp can breed with a chimp in the previous generation. Right back to their common ancestor.

As long as there's a common ancestor, there should be a viable chain to be followed in most cases.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm more interested in who we classify as people. Remember, the word person comes from persona, meaning an actor's mask.

In 2014 it was discovered that a species of Long-finned pilot whales (a type of dolphin) has more neocortical neurons than humans by a factor of two! The neocortex is an area of the brain associated with language and conscious thought.

Do these dolphins count as people? Should we afford them "human" rights? What about other species?

The pig you eat has the same amount of neurons in her cerebral cortex as your cat and dog put together. The cow, more than all three put together. Are they people?

<comment><USER16> Trying to define personhood using any sort of scientific analysis is a dangerous road that was/is used to justify horrific acts of racism, violence, and subjugation, including Social Darwinism in the early 1900s, and the eugenics movement that followed.

I can think of no objective testable definition of person which is both meaningful (i.e. non-trivial) and not horrific for corner cases or those that would be excluded.

I know this wasn't your intention because you're using it to grant personhood to more entities but the implications aren't great regardless.

<comment><USER15> No, this is the wrong approach. The object is not to define personhood through some objective set of criteria which can then be used to justify evil; it's to use our observations about the world to arrive at a broader and more humane outlook.

The argument itself is wrong as well. If some method X is used for evil, it does not mean X is intrinsically evil.

This is essentially the same flawed argument that's used against many areas of science.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Needs more politics. Not even kidding. Enormous arguments over nothing can be very superficially covered by journalists, but the real, dramatic story is someone might get kicked out of some human studies department or funding grant or chair because fossil XYZ is, or is not, a human fossil. Or someone is agitating for, or against, a department schism creating a new "almost but not really human" department of studies with the right or wrong person as highly paid chair of course in competition with the legacy department. Or someone's tenure depends on rabble rousing enough to get publicity to be seen as relevant. Or someone's hiring or tenure has to be denied for various acceptable or unacceptable demographic membership reasons or maybe just trivialities (this is academics after all) and they need a highly dramatic cover story. Maybe some public museum only gets financial funding for "human fossils" and there's a condo developer eyeing that block of land for redevelopment, and it sure would be convenient if the money dried up.

There's probably a real dramatic story underneath the argument, but the journalist somehow managed to miss it.

</comment><comment><USER18> "But this conventional definition is not necessarily correct."

Definitions (by definition!) cannot be "correct" or "incorrect". They can only be more useful or less useful.

</comment><comment><USER19> So what? I'll take Semantics for a half-penny, Alex.

<comment><USER20> That was my first reaction, but pursuing knowledge for its own sake can lead to fantastic discoveries. Imagine if they found that a species that was considered the same as humans until now was actually different and from Mars or had a gene that cured cancer.

<comment><USER21> knowledge is great. i am pro knowledge. on the other hand, arguing about the definition of an emotionally charged term such as "human" is not so great. reminds me of the argument about whether or not Pluto is a planet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> > Either way, [Linnæus's choice of words implied that humans are fundamentally > different from everything else … It is an understandable mistake …

Ummm, I'm pretty sure that it wasn't a mistake. Human beings _are_ fundamentally different from anything else on this planet. If you seek a proof, look around.

<comment><USER23> The more resistant you are to the idea we are unique the more human you may be.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I know! In the past, whites are called "human". Now, rich people are called "human". I am also colored and I am not a racist. Every century has its own definition on the word, "human", no matter in biology or sociology.

</comment><comment><USER25> This has been solved.

Featherless biped with broad flat nails.

lol

EDIT: For the record, this was said to be Plato's definition of a human after Diogenes (probably my favorite philosopher/practical joker) brought in a plucked chicken and called it a "man" in response to Plato's original definition of humans as "Featherless bipeds"

</comment><comment><USER26> Just because we crafted the shoe, doesn't mean we'll make a foot fit in it. "Humanity" is more of an abstract concept that science is usually comfortable with. I think we should look for things to define, and create a word rather than create a word, and then figure out how to define it.

</comment><comment><USER3> if the living being can naturally procreate with me without technological or medical assistance, and generate an offspring that can also naturally procreate upon reaching maturity, then for sure that living being is human.

<comment><USER27> As far as I know purebred standard British Bulldogs cannot reproduce without artificial insemination due to their body type making it physically impossible. Your definition would indicate that two British Bulldogs are not even part of the same species, and likely other dogs with mis-matches in physique.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I'm with the lumpers because I like the idea of having chimps in my genus. But if the splitters prevail I won't cry a tear over it.

</comment><comment><USER29> It's useful in this context, after reading the BBC story kindly submitted here, to go to a webpage by a biology professor, Jerry Coyne, who literally wrote the book on speciation and definitions of species.[1] He wrote, in his webpage follow-up to a professional lecture for other biologists,[2]

"But I want to discuss briefly a shorter second piece by Gibbons in the same issue of Science, 'The species problem.' Here she brings up the controversy about whether modern humans, Neandertals, and Denisovans were members of different species or the same species. This question is far more important in dealing with humans than, say, with fruit flies, simply because there were far fewer types of hominins, and anthropologists' careers depend on whether or not they name a new species. That's why there are so many species names in the hominin family tree—names that turn on characters as tiny as a few millimeters in the measurement of a tooth. It's likely that, several million years ago, three or four species of hominin did exist at the same time—and maybe at the same place—giving rise to fanciful scenarios about war and (especially) inter- group mating. . . .

"But that was more than a million years ago. What about the more modern groups of _Homo_ , like Neandertals? According to Ernst Mayr's biological species concept, which Gibbons describes, individuals are members of the same species if they can mate with each other when they encounter each other in nature, and, critically, produce fertile, viable hybrids. If they can't, then there must exist genetic barriers to mixing of genes, the so-called 'reproductive isolating barriers' that maintain the integrity of species."

With that issue clarified, we see that anthropologists who find bones in the ground will always have incentive to be "splitters," identifying more rather than fewer species, and the only way to resolve how many species there were is to figure out which ancient hominids could mate and produce viable offspring who in turn could mate again and again produce viable offspring for more generations.

Studies of ancient DNA used to be impossible. It was a big breakthrough the first time an Egyptian mummy (plainly a modern human) had its DNA sequenced. The DNA sequencing of a Neanderthal[3] was a further breakthrough. It's plain now that Neanderthals and "modern humans" were part of the same biological species. The usual reckoning is that any modern human with traceable ancestry to Europe or to Asia probably has genes and gene combinations characteristic of Neanderthals, which have since spread further all over the world.

We are all closely related, and we are related to a great variety of ancient human fossil samples. Where human artifacts and cultural ideas travel, human genes travel, and we are all much more "mixed" and interrelated than people imagined even a decade ago.[4]

[1] _Speciation_ by Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr

[http://www.sinauer.com/speciation.html](http://www.sinauer.com/speciation.html)

[2] "How many species of humans were there?"

[https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/how- many...](https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/how-many-species- of-humans-were-contemporaries/)

[3] [http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna- and...](http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and- neanderthals/sequencing-neanderthal-dna)

[4] "Towards a new history and geography of human genes informed by ancient DNA"

[http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2014/03/21/003517.f...](http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2014/03/21/003517.full.pdf)

<comment><USER18> "anthropologists' careers depend on whether or not they name a new species"

This, I think, is really the crux of the matter. The process of answering the titular question has more to do with economics than biology.</comment></comment>


San Francisco bans credit-only stores - <AUTHOR> https://www.sfgate.com/business/technology/article/San-Francisco-to-join-list-of-those-banning-13824319.php <comment><USER2> Credit-card only stores actively shut out a lot of people. Cash customers have a large number of reasons to not use a card. Either they don't have an account in the U.S, they prefer not to be tracked, or are homeless.

</comment><comment><USER3> whatever happened to not shopping at stores because you didnt like their terms. kinda stupid at least for the amazon store. the entire point of that model was you didnt need to deal with a register because its got your face and phone tracked. dealing with a register slows the process down.

<comment><USER4> it's a stopgap solution, there still isn't a solution for poorer folk who can't afford a card(or the fees for a card). until our government issued implanted chips come around i see physical presence of a human for transactions being necessary to handle cash related issues

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> In Italy we have exactly the opposite problem. Sob.

</comment><comment><USER6> So now the $10 avocado toast will become affordable?

</comment><comment><USER7> good it was prejudice practice

</comment><comment><USER8> Noticed it said brick and mortar. I've seen the practice much more prevalent with the popular food trucks. In both cases I feel like speed is essential and the moments where change is being made add up.

It is also like the article says dog-whistling the type of client you want at your establishment though.

<comment><AUTHOR> Uber accepts cash in many countries partly because they were also cash-first economies but it'd be only fair to allow the full spectrum of the socio- economic strata to be part of the everyday life proceedings, the very founding pillar of the modern day democracy. A person shouldn't ideally be refused service on a lawful ground, having cash or not having a card isn't a crime, yet!</comment></comment>


YouTube is down - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/user/caseyneistat <comment><USER2> It looks like this is currently only affecting channel & user pages.

</comment><comment><USER3> As someone mentioned profile pages on Youtube is crashing. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16738166](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16738166)

</comment><comment><USER4> ...and I thought it was my browser's issue.

I was getting error 500 on multiple channels while I was trying to view their video playlist(s)...

</comment><comment><USER5> And you got me!</comment>