Accidental release of 45L of polio virus solution into the environment – Belgium - <AUTHOR> http://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/press/news/_layouts/forms/News_DispForm.aspx?List=8db7286c-fe2d-476c-9133-18ff4cb1b568&ID=1065 <comment><USER2> What's baffling me is that no source I've been able to find (in English, anyway) sees fit to mention the cause of this accident beyond blandly citing "human error."

Human Error.

"Well, you know, I was just taking my 12-gallon tank of polio for a walk down by the water treatment plant, and whoops! Butterfingers!"

I just. I don't. _How._

<comment><USER3> Usually, the big biotech production plants look a lot like breweries. Giant bioreactors that look like fermentors are hooked up to complex control valves moving fluid from one to the other in the various steps of a complicated process.

My best guess is that a technician accidentally hit the "dump waste" button before the vessel was decontaminated/when it had the wrong solution in it/before the virus was deactivated, etc.

This incident is especially worrisome, but having seen the control boards for one of those giant reactors, I'm not surprised that mistakes are made on occasion.

<comment><USER4> It seems odd to me that you'd have a waste dump path in such a place which didn't have a secondary decontamination step in it. Running the water through UV sterilization would be an obvious move, and incredibly cheap considering the danger.

<comment><USER5> I was surprised to learn a few minutes ago that UV light might not be sufficient to render the virus inert. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poliovirus#Replication_cycle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poliovirus#Replication_cycle)

>>Drake demonstrated that poliovirus is able to undergo multiplicity reactivation.[23] That is, when polioviruses were irradiated with UV light and allowed to undergo multiple infections of host cells, viable progeny could be formed even at UV doses that inactivated the virus in single infections.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Here's the reassuring part from the linked PDF:

 _On 8 September 2014, the Federal Public Service (FPS) Health, Food Chain Safety and Environment in Belgium confirmed that samples of mud and water taken from the Rosieres treatment plant, river Lasne and river Dyle, all tested negative for the presence of polio virus._

But... 45L of "concentrated polio virus"? Although it'd probably be classified, I'd love to see the full detailed report on how and why this happened.

<comment><USER7> I'd like to know why anyone even has 45L of concentrated polio virus.

<comment><USER8> I've worked in labs with far less threatening (but still deadly) microorganisms and I could never imagine making a mistake with such a giant flask. It had to have been mislabelled or maybe someone used used autoclave tape to seal something on the top? Only a idiot would pour an unlabelled solution of that size down the drain...

<comment><USER9> 45L is not a flask. That's almost half a barrel.

<comment><USER10> That's how much gas it takes to fill my car. Someone emptied a tankful of polio somewhere.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I am from Belgium (and currently living there). Newspapers reported at the time that it actually was 45 liters of a solution contaminated with the polio virus, not 45 liters of a polio virus concentrated solution.

[https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&pr...](https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lesoir.be%2F647061%2Farticle%2Factualite%2Fregions%2Fbrabant- wallon%2F2014-09-06%2Fgsk-rejette-du-liquide-contamine-par-polio- rixensart&edit-text=)

[http://www.biopharma-reporter.com/Downstream- Processing/Prod...](http://www.biopharma-reporter.com/Downstream- Processing/Production-on-hold-at-GSK-plant-after-polio-virus-enters-water- supply)

The word 'concentrated' seems to have been picked up over the last few days.

</comment><comment><USER12> It looks like Belgians have some problems with water sources. This is in the news here in Luxembourg [http://www.wort.lu/en/luxembourg/pesticide-spill-tap- turned-...](http://www.wort.lu/en/luxembourg/pesticide-spill-tap-turned-off- at-haute-sure-lake-542e55ccb9b3988708070899)

<comment><USER13> Luxembourg is not in Belgium.

<comment><USER5> Luxembourg borders Belgium, and Lac de la Haute Sûre at its closest point is only two miles from the Belgian border; so, it is conceivable that Belgians might get water from that lake.

>(CS) Authorities have decided to stop using water from the Lac de la Haute Sûre for drinking water treatment, following the spread of a pesticide in the water after a spill in Belgium.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Something is being covered up and the explanation for such huge mistake doesn't add up. 1\. Why was such a large amount of a potent virus stored in one container or multiple container? 2\. Why all of it was available to a single/group of persons ? 3\. If it's a group of person, then it must be a planned act. 4\. How can Pharmaceutical companies pour something directly into the water channels without going through some kind of filteration and detection system ? 5\. Why there is not more internet/media coverage on a such a big incident ?

<comment><USER15> You can safely assume there are drains in the floor wherever these things are stored. The drains would be for carrying away cleaning solutions for the environment.

Someone broke something, or opened something, or knocked over something. 45 liters of water is about 100 US pounds, so it was probably a single smallish, somewhat portable storage unit that got affected.

I agree the wording is less than ideal, but I'm not sure there is a 'coverup'.

<comment><USER16> I can tell you've never seen a level 3+ lab.

Polio requires level 4.

[http://www.biosafety.be/Polio/GlobalActionPlanWHO.pdf](http://www.biosafety.be/Polio/GlobalActionPlanWHO.pdf)

<comment><USER17> Your link directly contradicts you.

> Wild polioviruses are classified as risk group 2. The rationale for the > minimal biosafety levels is the near universal immunization of the > population with OPV and/or IPV. Biosafety Level 2 (BSL-2) is the currently > recommended minimal standard for all countries. To ensure safe handling of > wild polioviruses and potentially infectious materials as eradication nears > (Pre-Eradication), BSL-2, hereafter referred to as BSL-2/polio, should be > enhanced by specific practices described in this document (Box 10).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I don't think this is such a big deal. After massive dilution and water treatment, there won't be any viable particles left to infect anyone from the 5% unvaccinated Belgians. Let's hope I'm right.

<comment><USER19> The article does give another potential at risk group and geography.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> So how much is this going to cost GSK? I hope I'm not the only one asking this question.

</comment><comment><USER21> Was it covered in belgian media?

<comment><USER22> Yes it was.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Whats the purpose of have 45L of concentrated Polio??? For private consumption?

<comment><USER5> I'd hope it's to make more polio vaccine.

<comment><USER23> >I'd hope it's to make more polio vaccine.

Indeed. Are you going to study 45L of it under a microscope though? The Polio part I'm OK with its the "45L of concentrate" that I can't understand.

You have 100 tons of explosive? Yes...I need it...for research. And 1kg will definitely not be enough for my research....has to be 100 tons. See what I'm getting at?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Not a great year for Glaxo... first the China bribes, now this. I'm sure they'll manage, though.

</comment><comment><USER25> Originally when I read I thought "perhaps there was a leak in a barrel or something like this. I glazed over the "following human error" part.

Hypothesizing brings me to conclusion that this has to be caused at least in part by companies probably trying to streamline by merging branches or departments.

If I'm a fly on the wall in the board room I'm sure I hear something like: "Sure, of course it makes financial sense to manage all barrels of stuff headed for water-treatment facility in the same warehouse, and by the same team, as where we keep our barrels full of polio and other harmful viruses. Layoff the other department, close down the other warehouse, and merge the two asap"

<comment><USER26> Hacker News 2014: Where fiction rises to the top faster than facts.

<comment><USER25> I'm sorry, but for me when I read something this horrific nothing works better than a little sarcasm / humor.

I think the points (yes I think sarcasm can be a valid channel through which to voice your concerns) I'm trying to make here are:

1) People making decisions for corporations as large as GlaxoSmithKline tend to be disconnected from the impact of their decisions.

2) There are only 2 reasons something like this can happen. (a) Malice, or (b) incompetence. I reluctantly choose 'b'.

3) In general it's the people who actually make the mistake who get fired, and not the incompetence in the board room that creates the environment where these kinds of mistakes can actually be made.

As a side-note, I live in midwest in U.S. and am not a reporter or involved in media, so I'm pretty ill-equipped to go seeking out facts which I'm sure even a skilled reporter will have a difficult time trying to uncover.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Safety protocols are fantastic, why do so few people follow them?

<comment><USER28> Not sure why you got so heavily downvoted. It's a reasonable question. There are a few books looking at causes of human errors that result in death or accident.

Usually the cause is wider than just "Bob didn't follow procedure", and includes things like "Management had Bob working 56 hour weeks in scattered locations which caused fatigue".

People incentivise the wrong thing; they misunderstand the psychology of work[1]; they use poor design; etc.

Other examples include surgeon's resistance to counting equipment before and after surgery - this WHO protocol saves lives and reduces adverse events but some surgeons strongly resisted implementing it.

And then you have outright forging of paperwork. from 1999 - [http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/news/nn10199.htm](http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/news/nn10199.htm)

> BRITISH NUCLEAR Fuels has admitted that it has discovered twice as many > faked safety checks on its highly dangerous mixed-oxide fuel as previously > thought.

> The nuclear fuel was destined to be part of a second export consignment to > Japan, where environmentalists are planning huge protests against the > scheduled arrival of the first consignment later today.

> The company originally estimated that quality-control data relating to 11 > lots of mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel had been falsified, but an internal > investigation has identified 22 lots that were forged. British Nuclear Fuels > (BNFL) launched its inquiry last week after The Independent revealed serious > lapses in its quality-control procedures relating to MOX fuel for Japan. > Three employees have been suspended.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Was this quote and quote "misstake" or real misstake? I mean if they sell a vaccine, Polio is exterminated no need to sell the vaccine but if you accidentally spread it again you still can sell the vaccine.

<comment><USER30> Sometimes I really wish I had the ability to downvote. But never more have I wanted it until this totally asinine comment.

People like you are the whole reason the US' media is complete shit.

<comment><USER31> > People like you are the whole reason the US' media is complete shit.

No personal attacks, please, even when you find a comment asinine.</comment></comment></comment>


AWS Outposts by the Numbers: A Far-Too-Deep Dive into Pricing - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@ahl/aws-outposts-68e78592c7f8 <comment><USER2> AWS Outpost sounds awfully expensive. At that scale isn't it far cheaper to just buy and operate your own hardware?</comment>


Android's A 'Trojan Horse,' Microsoft-Backed Group Charges - <AUTHOR> http://www.techweb.com/news/240152544/android-s-a-trojan-horse-microsoft-backed-group-charges.html

<comment><USER2> Well well well, look who's talking! Let me just get any desktop computer without Windows...oh, wait, I can't (except for about 0.1% of the models out there). _Now_ who's engaging in monopolist and anti-competitive behavior?</comment>


Here's an OPML file with 101 of the most popular web design blogs to follow - <AUTHOR> https://www.dart-creations.com/web-design/opinion/web-design-blogs.html <comment><AUTHOR> You can just import this file into Feedly or your favourite feed reader and then use it to skim through to the best web design articles of the day.

Includes sites such as Fast.Co, CreativeBlog, CSS-Tricks, SitePoint, WebDesignerDepot and other major web design influencers.</comment>


Facebook Hit With Lawsuit: Could This Spell The End Of The Social Giant? - <AUTHOR> http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140107133638-64875646-facebook-hit-with-lawsuit-could-this-be-the-end-of-the-social-network?trk=tod-home-art-list-large_0

<comment><USER2> The link is broken. :(

<comment><USER3> I know this isn't very useful for you, but it works for me.

And the answer is "No."</comment></comment>


English as she isn't spoke (Part 4) - <AUTHOR> http://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/southern-rail-english/ <comment><USER2> The title is a reference to an (in) famous 19th century Portuguese to English translation guide that was so unintentionally bad it remains in print.

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

<comment><USER3> Non-mobile link:

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Many of these all examples of what Language Log terms "nerdview" ([http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4509](http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4509)), using in-business jargon incorrectly with outsiders because you either don't know or don't care that they won't really know what you're talking about.

It's held up as an example where your use of language, whose purpose should always be to be understood by others, shows an explicit or implicit contempt for your listener.

<comment><USER5> Or maybe your brain has just gone full Sapir-Whorf and you can't _think_ about the concepts except in jargon terms.

The vendors of PC Matic, a product aimed at the computer unsavvy, run TV adverts in which they mention a "single pane of glass" as a feature. I had to look up what it meant: apparently it's a buzzword for integrating information from multiple data sources into one window. No one likely to buy PC Matic is going to know that. Then again, given PC Matic's sterling reputation, maybe they do hold their customers in contempt...

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Genteelisms are a curse in Italy, where bureaucracy reaches levels unknown in the UK. One of my favourites, because of its utter, revealing stupidity, is the sporadic usage by some overzealous bureaucrat of the verb "to implement" (recently brought to Italian from English) with the wrong meaning of "increment". As in:

"We're working to implement the number of bus rides from A to B".

It's fun because you can clearly see the mechanism in action: the person who wrote the sentence decided to replace the too understandable verb "to increment" with something so obscure he himself didn't know what it really means.

<comment><USER7> I would like to bring to your attention (as an Italian) the recorded voice message now in use on highways when you pay the toll via credit card/bancomat (they are changing the readers from reading the magnetic band to reading the chip, so you have to insert the card in the reader and keep it inserted a few seconds until the flashing yellow leds become green) while a (very serious and authoritative sounding) female voice says:

"Attendere, _validazione_ in corso."

[english]Wait, validation is under way.[/english]

Soon followed, as soon as the leds become green, by a (much higher pitch and happy sounding) different (still female) voice:

"Ritirare la tessera"

[english]Pick up the card[/english]

<comment><USER8> How does this relate to his point about genteelisms or using words that don't mean what the user thinks they mean?

<comment><USER7> >How does this relate to his point about genteelisms or using words that don't mean what the user thinks they mean?

"Validazione" is not a word used by anyone outside some specific tech sectors or bureaucrats, a number of people would be perplexed about its meaning.

I guess in English is the same, would you use "Wait, validation is under way" or "Wait, reading the card" or "Wait, checking the card info".

There is an old (by now noone notices it but it was a thing when it was introduced) precedent with the verb "obliterare" which noone knew at the time it was introduced on buses.

A sign "E' obbligatorio procedere all'obliterazione del biglietto" is (was) something that noone could understand. [english]It is compulsory to proceed to the obliteration of the ticket[/english]

Obliterare is a perfectly valid verb, but it means - literally - to cancel a writing by drawing a line over it, and it was used only by academics and people of letters, while by extension it has a more common meaning of completely destroy/delete something/someone (from existence or from memory), etc.

At a given time it was "invented" to mean "insert the ticket into the machine so that it will be timestamped (or only stamped) and/or punched or have a corner cut in such a way that it won't be re-usable".

The same meaning of "to obliterate" for "to stamp" or " to punch" a ticket is in English as well, I believe.

And "the machine" was called "obliteratrice" of course.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Links to prior parts:

Part 3: [http://www.the-tls.co.uk/english-as-she-isnt-spoke- part-3/](http://www.the-tls.co.uk/english-as-she-isnt-spoke-part-3/)

Part 2: [http://timescolumns.typepad.com/stothard/2015/04/english- as-...](http://timescolumns.typepad.com/stothard/2015/04/english-as-she-isnt- spoke-part-2.html)

Part 1: [http://timescolumns.typepad.com/stothard/2013/03/english- as-...](http://timescolumns.typepad.com/stothard/2013/03/english-as-she-isnt- spoke.html)

</comment><comment><USER10> Reminds me of George Carlin: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdPy5Ikn7dw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdPy5Ikn7dw)

</comment><comment><USER11> I went and read parts 1, 2, and 3 as well as I quite enjoyed this. However, I think "part 4" is mainly just a rehash of part 3, as most of the examples were the same or very similar.

[http://www.the-tls.co.uk/english-as-she-isnt-spoke-part-3/](http://www.the- tls.co.uk/english-as-she-isnt-spoke-part-3/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Archived copy, which doesn't require JS:

[https://archive.is/n9G5g](https://archive.is/n9G5g)

</comment><comment><USER12> This mostly seems like "English as I don't like her spoken"; only pt. 2 (thanks to tapanjk ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14780499](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14780499)) !) seemed to describe any actual _wrong_ language, as opposed simply to phrasing of which the author disapproved. With that said, I don't understand the complaint from pt. 4, recapitulated (as morinted ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14780372](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14780372)) points out) from pt. 3, about:

> you may hear that your train was "originally due to depart from Platform 4", > but "will now depart from Platform 6". What's "originally" doing there?

Surely 'originally' is serving exactly the purpose it claims to serve, of describing the state of affairs before the alteration? What would be a better word?

If the suggested alternative is to omit the description of the 'original' entirely: though I'm not much experienced with the London Underground, I know that, on the Amtrak, if I paid attention to every announcement I would go mad, so I have a subconscious routine that perks up conscious attention only when it detects something that seems likely to me. If I am waiting at Platform 4, I probably won't notice a random, unprefaced announcement about Platform 6; but I am much more likely to notice it if it points out that those of us at Platform 4 _should_ be paying attention to it.

</comment><comment><USER13> The announcers at my station bafflingly repeat the automated announcements word-for-word!

</comment><comment><USER14> "This train is no longer in passenger service" may be long-winded, but at least it's reasonably clear. Much better than the military equivalent, "the train has suffered an engineering casualty".

<comment><USER15> Oh I dunno - I kinda like the engineering casualty turn of phrase :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Might be the announcements are so long winded to give people a chance to notice their train was mentioned and to start paying attention?

</comment><comment><USER17> In France, there is a similar issue with the SNCF. More details in this (French) article:

[http://transports.blog.lemonde.fr/2017/05/27/inoui-sncf- jarg...](http://transports.blog.lemonde.fr/2017/05/27/inoui-sncf-jargon- novlangue/)

</comment><comment><USER18> > And I simply don't know what this means: "This is a booked four-coach > service".

Does it mean that the service only has four coaches and that each seat has already been pre-booked? (That is to say, good luck, you'll probably be standing.)

Any other possible meaning I'm having a hard time divining.

<comment><USER19> I think it means it's the four coaches that they intended to have. Rather than three because there's a problem with one of them, for example.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'm reminded of the word de-plane, which replaced the perfectly serviceable disembark as the term of choice for telling passengers to get out. This happened shortly after the TSA took over and is a depressing reminder of such.

<comment><USER21> At some point also post-TSA, they started referring to us as "customers" instead of "passengers", which is similarly irritating and unnecessary. It's also less accurate, since I am always a passenger when I fly, but often not a customer, since someone else (perhaps an employer) purchased the ticket I'm flying under.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> While reading this article it gradually appeared to me that it just HAD to be about UK English, not US English.</comment>


Ask HN: How do I get rid of my boss? - <AUTHOR> We are a small team in a firm of about 200 people. A few months ago my (ex-) boss decided to assign a new boss to our team. Now my ex-boss is the boss of my new boss.
I can't work with this new guy. He is like "I am your boss: do how I say it has to be done" and "Hey! I have a new cool job for you! Some vb6 stuff! haha! have fun!"
Working like this has become unsustainable. What can I do to get rid of him without leaving? I like the team, and everything is cool. Just this dude is a problem. <comment><USER2> Let's be both blunt and frank: You really don't have any choice but to do as he asks or leave. Trying to play games to get him to leave could end up getting you fired. You might also want to look at your weaknesses and see if there is anything which could be addressed.

What's wrong with looking for a better gig?

</comment><comment><USER3> You can't get rid of him if you are the only on the team having a problem with him. It is up to you to leave or find something better if he is interfering in your work / not getting along.</comment>


Overuse of Bioengineered Corn Gives Rise To Resistant Pests - <AUTHOR> http://science.slashdot.org/story/14/03/19/039220/overuse-of-bioengineered-corn-gives-rise-to-resistant-pests

<comment><USER2> No shit Sherlock.

When they have wetted their pants long enough, nature adapts and overcomes their little hack.

Maybe we should look more into permaculture and forget about monoculture. One problem is the scalability though.

Personally if i get the chance i do not buy GMO crops. I also try to find meat from animals that has not been fed with GMO crops however that's much more difficult to find unless you buy organic.</comment>


Ask HN: Tips getting RAWs from wedding photographers? - <AUTHOR>

Hello HN.
I am going through this whole overpriced madness called the wedding industry in the Seattle area, and I feel I've hit a wall negotiating with my wedding photographer.  No contract is yet signed, but the one he wants me to sign only grants me personal use of the pictures he takes (he retains ownership and does not grant a license) and promises to deliver 2.5 megapixel equivalent quality jpg files.
I asked to include the raw files and original (or near-original) 12 megapixel jpgs from his Nikon and offered to hand him a hard drive or memory card so he wouldn't have to worry about extra costs.  He refused at first and tried to convince me I was confused and would be happy with what he offered. I read HN, and while not an expert on the specific bit fields I would consider myself aware of image formats and their differences. After a couple days he told me it would be another $1k (25% increase) just for the files, and the copyright license would be another $2k.  I think it is insane to pay him for his skill to take pictures and get the equivalent of camera-phone quality jpgs at the end when higher quality versions exist.
Help!  What techniques or success have you had in negotiating to get at the RAW files and 12 megapixel+ resolution jpgs?  Am I off base in thinking this is reasonable to be included in the base price?  Am I wrong in approaching this as a case where I hire a man for his skill and artistry and expect to keep the work product? <comment><USER2> I think your question is actually 'Tips on finding a wedding photographer who'll provide RAWs', rather than trying to encourage this particular photographer to sell you what you want to buy.

The flickr thread linked to in another response ( [http://www.flickr.com/groups/weddingphoto/discuss/7215762943...](http://www.flickr.com/groups/weddingphoto/discuss/72157629437099072/) ) seems to be full of photographers explaining why customers are just plain wrong to want raws, and encouraging each other to never provide a customer with raws (lest it set off a trend, perhaps).

This presents a fantastic opportunity for any halfway decent photographer who isn't precious about the 'magic' involved in their work. Haughty self- comparisons to painters being told to provide incomplete work, and film photographers handing over 'unprocessed film' do them no service - these are fatally flawed analogies.

I can think of several compelling reasons for wanting original (raw) as well as maximum resolution touched up jpegs. None of the reasons anyone has offered for withholding raw files is compelling.

</comment><comment><USER3> Some of the responses in this thread remind me of our experience finding a wedding photographer willing to provide RAW images. The prospective photographers just didn't seem to understand that we were hiring them to provide a service to our specifications, and that we had no interest in justifying any of our choices to them. It was a very strange and sometimes frustrating experience.

Ultimately, we posted a detailed ad on Craigslist and (in-between hate mail and being flagged several times) were contacted by several interested photographers. The woman we hired did exactly what we wanted, for a fair price, and did a phenomenal job. We could not have been happier.

My advice is to post an ad on Craigslist detailing specifically what you're looking for. Prepare yourself for many prickly responses, and prepare to re- post after it gets flagged. You'll eventually find someone.

As an aside, we also required that the photographer assign copyright in the images to us, though we did allow her to use any images not containing people or names for her own promotional purposes.

Best of luck!

</comment><comment><USER4> I'd see this as a red flag and look for a different photographer. Some time ago I've had similar issues with a designer I hired: He wouldn't give me vector files, only flat PNGs. He said it had to do something with his reputation.

Obviously, these people want you to come back rather than hire someone else if you need any changes, or additional prints later on. That's why they only want to give you low res files. But for the customer, that's a bit troubling. What if it turns out the photographer makes lousy prints? What if the photographer closes up shop?

It doesn't matter if this is "standard business practice". This attitude is typical for people who don't take their customers' demands seriously.

Luckily it turns out there are plenty of professionals who care more about their customers than about their reputation. In my case, I found a different designer, who understood my point of view and worked with me, rather than say "can't be done". Unfortunately, he was way more expensive, but in the end it was worth it.

</comment><comment><USER5> Our wedding photographer was great; she gave us an unlimited licence to the photos (she also retained her rights), and also gave us a DVD of the RAW files in addition to her mastered JPGs.

The whole thing didn't seem like a big deal to her. In fact her web-site lists what you'll get, and while we did ask about the RAWs it wasn't a big negotiation point (we did pay for the DVD at a small markup like you'd expect).

I don't think RAWs should be a "normal" part of the deal as 99% of people wouldn't know what to do with them. But I do consider a liberal licence to be par for the course (in particular as that photographer might go out of business, and you might need to print your photos again years or decades from the original event).

So to the OP: Find a different photographer. The licence thing is unacceptable. The RAW thing is understandable but I bet you can find someone who is more amenable to that.

PS - If you get the RAW files, don't try to print them 1:1. They exist to be mastered, not to be used as-is.

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks. Is there a specific referral you could pass on?

<comment><USER5> If you're in the city of Salt Lake (Utah) I could.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> My girlfriend is a wedding photographer so I have something of an insight into why you might be having this experience.

The RAW files are the (as the name suggests) raw, unedited versions of your photographs. Photographers are generally unwilling to provide these files as there is often a huge difference between the RAW image and the final, edited image. There is a 'branding' concern here - if you take the RAW files and start showing them to people, then in the photographer's mind you are showing them an unfinished product. Nobody wants anything but their best work out on display - so if you are intending to do this, then the photographer wants to be reimbursed for the potential damage you may be doing to their brand. Whether you feel that this is justified or not is irrelevant, if that's how the photographer feels, then that's how they feel. Deal with it.

Additionally, part of the package you buy is the editing process that the photographer undertakes. The RAW file is the raw material, and the JPG is the end result. Demanding the RAW files suggests that you are unhappy with the final result, and would like to re-edit the photos to suit your liking. This is likely to be perceived as an insult to the photographer's skill. I'm guessing you have at least some level of confidence in the photographer's editing abilities otherwise you wouldn't be going with them in the first place - but you have to understand that there is a significant amount of work involved between the RAW input and the JPG output - the photographer isn't just doing a straight file conversion.

Finally - access to the RAW files puts the photographer at risk of you publishing the images with different editing and similar (or higher) quality. The increase in the copyright licence fee is aimed to offset this risk.

To summarise:

1: The photographer provides a full-day of foot-work (being at the wedding), and then up to a few weeks of editing the RAW images to make your special day look as fantastic as you remember it being.

2: The photographer needs to protect their brand - surrendering the RAW images means you are free to add lens flare and other shitty editing to their raw materials, and thereby doing damage to their brand.

3: RAW files = copyright risk in general.

4: A personal use licence is the norm unless you're willing to pay a premium. The photographer needs to blog the photos, to use them in promotional materials, and to always have those photos connected with his brand. He doesn't need (or want) you plastering them all over the place and using them for god-knows-what purpose.

I would suggest the following:

1: Properly define what exactly both of you mean by 'personal use'. What do you actually want to do with the photographs? If it's anything other than 'make copies for my family', then you're probably asking too much for the licence you're negotiating. It is normal to put things like disaster recovery as part of the deal, so that if you ever need to recover copies of the photographs then you can do so. Don't expect to be able to sell the photographs on, though.

2: Negotiate on the resolution, but not the format. You are buying edited photos, not RAW images. Remember the process. Your RAW images will NOT look the same as the JPG end product, and in fact many photographers feel that the RAW images are bad. Imperfections, poor lighting etc are the whole reason that an editing process exists in the first place. The photographer needs to protect their brand.

3: If you are only concerned about resolution and not the quality (i.e composition, style etc) of the image itself, then re-negotiate your contract to remove the editing work. Your photographer will probably run a mile.

> Am I wrong in approaching this as a case where I hire a man for his skill > and artistry and expect to keep the work product?

Yes, you are - because that's not what you're asking. You're asking to keep the product, the raw materials, and all of the rights to use that product for any purpose whatsoever.

In my honest opinion, you're being a little too forward. Some photographers are just very protective of their work (it is their art, remember) - and the whole RAW thing is likely to push a few buttons because you are effectively voiding the hard work that goes into the editing process. YMMV with other photographers, but that's why there's a market: if you like this photographer's work, then stick with him and drop the RAW thing. If not, then find somebody else who'll provide the RAW files.

What you need to do is outline what it is you intend to do with the photographs. When this is clear your photographer may be more accommodating. I would fully expect him to charge you more, though.

EDIT: Removed the suggestion that the 'customer is not right'. Apologies for including this in the first place, but what I meant to suggest is that your expectation of the service is in conflict with the photographer's perception of the service they provide. Until you can come to some agreement around this, you will have issues. For the photographer, this is a business and their art form. Asking them to put their art in the hands of somebody who may alter it or otherwise 'damage' it is a risky and emotional prospect for them. If you don't care about this, then you're probably best finding another photographer who will give you exactly what you want without questions.

</comment><comment><USER7> I shot a number of Weddings in the past decade (usually 2 per year, not how I make a living, but I apprenticed so...). I wouldn't worry about getting "Raw" files. While I always shot Raw I always delivered jpgs, I think at 8 megapixel equivalent (My Canon 5d is only 13 megapixels.). This will be Fine for most size prints. 2.5 megapixel is clearly is web only.

I processed the images in lightroom to give them the look I wanted and delivered a large set of high quality jpegs. The post processing / sorting of files takes a lot of time, so not having to do that would lower the price. Digital wedding photographers take a lot of photographs so sorting them can be onerous. Play that the fact that you'll sort and post process yourself.

Plus some photographers don't want to give you all the photos as invariably some are Out of Focus or not great.

Your on the right path negotiating before hand. Expect to pay extra for the rights and images. If you find a photographer that will give those to you, expect the cost to be baked into the price. Its Still better than having to go back to the photographer for every print.

<comment><AUTHOR> I appreciate the value in acquiring rights and have accepted that while unfair in general, it is the accepted practice for photography.

However, I just don't understand why copying files from a hard drive (whether the finished lightroom product or originals from DS card) is so hard. I just wondered if there was something else I was missing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> As a part time photographer myself, I find it very strange that your photographer will only give you 2.5mp files. That is not standard practice. Typically, you would get full-rez, processed .jpeg files.

I would never give a client the RAW files, neither do most photographers. RAW is incomplete and they require processing, which is part of the service offered. It's like asking a film photographer to provide the negatives.

But you should expect to get the full-rez processed .jpeg files with personal use rights.

<comment><USER9> Rather than the negatives, I think it's closer to asking the photographer for just the film--before any development is done. With a negative, you've already done some processing with regards to the timing of the film development (push/pull) that you can arguably accomplish in Lightroom/Aperture/etc. when processing the RAW file.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> You need to find another wedding photographer. This is YOUR wedding day, and you need to have it your way, not HIS way.

Do a broader search for wedding photographers, and ask them to give you quotes that include:

* >= 12 MP JPEGs from their digital SLR, processed via Lightroom or whatever process they use.

* RAW files for those JPEGs.

* The right to use your photos in ANY WAY you please. This includes printing physical albums and books for your family. This includes the right to post photos to Facebook without the photographer's watermark. (Still, it would be nice for you to post a link to their website from your wedding gallery.)

That's it! If a photographer cannot agree to these three requests, they do not need your business. This is a matter of good customer service. If they provide you this great level of service, you'll definitely recommend them to other people looking for wedding photographers.

I don't understand the other photographers on this thread saying they'd NEVER give away their RAWs. It would be like a contract web developer only handing over JPEG screenshots of their final product, instead of the source code.

<comment><USER10> For any wedding photographer that reads this:

If YOU were getting married tomorrow and needed to hire someone to be YOUR wedding photographer, would you accept 2.5MP JPEGs as the final product?

Or would you demand full resolution JPEGs, along with RAWs so that you can have the full sensor data to play around with forever?

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'll jump in here as I recently started a side business shooting weddings.

You're dealing with an old school photographer who expects to cover his costs (salary, rent, equipment, etc.) from print and album sales, rather than scare you away with a large initial cost.

It's true that photographers prefer to withhold RAWs because they're unprocessed and in bulk, but that's not your photographer's issue.

I also mention upfront that I only provide web-quality images for the quoted cost, as I believe I can offer my expertise to provide better quality prints when requested, or any other image processing needs (slideshows, albums, collages, etc.). This also provides me with another much needed revenue stream, albeit it's often perceived as greed. I should note, however, that I charge much much less than $4k, as I am in a different market.

What do you intend to do with the RAW files if you get them?

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm a pack rat and I will archive these photos along with all of the other photos I've taken during my life. I currently have a terrabyte (not that much, but still enough to cause headaches) of such photos that are backed up in 3 locations, yada, yada, yada.

On principle, if I am going to get pictures then I want the highest quality since one lesson I've learned is that the quality from 10 years is 1/10 the quality available today. Might as well record and store the maximum quality today since over the course of the marriage (10s of years, I hope) today's quality will be just 'average.'

My suspicion is that he plans to make profit on the prints, and he's afraid I've found a way to bypass him. I just don't understand why he doesn't price his time and skill and use the prints as add-ons.

<comment><USER12> If he front-loaded the price you wouldn't have progressed to this point in the negotiation yet. You would simply think he was an expensive photographer. And he'd have to average out the money he makes from prints/copies in the up-front price to stay in business. That would be unfair to those who don't order many.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> As a wedding photographer I can completely understand his reluctance to provide raw files. We would never do it, not for any amount of money.

First of all, he has no control how the raw files will be processed, so if your post processing is poor then someone else asks who shot your wedding, you'll reply with his name. Don't forget you've got the ability to change the end result of his work with raw files and with that goes his reputation.

Additionally the raw files aren't always great straight out of the camera, great pictures emerge after cropping, straightening and balancing the entire image. His perceived skill will be greatly reduced when you see unedited images that are in need of work.

You are paying for his all-round skills to deliver great images not for someone to press the shutter & deliver raw files.

It's the equivalent of asking an artist for his practise sketches & tubes of paint or asking a chef for the raw ingredients, cooking whatever you want with them and the chef still having his name attached to the quality of dish that you create. He may have intended to create a soufflé but you may end up creating scrambled eggs and there's nothing he can do about it.

Personally we find that images at 300dpi are optimised for prints (12x8) we scale our print files around 3600 x 2400 pixels. This is around 8 to 9 megapixels. We also provide low-res files too for sharing on Facebook, e-mailing etc.

Perhaps there's some misunderstanding between file size (2.5 megabytes) and 2.5 megapixels - that's more of a sensor size e.g iPhone equivalent.

If you do get raw files, then please prepare them for print correctly, image labs won't accept them at that size.

Instead of asking for raw files, just ask for a larger size jpg and specify 3600 x 2400 pixels for your high res files, that should make it clear what you want and it protects his work too.

<comment><USER2> > First of all, he has no control how the raw files will be processed ...

This is equally true for any work done on a jpeg.

> Don't forget you've got the ability to change the end result of his work > with raw files and with that goes his reputation.

This is equally true for any work done on a jpeg.

> Additionally the raw files aren't always great straight out of the camera, > great pictures emerge after cropping, straightening and balancing the entire > image. His perceived skill will be greatly reduced when you see unedited > images that are in need of work.

This is either a non-existent problem (the customer's perception can be based on the pp'd jpeg), or an education problem (the photographer can explain that often a lot of work is done in post to get just the right look).

> You are paying for his all-round skills to deliver great images not for > someone to press the shutter & deliver raw files.

No one has suggested the customer _doesn 't_ pay for, and get, skilfully post- processed jpegs, or that that's not the thing the customer wants most.

The OP is seeking these quality, finished products in addition to raws.

> It's the equivalent of asking an artist for his practise sketches & tubes of > paint or asking a chef for the raw ingredients, cooking whatever you want > with them and the chef still having his name attached to the quality of dish > that you create.

No, it really is not.

If I make a regrettably tasteless meal from a recipe in a cook book, I don't present it to my dinner guests and blame Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall.

> He may have intended to create a soufflé but you may end up creating > scrambled eggs and there's nothing he can do about it.

This is equally true for any work done on a jpeg.

> Personally we find that images at 300dpi are optimised for prints (12x8) we > scale our print files around 3600 x 2400 pixels. This is around 8 to 9 > megapixels. We also provide low-res files too for sharing on Facebook, > e-mailing etc.

This doesn't materially impact the desire of the OP for raws.

> Instead of asking for raw files, just ask for a larger size jpg and specify > 3600 x 2400 pixels for your high res files, that should make it clear what > you want and it protects his work too.

Again the customer is being told that what they want is wrong, and they are wrong for wanting it.

<comment><USER13> As far as I understand it OP wants higher res finished images than what was being offered. Asking for the raw files in addition to the 2.5mp images isn't the best end result for OP. That's a lot of work they'd have to do to get raws ready for printing. Therefore in this instance asking for the raw files IS wrong. What they should be asking for is finished jpgs - high res around 8 or 9 mp, perfect for prints & the low res too which are great for web use. Going all the way back to the raw file just results in them getting a totally unedited picture.

You say whatever can be done to a raw can be done to a jpg, that's not true. If you receive a nicely cropped jpg image you can't go back to the original full image with it's rough edges. With jpgs the photographer gets to set the crop, white balance, sharpening & saturation he is happy with.

It sounds like the photographer wants OP to go back to him for prints. With a bit of negotiation they can arrange to have the print quality jpgs on a disc. No need to go back to the start of the creative process and get completely unedited raws.

<comment><USER2> > As far as I understand it OP wants higher res finished images than what was > being offered.

The OP stated: "I asked to include the raw files and [original] jpgs ..."

> Asking for the raw files in addition to the 2.5mp images isn't the best end > result for OP.

Do you mean it won't be the best because the OP is wrong to want these raw files in addition?

Or it's not the best because it's proving difficult to acquire the files from this recalcitrant photographer?

> That's a lot of work they'd have to do to get raws ready for printing.

Really, no one is arguing against this point. It's both true and non-relevant.

> Therefore in this instance asking for the raw files IS wrong. What they > should be asking for is finished jpgs - high res around 8 or 9 mp, perfect > for prints & the low res too which are great for web use.

You're not big on embracing 'the customer is always right', are you?

I think the customer here is asking for finished higher quality / higher resolution jpg's _and_ the original raws.

> You say whatever can be done to a raw can be done to a jpg, that's not true.

Incorrect.

I said that your stated concern that someone performing poor pp on a photo, and then being asked who shot them -- exposes the same risk to the photographer regardless of whether the other person worked on raws or jpegs. I mean, the answer to the question would be the same.

Arguably low-quality (and 2.5MB jpegs are going to become very poor quality once you modify them) images would exacerbate this problem. But this isn't the point.

As I say, there's been no compelling reasons offered to explain why raws should be withheld from a customer that wants to buy them. Yes, there's a negotiation to be conducted on what price is appropriate, but the market will sort that out soon enough. But saying the customer is wrong, stupid or just misunderstands, or that they may misuse them, or that processed jpegs look better .. all that is just offensive or irrelevant (or both).

On the other hand, here are three compelling reasons I just came up with for why you would want to acquire the raw images of _your wedding_ , where you'd _employed someone_ to take pictures for you.

First, photographers die and/or go out of business, at which point your chance of recovering these files is massively reduced. Asking your photographer what arrangements they have in place for such scenarios would be amusing.

Second, photographers are _at best_ as good as everyone else at running backups and maintaining archives. By which I mean they are likely dreadful. My photo archive is stored on 4 physical machines, two of which are on RAID arrays, with one machine in a different country, and I keep two external drives in sync also. I have mechanisms to ensure file system and media corruption is noticed and rectified. Quite simply I have profound doubts that a photographer will care quite so much about my photos as I do, let alone have a sufficiently comforting level of tech savvy. Again, it'd be enlightening to ask your wedding photographer what systems and processes they have in place to protect these files that are so precious you're not allowed to buy from them.

Third, technology changes rapidly. Photography forums are full of professional photographers talking about how much better their old (5-10y) digital images can look when they revisit them with slightly more modern versions of pp software. Again, I doubt that the average photographer will be doing this for you periodically over the 40+ years of your marriage - whereas that's the precise set of photos you're most likely going to want to revisit.

<comment><USER13> I think what the customer 'wants' is always right. What the customer asks for can be an entirely different thing and a lot can be lost in translation. If you take the first ask at face value without delving deeper it can result in a very disappointed customer.

It's not offensive to check you are delivering what they 'actually' want.

I think the photographer is just checking they know what they're actually getting when they ask for raw files.

If OP is prepared for them to be nothing like the finished version then that's great, they're on the same page. I think they'll get more use out of higher res jpegs though.

Why pay someone to produce 2.5mp finished images or raws you need to work on yourself when you can just have a high res set.

I can't tell you the number of people that ask for raw when what they mean is high resolution. I've heard lots of horror stories where photographers deliver raw files and they get a long furious e-mail back saying "what the hell, these don't even open on my computer, I asked for the best quality images dammit!"

With wedding photography 80% of customers have never been married before & it's their first time discussing photography services, a good photographer will check the customer is fully informed. A bad one will do anything to make the sale, pop the card out of the camera, hand it over and say "hey that's what you asked for"

As OP has said, they're not interested in prints so asking for a much higher res digital finished image makes a lot of sense, ready for the big screen tv, perhaps a large canvas etc. Prepping the raws ready to share is a big time investment.

Also be sure to make your own copies of the disc as optical media degrades over time too. Make as many backups as you can.

Photographers take backups more seriously that you think. We're as precious about backups as we are the raw files! They're our livelihood.

I think our backup strategy is better than the average user. Dual card slots shooting raw images, transported separately from the venue at the end of the day. One is stored off site in a fire proof box in an anti static pouch. The other is the 'working' card and imported to the working machine with SSD raid. They're also mirrored to an external hard drive & cloud backup while working. Exported final jpgs are burned to DVD for the client along with a box of 6x4 proofs and online gallery access.

For our own work archives they are uploaded to our viewing portal which is paid for several years at a time (e.g if we were no longer around, clients can still re-download them within that time frame - good luck doing that with raw file sizes). We also store final jpgs in cloud storage and put an archive of work on both optical media and sd card with the original raw card in the off site fire proof storage along with a copy of the customers details.

I think saying photographers are not tech savvy and don't care about their clients images is equally offensive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Get a quote from another photographer and use it to negotiate or just find a different photographer.

</comment><comment><USER15> Try here (no affiliation): [http://www.mywedding.com/seattle/photographers](http://www.mywedding.com/seattle/photographers)

Also found this discussion amongst photographers: [http://www.flickr.com/groups/weddingphoto/discuss/7215762943...](http://www.flickr.com/groups/weddingphoto/discuss/72157629437099072/)

Most don't want to give away RAW files as they aren't the "finished product" or they aren't a format most people can view. Many just want more money for them.

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks, these help

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> If you think the price is unreasonable (and I think it is), either go elsewhere or negotiate. Either way, you need to go out and get some other quotes. If you're going to negotiate, you really need some other quotes as examples (for leverage).

It was a non-issue when I got married. The photographer printed a 4x6 of each picture and put it in an album. We got the album and all the negatives. (Yes, the wedding and the wife were a long time ago.)

</comment><comment><USER17> Dump the guy and make him feel that he deserves to be dumped. Wear the shit boot and make sure to leave a footprint on his ass for entertaining story to tell others.

There are plenty of young and talented photographers around with an excellent equipment. I'd personally pick the one with Canon 1D* body and L-class lenses. RAW files and full copyright ownership is mandatory and no negotiable. Make sure to pay flat, all inclusive decent fee for everything. Pay 25% upfront + 25% upon wedding end, 50% upon inspection of finals. Make sure he carries external lights and knows how to use them.

</comment><comment><USER18> Tell him if he doesn't give the raws, you use another photographer.

He's trying to scam you - simple.

<comment><USER19> As a photographer giving away RAWs is just not something I'd ever do. No scam involved.

Sure it sounds like this particular photographer is trying to get more money for prints, but that's been "standard" in the wedding business for decades, even before digital photography.

<comment><USER18> As a developer, not giving away RAWs would be like giving them the site but not giving them the source code

<comment><USER6> Which is a perfectly reasonable business model and one which the vast majority of developers follow...

If the customer wants the source code, then by all means include it as part of your package, but along with that comes the complexities of copyright, support (do you still support code that your customer hired somebody else to mangle?), and other such concerns. These things come at a price.

Of course, how you do business is entirely up to you - but handing over the source code as part of the standard deal opens up a ton of questions which you should make sure you have covered.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I work with tons of wedding photographers at my company and most don't give raw files. I'd almost argue that ones who do give them probably aren't the ones you want shooting your wedding.

You should definitely get the high res jpegs of course.</comment>


Toyota Still Thinks Hydrogen Fuel Cells Are the Future - <AUTHOR> https://jalopnik.com/toyota-still-thinks-hydrogen-fuel-cells-are-the-future-1843928962 <comment><USER2> In some respects a fuel cell is like a bettery. You use the fuel cell to combine Hydrogen with Oxygen and you capture that reaction energy in water. Going the other way you split water into hydrogen and oxygen by adding that reaction energy. They need to make these reactions into reversible half cell potentials and there has been a hunt for the proper catalytic membreans or surfaces that will do this for years and years and which will not gradually degrade or get poisoned by stray funny atoms in the reaction streams. This much like the chase to improve Lithium batteries over the past 20 years. They make incremental progress and have functional systems now, but they do not have highly efficient ones. Hydrogen storage is one problem. They have made some hydride based hydrogen storage tanks, but they are not fast fill. They have made some that use air, but sulfur from SO2 in the air poison the membranes/catalysts they use. All this said, after another 20 years they may well solve all the problems - there is a lot to be said for Japanese perseverance.</comment>


Ask HN: Is there a website that tracks revisions to news articles? - <AUTHOR>

It's increasingly  commonplace for journalists and hacks alike to update their articles, dropping or revising the most poorly  researched sections, without noting the retraction, much less preserving the original edit.
It would make sense for there to be a tool which scrapes news sites and reports on the "diffs".
Does one exist? Have any of you tried to hack something like this together? <comment><USER2> There are websites and browser extensions (such as [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/page- monitor/pemhg...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/page- monitor/pemhgklkefakciniebenbfclihhmmfcd?hl=en) ; haven't used it myself though) that keep track of diffs of pages, but they require that a user first decides to watch a particular webpage.

Is this what you are looking for or are you looking for something that tracks news stories automatically? (useful if you want to see how an article changes before you saw it or if you want to discuss changes within a community.)

<comment><AUTHOR> The latter. Interested in accountability and transparency.</comment></comment>


What a City Would Look Like If It Were Designed for Only Bikes - <AUTHOR> http://www.fastcoexist.com/3052018/what-a-city-would-like-if-it-was-designed-for-only-bikes-no-cars-allowed <comment><USER3> I'm a cyclist and I love the idea of making cities more bike friendly, but this group of designers has missed a major point. Cities are for PEOPLE. Not for cars, not for bikes, but for humans. Space for people to live and exist in should be the highest priority, and anytime you start cutting into living space to make more room for vehicles, you're making the city less human friendly. That's what these guys seem to be doing. They're saying, "cars aren't important, bikes are!" But neither bikes nor cars are important. People are.

I'd even suggest that a major reason why cars have supremacy at the moment is that they are more inclusive of people than bikes are. I prefer using my bike any time I possibly can, but I am young, fit, childless and live within 2 minutes of my job. Cars are inclusive of people who have more than one kid, live across an interstate from their job, and may have mobility issues - <USER2> bikes are not. This redesigned city needs to make room for people who aren't 25 years old and single.

<comment><USER4> > I'd even suggest that a major reason why cars have supremacy at the moment > is that they are more inclusive of people than bikes are.

This is mostly true because >>we make it true<<. You see plenty of older people, people with kids, kids themselves, etc. biking around in the Netherlands or Denmark. This is because they have good support for biking, such that people 8 - 80 can bike around town.

Plus, it's not like cars universally win at inclusiveness: They're _less_ inclusive of the poor, for example, because they're vastly more expensive to own and operate than a bike. The poor who need a car because there's no good transit or biking options have to spend a huge % of their income on transportation.

> This redesigned city needs to make room for people who aren't 25 years old > and single.

Honestly, it sounds like you just haven't been to any city with a high (15%+) bike modal share, because then you'd see how your assumptions are wrong. If you live in America, that's understandable, because we don't have any major cities like that. But they do exist, elsewhere in the world. Visiting Amsterdam or Copenhagen could be eye-opening.

<comment><USER3> > Honestly, it sounds like you just haven't been to any city with a high > (15%+) bike modal share, because then you'd see how your assumptions are > wrong. If you live in America, that's understandable, because we don't have > any major cities like that. But they do exist, elsewhere in the world. > Visiting Amsterdam or Copenhagen could be eye-opening.

I believe you, for sure, I just don't think the concept in this article does it correctly. You're right that I've never been to Copenhagen or Amsterdam, but honestly, do they have roofs that slope to the ground so they can be bike ramps, and extra wide hallways to permit bike riding indoors, with pedestrians marginalized to the side of the corridor even inside their own homes?

A more bike friendly city is definitely more inclusive. But prioritizing bikes at the expense of pedestrians isn't correct either.

<comment><USER4> Oh, I agree that these particular concepts are over the top. I was just taking issue with the idea that bikes aren't inclusive. This is a common misconception in the states, because indeed, here we are used to cyclists being mostly young, fit and male, because our bike lane networks are so shoddy that no one else is brave/crazy enough to risk their lives just to move around the city.

Funnily enough, at Google, their bike commute rate in the Mountain View/Sunnyvale area for people who live within 9 miles of work is 21%, which is obviously extremely high for the states. It's helped along by a reasonably high number of painted bike lanes in the area, a few good bike/ped trails, and the fact that car traffic going to those areas is really, really horrible during rush hour.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I had thought the custom on HN was to post valuable, constructive comments, and not to find fault or to post typical Internet forum sniping and hyperbole.

Perhaps it's my impression, but I've rarely seen anything constructive recently. Almost everything in this discussion, for example, is reaction and sniping ("useless", "absurd", "stupid", etc.). It's a way to hang out and socialize online; there's nothing wrong with it. But personally, I've read enough Internet sniping for a lifetime; it's not thoughtful, informative, insightful or constructive; I don't learn anything and leave uninspired.

Perhaps it's just my impression or it's temporary; perhaps it's a bigger change (related to YC and its leadership distancing themselves from HN?). Is there anywhere online where the sniping is eliminated and the discussion more valuable?

EDIT: Sorry, I know it's off-topic, but there's no other place to post it (that I know of).

<comment><USER6> I mostly agree. I do sometimes find valuable counterpoint in the HN comments, but most often that's on topics where the community here has actual expertise (mostly programming) and the counterpoint is pretty specific.

This has been a discussion on HN for years, though, and even has its own jargon term, the "middlebrow dismissal": [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5072224](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5072224)

<comment><USER5> Thanks for the interesting link.

I think the discussions used to be much better. There was less 'noise' and some truly excellent 'signal', which made the discussions worthwhile. Recently, my impression is that the noise has significantly increased and the excellent signal has almost disappeared. But: That could be simply my mistaken impression, it could be just normal variability, or it could be something else. Certainly I'm not the first to say, in any community, 'it's not like it was in the old days'.

<comment><USER7> In my opinion, there is plenty of noise, but the truly excellent signal remains and pops up at a reasonable rate. But I've only been around 5 or 6 years, so I always wonder if I simply don't have a concept of the "good old days" that people are nostalgic about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> A bike ramp into the apartment is useless. You can just take the elevator with your bike, or you know... Just make a garage for bikes on ground floor. The article doesn't really say much about how to design a city for bicycles, which mostly comes down to providing good roads where you aren't bothered by cars.

<comment><USER9> Yep, I live in the Netherlands and my apartment complex has a separate entrance to a bicycle storage area on street level, which connects to the central hallway. Parking's only half the story though. You also need to feel safe to ride a bike, which requires infrastructure and attitude.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I wonder if that expert has been to the Netherlands or Copenhagen. In fact I wonder whether he has really experienced a bike for day to day use, because some of the ideas are very strange. It's telling that most bikes in the pictures are racing bikes. What's the advantage of bikes in apartment buildings? Why not park the bike at the ground floor? It would waste a lot of space in the corridors. Think about what you'd rather have: 2 meters extra apartment, or 2 meters extra wide corridor.

Bikes in shops will not work either. Walking through a shop with a bike seems extremely unwieldy; you would need much larger space between the shelves. A bike in your hand makes it hard to pick up things from the shelves. A bike does not stay upright by itself when you go to pick up something from the shelves, so you have to park it with that thing that I don't know the English name of. Even then, if you load the bike with a bag of groceries it usually falls over. When you are walking on one side of your bike it's hard to reach over your bike while not falling over. Bike parking space is a non-problem compared to car parking space. No cars whatsoever is unrealistic even in bike utopia. How do you move big and heavy things? No ambulance, no fire trucks?

<comment><USER11> I think there's a different culture in places where bikes remained (like Netherlands & Denmark) as a major vehicle type and where they can back in recent decades.

In the places where they came back, it was a trendy sporty thing. Very expensive bikes became normal and when these new age cyclists try to use their bikes for transport they hit the theft and vandalism issue. Part of the solution in (EG) Netherlands is riding fairly inexpensive & simple bikes so that theft is not such a show stopper.

To the sporty newcomers, this seems like a crappy trade-off.

In fairness, The Netherlands is flat & small. You can cycle from the outskirts to centres of major cities in 30-45 minutes and even between some cities (EG Hague & Rotterdam) in an hour. Even with the wonderful infrastructure, it's probably not applicable in places like Sydney. To get from the centre to the western suburbs where most people live would take 3+ hours cycling. On a rickety Amsterdam classic it'd be quite a chore, much hillier and hotter. Even inner city Sydneysiders travel farther that Amsterdam Suburbanites. So, sydney cyclists dreaming of a bike-first world are thinking about maximum speed, the fitness to power up hills, sweat clothes and showers at every destination.

<comment><USER10> The Netherlands wasn't always bike friendly. There was a big push in the 70's to redesign cities and popularize cycling. It wasn't something that just happened or something that was always there.

I agree that you need to adapt the approach to the country or area. The real goal should be making the space in cities outside of buildings human friendly rather than only car friendly. This is about pedestrians, bikes, public transport, architecture, atmosphere, etc. In Sydney you could perhaps use public transport for long distances, with bikes for the last mile. This is also common in the netherlands for people who travel between cities. Or you could have electric bikes for hilly terrain and warm weather. Note that the netherlands is rainy and windy, and that's not nice for cycling either yet people still do it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> That's a city designed for _ONLY_ bikes, and no city will ever be designed like that, no cars allowed is nice in theory but not workable. To be practical it would at a minimum have to accommodate foot-traffic, supply lines to stores (or did you think that those stores will be supplied by cargo bikes?) and access for disabled people (not everybody can ride a bike).

So it's a nice thought experiment but not at all practical, on top of that 'bike lanes in apartment building hallways' make you wonder just how much experience the designer has riding bicycles, you park your bike at the interface between inside and outside and you don't run around the apartment hallways on a bicycle because of (1) pedestrians, (2) playing kids, (3) the fact that you now have to elevate your bicycle every time you want to go in or out of your house and (4) storing your bike at streetlevel is simply much more practical.

<comment><USER13> "no cars allowed is nice in theory but not workable"

I think cities existed before cars.

<comment> saiya-jin well they did, but you wouldn't want to live in most of them.

what about ambulances? fireworkers? once your place is on fire, or your dad is having heart attack, you want help to arrive in eco-friendly manner half an hour too late?

even places like Zermatt in Switzerland, which prides itself in banning all cars except electric has medical, technical and police guys routinely cruising the village in... you guessed it, normal cars. and that's a tiny holiday spot, not some vibrant metropolis.

you want more bikes in your town? look at Denmark or Netherland how they achieved it. dedicated bike lanes over WHOLE city, not just here and there. Bikes have dedicated time and dedicated traffic lights. every major road has bike-only side road, no pedestrians allowed.

<comment><USER14> Well, I recently watched a small restaurant get robbed at gunpoint. It took the police ~15-20 minutes to arrive because they had to drive from downtown. Cars allow a single officer to service a much larger radius, which unfortunately in this case meant that the city simply hired fewer police officers, resulting in little net benefit.

By the time the officer arrived the thief was probably in his living room counting the money because he himself drove off with the aid of an accomplice waiting outside.

The situation you describe in Zermatt sounds like an interesting compromise, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> That "bike friendly" apartment block looks extremely pedestrian hostile

<comment><USER16> The "hallway with lanes"? The thing that isn't obvious at first glance (but is more obvious in further design depictions) is that it is setup like a miniature version of a typical street in which to the immediate sides of the bike lanes are "bike parking" spots and on the far sides of those spots are pedestrian "side walks".

It seems like a fair design to me.

<comment><USER17> Really?

You're using up an absolutely vast area in your building for bike paths. You also are forced to build everything into a ramp shape so that the bikes can get in.

Oh and alternative solution (put a bike garage on the ground floor). Is cheaper and probably nicer to live in since the people on the top floor can use lifts instead of riding an extra couple of k up hill.

<comment><USER16> The whole point of the conceptualization is to explore what cities/buildings might be like if we built bike-first. Of course it's not "practical" versus the cheapness of first floor bike garages. It's meant to be a vision of what we might do if we rebuilt things from first principles.

Certainly you could do both: have a good lift to your floor in the evenings that you could ride your bike into and then in the mornings coast your way all the way down as a fun way to start your day. Some people would even appreciate the extra uphill climb every day as an easy way to stay fit in their own home buildings.

Another thing to note here is that the conceptualized buildings are a lot wider than they are tall. The impression being that even if you had an elevator to your floor you might still want to ride your bike to your unit as the floor itself will be long enough to warrant that sort of thing.

Again, the goal here is to question design principles and it is a fair and interesting design because it asks questions about our assumptions. We currently don't build buildings more than a quarter mile wide because once inside them we assume everyone has to walk. Thus we tend to build taller buildings instead. Shorter, wider, ramp-like buildings are an interesting idea and this concept gives us a vocabulary to discuss them.

Do I expect to see these in cities any time soon? Definitely not. But it is still a neat design worth discussing, especially if it allows us to re- question old city design assumptions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I'm confused as to why they created bike paths in apartment building hallways.

<comment><USER18> Indoor races when the weather is bad? :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I like that they are trying to consider different possibilities, although I'm not personally fond of what they came up with. For example, one picture looked like ramps for bikes to go over cars, but in practice it works better for cyclists to go under (even though from an engineering standpoint it is more work to put the heavy traffic on top). I also don't want bikes to be indoors (and I primarily bike for transportation).

I like David Hembrow's blog about cycling infrastructure in the Netherlands. Here is a good post on myths and excuses about cycling infrastructure: [http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/02/all-those- myths...](http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/02/all-those-myths-and- excuses-in-one-post.html)

<comment><USER20> Why should bikes go under the cars?

<comment><USER19> Otherwise bikes get an extra hill :). And then you get extra speed when you don't need it. Down and then up is easy. Although for typical intersections I'm not sure either is a particularly good idea most of the time. Other options are separate signals or giving priority to cyclists (Hembrow has a bunch of pictures of this stuff), or, as someone else mentioned, for high density areas having a separate fully elevated bike path could work too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> A secure/convenient place to lock your bike at ground level is better.

</comment><comment><USER22> A bike friendly building is a good idea if city really, really wanted to promote bike use. Being able to ride your bike into a grocery store, shop, then ride your bike into your kitchen and unload is kind of awesome. But this is the last step after bike only roads and decent bike public transportation.

</comment><comment><USER23> Even as a cyclist these designs seem myopic to the demands of civic design such as pedestrian friendliness and affordability. Perhaps a Dubai could afford retrofitting, but as these designs stand, they are only practical (and I use that loosely) for new construction.

</comment><comment><USER24> I think the concept is interesting but needs some tweaking. The main issue with any core downtown is space. There simply isn't any available, for anyone. The space that is available is extremely costly so we need to think outside the box. Bike paths on the ground aren't the only option.

Go up. Elevated bike paths, much like the Vancouver Skyrail, are an option. [http://www.railway- technology.com/projects/vancouver/vancouv...](http://www.railway- technology.com/projects/vancouver/vancouver5.html)

\- The elevated structure would only be for cyclists \- You could literally ride above all the downtown traffic \- Dedicated lanes so you don't get road rage

</comment><comment><USER11> There seems to be a great amount of enthusiasm in the zeitgeist about the future, positive and negative predictions. A lot of it comes with some far out economics baked in nonchalantly. Basic incomes, abundance economies & zero marginal cost everything.

I like it and I do quite a bit of indulging in this sort of thing myself. But…

I don't think I'm seeing the trends in gadgetry, software, and manufactured goods at work everywhere. The production cost (and often the price) of manufactured goods (used to be "mass produced) has come down tremendously compared with average income. The trend is hundreds of years old. Underpants, sugar bowls, cereal commodities and almost everything else you can fit under a very wide umbrella of "manufactured goods" is heading towards free, or at least extremely cheap. We've seen it happen with a lot of things. Clothes pins & pencils used to be worth something, but I can't remember cost ever being a factor. They're basically free. Software also. I agree that a lot of things are headed towards "abundance." The things that aren't are often things that keep getting better, things where we have an appetite for (qualitative) more, iphones & whatnot.

The bicycles come into it at the points where there isn't a fruitful trend towards more, better everything. Housing & transport are still most people's 2 biggest expenses. These have improved in quality over time and we consume more (bigger house, long commute, overseas holiday…) but there isn't an obvious "trend towards abundance."

The fact that a radical idea (radical because of the radical trade off of eliminating cars) like this is interesting is kind of proof that this thing is not moving and we're frustrated. We still commute a lot, and we don't enjoy it. It pollutes. It's noisy. Expensive. Slow. It's not much different than 1980 or even 1965.

I think housing and transport are the stick in the abundance ideas. In 25 years roads might be full of quite, clean, electric, driverless, parkingless cars but even that amazing achievement will still not match the technology trends that have brought other things up the quality and abundance curve.

</comment><comment><USER25> I'm curious to see the interaction between self driving cars and bicycle friendly cities. What about banning human driven cars from a city and then using the resultant savings in road space to make it more cycle friendly?

</comment><comment><USER26> For one thing, you wouldn't have to look at old or infirm people...

</comment><comment><USER27> Misleading title and absurd idea: they suggest having bike lanes _inside_ buildings. This is wasting precious real estate: the indoor bike lanes and parkings are nearly as big as the apartments they service. Why not build streets in buildings if you prefer cars? or a river if you're a boat person? or a half-pipe for skaters?

</comment><comment><USER28> > and maybe even wheel their bike through stores as they shop, with a sleeping > baby in the bike carrier, or use the basket to hold groceries

Anyone who has ever actually had a bike for more than a week and who actually shops for their own groceries will know this is a terrible idea.

<comment><USER29> Why?

I use panniers for my groceries, however, the grocery store won't allow me to just bring my bike inside, so instead I have to take the panniers off my bike and put them in a cart. Using my bike as the cart would make sense.

<comment><USER28> Now imagine trying to get something from a freezer or off of a top shelf without having to put the kickstand down and then up again after over and over and over.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> One problem that immediately stands out to me is how sweaty everyone would be. I'm in shape but riding around a city on a hot day would have me drenched.

<comment><USER31> In this vision of the future, I believe all of the bike paths will be indoors and air conditioned.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I like the general idea of moving away from cars and creating architecture that supports that. I feel that my idea solves many more problems than this design though. I do not have drawings and 3d renderings etc. or own a firm and I am just an individual, but my tiny villages concept is much more comprehensive.

[http://runvnc.github.io/tinyvillage/](http://runvnc.github.io/tinyvillage/)

</comment><comment><USER33> I speak as a non-car-owning bicycle commuter when I say that bicycle lanes _inside_ apartment building hallways are ... glaringly stupid. Rabid bicyclowns like this give the rest of us a bad reputation for fanaticism.

</comment><comment><USER34> particular small areas with extremely high pop density might improve if cars were banned but for the most part adding separate bike paths that don't interact with roads much is the way to go. The sloped apartments seem dangerous and stupid.

<comment><USER35> _particular small areas with extremely high pop density might improve if cars were banned_

Cars, on the whole, occupy a single flat level. Why don't buildings spread out over roads as the norm? rather than the occasional oddity of a road tunneling thru a building, why isn't that the norm? Ventilation etc problems can be solved. There's N stories of unused space over the roads; leave the first 2-3 stories for road tunneling, and fill in the building-sized empty spaces above.

<comment><USER34> Probably because it's prohibitively expensive compared with just building a larger building next to the road and it's aesthetically pleasing to have space between buildings and humans like sunlight.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> It would look empty, because who would choose to live there?

</comment><comment><USER37> If exposed to weather it is an automatic fail. Sorry, that is just how it works. From any transportation alternative that is no enclosed it always comes down to comfort. One day it is too hot, another too cold, or too wet, and on and on, until the excuse is no longer needed as the alternative mode is parked.

So any bicycle or pedestrian friendly environment needs weather protection as part of its design. It does not need be fully enclosed but that type of protection may be required depending on climate. Perhaps a convertible system where panels retract?

<comment><USER38> I happily commute by bike year round in Chicago, as do many other thousands of people that live in the city. It gets into the 90's in the summer, and well below freezing in the winter.

If it's hot I pack my work clothes and change (and shower if needed) at work.

If it's cold I dress warmly. It's amazing how quickly you warm up when pedaling more than a few miles.

If it's raining I wear a rain jacket, and the fenders on my bike keeps water from splashing up on me.

So no, weather is not an automatic fail. It's just a mindset change if you're used to be in the enclosed bubble that car provides.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> I live 43 miles from my job, all on major interstates, in a big metro area. What good would this do? Unless you designed the city for mixed living/working/shopping in the first place, most US cities could never change to be bike first. This isn't SimCity where you can raze the whole town.

<comment><USER40> "I live 43 miles from my job, all on major interstates, in a big metro area."

Nobody forced you to live so far away from your job. You're already catered to by virtue of having those interstates in the first place. Quit complaining that other people, who aren't you, are finally getting some attention.

<comment><USER41> Other than all the other people that outbid you for less distant homes, you mean. Or those who consistently NIMBY-veto any potential development of high- rise residential buildings near their existing homes. Or the zoning boards that outlaw the very concept of homes being adjacent to businesses.

Actually, there are quite a lot of people who force me to live further away from my job than is strictly necessary. They are the very same people who would almost certainly undermine--and eventually destroy--any bicycle-oriented development. It would be unwise to dismiss those factors as mere whining.

<comment><USER40> No. Sorry, but it's still you who choose to live that far away from your job. You could have chosen another job, or you could have chosen to spend more money on a house, or buy less house.

Nobody forced you to live where you do right now. That decision was all you.

<comment><USER41> So you're basically telling me it's my fault for not being rich enough to do what I want. Thanks.

If I had unlimited time and unlimited funds, I could certainly shorten my commute down to the distance from my bedroom to my in-home office, all in my palatial mansion in the heart of a culturally vibrant, crime-free, educated, and thriving city. Unfortunately, living in the real world, there are external constraints upon my decisions that I have no individual control over. Those constraints rule out the fantasy that you seem to have invented wherein I can just choose to be Batman in my Batcave, and the local government begs me for my help via a spotlight, instead of constantly demanding that I jump through whatever idiotic regulatory hoops it cares to set up.

In the real world, the amount I am paid for my work is determined by market conditions. The affordability of housing is determined by market conditions. The cost of living is determined by market conditions. Within those bounds, I make the best decisions I can, according to my own priorities. And yes, I do have higher priorities than being able to walk or bicycle to work. I believe those priorities cannot be greatly altered while still remaining a socially responsible person.

There are more variables involved than just home-office distance and pay rate. You have no idea what it would cost for me to halve my commute distance, or to quarter it. It may well be the difference between retiring at age 75 instead of 67, or not retiring ever. Or it may be the difference between helping my all my kids to pay college tuition, or not. Or maybe it's just the difference between eating fresh ground beef or canned Spam.

This is why I suggest it is foolish to blithely discount all those unseen individual reasons people have for following a particular lifestyle. People generally make the best decisions they can, using the resources they have available, according to the priorities they have established for themselves.

So when someone says, "I wish I could live closer to work," your response probably should not be, "You can, but you obviously don't want it enough." Because what you're conveying is that person is not enough of a selfish prick to make their spouse commute further, send their kids to lower-performing schools, spend more money on an apartment, house, or condo with less relative utility independent of its location, spend more money now at the expense of savings or investments, possibly uproot any existing social networks for other members of the household, maybe adapt to an entirely different culture in the new location, and even physically moving a truckload of accumulated property and possessions over some distance. What that person was really saying, without actually saying it, was, "I wish I could live closer to work without changing into a sociopath, ascetic, hermit, or hobo, and without switching to job that I would hate."

So maybe adopt a new priority, and make sure it ranks higher than biking to work: don't be a dick. That's it. Have some care for the daily struggles of your fellow humans. You might just find that redesigning entire cities to make cyclists happier has a side-effect of making all the non-cyclists absolutely miserable. And maybe the current automobile-centric design of cities is overly unfair to bikers. You can't just ignore bikers because you love driving. You have to consider the impact on everyone, not just your paragons, eidolons, and chosen ones.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


What the SpaceX Explosion Means for Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/what-the-spacex-explosion-means-for-elon-musk-and-mark-zuckerberg?mbid=social_twitter <comment><USER2> Why does The New Yorker publish puff pieces like this? It only tarnishes their reputation as a journal for elegant and thoughtful writing.</comment>


Starlink internet private beta to begin in roughly 3 months - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2020/04/23/elon-musk-says-starlink-internet-private-beta-to-begin-in-roughly-three-months-public-beta-in-six/ <comment><USER2> Wow! I am really excited for this technology. I just hope the reliability, especially with thick clouds will be somewhat tolerable... Because if somebody cannot work due to the weather, this will be no replacement for traditional fiber or copper wires.

<comment><USER3> I worry this tech will require a view of most of the sky.

In most suburban environments, seeing more than half the sky is pretty rare - there is always a neighbour's tree/house/shed in the way of part of the sky.

That blockage will lead to random 5 minute periods without internet, which will prove very inconvenient.

<comment><USER4> I don't see why you would want satellite internet connectivity in the suburbs. This is meant for remote locations without an affordable alternative. In the 'burbs you have your pick of cable, DSL or LTE.</comment></comment></comment>


Building a Developer Index - <AUTHOR> I've been experimenting for some time with an idea about building a developer index and aggregating some public users data. This is my first attempt to  do so, would appreciate some feedback on it :)<p>www.dev-hub.io <comment><USER2> It looks great, nice work! I quite like the idea of there being a bare-bones developer index that people can opt-in and opt-out of at will.

One issue I noticed was how location data is handled. If I do a search for "Bristol, UK" it will include those who have their location set to "Bristol, UK", but will miss those who may have it as "Bristol, United Kingdom".

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback, search is something that I'm very keen on improving. I will do my best to try and sort this one out :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> What if one does not have any public code repositories?

<comment><AUTHOR> That is a very good question. Well we all know that the public GH is not our resume, so I'm working on getting LinkedIn integration as well. Also allowing devs to add skills is a feature I'm interested in exploring.

If you have any ideas that you would like to see, please contact me at email@example.com

<comment><USER3> Add a note on the front page that states from which places the information used to generate the developer profiles is gathered and that a developer's profile is likely to be incomplete due to the fact that there might be non- public code repositories.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I will do. Also getting a landing page explaining a bit of what this is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I wish the US was included :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Well part of my efforts are going into getting developers interested in the tool and singing in. On the other side, I'm working in continuously adding more people to it. Any particular region that you would like to see populated?</comment></comment>


The Argument Against Python in Introductory CS - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@drmarkclewis/picking-a-languages-for-introductory-cs-the-argument-againstpython-4331cca26cfa <comment><USER2> Will always be grateful my professors chose C++ as the introductory language. It had the downside of acting as a kind of filter for first-year CS students who had never written code before (which might be a counterargument to choosing a higher level language such as Python). But I think starting with a low-level language is critical for understanding fundamental CS concepts like how memory is allocated, stack vs heap memory, etc.

<comment><AUTHOR> Same, on my course the introductory module was C for intro to programming principles and then Haskell (!) to introduce the functional paradigm. Starting out by learning a language that doesn't abstract anything away from you is certainly the way to go I think, helps you to realise there's no "magic" happening.

My one criticism of the blog post here is that it settles on Scala as a good introductory language. Although I love Scala, it has so many features (many of which are "magic") that it's very easy to lose sight of what's going on under the hood without going into very deep technical theory well beyond the scope of an introductory course. C seems like a much better intro as it can be used to teach the basics of control flow while, as you say, introducing lots of fundamental concepts, without layers upon layers of abstraction getting in the way.</comment></comment>