Stop Treating Marijuana Like Heroin - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/13/opinion/a-small-victory-for-more-sensible-marijuana-policies.html <comment><USER2> The DEA needs to go bye bye, and be replaced by the DRA, Drug Rehabilitation Agency. While I respect the risks operational agents take against crime syndicates, the war on drugs is a disaster. Even the government's own RAND corporation concluded enforcement is far worse than rehabilitation, with rehab being 7 times more effective than policing, 400 times more effective then border interdiction, and 800 times more effective than actions in source countries.[1] Not to mention the privacy violations it's enabled. If the goal is to reduce drug use, the US policies are stupid. If the goal is for politicians to sound tough and maintain a never ending drug war so they can keep sounding tough, then it's a success.

And letting the DEA decide what is Schedule 1 is like letting the fox guard the hen house. I've never heard of a government agency voluntarily reducing its scope and budget. Just more of our leadership deferring responsibility to so called "experts" with a vested interest. A pretty rampant phenomenon these days ranging from the banks to the military.

[1] [http://www.rand.org/pubs/periodicals/rand- review/issues/RRR-...](http://www.rand.org/pubs/periodicals/rand- review/issues/RRR-spring95-crime/treatment.html)

<comment><USER3> Good God, 7x, 400x, and 800x! How is continued marching down a ruinous path and destroying lives in the wake not entirely criminal, if not a massive human rights violation?

<comment><USER4> Because human rights is what the powerful call that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> While I'm totally for drug (all drugs - not just cannabis) legalisation/regulation, I do think the "dangers" of marijuana have been really downplayed over the last few years.

I know a lot of people at university who got into smoking it very often and basically lost 10+ years of their life to complete apathy to anything. Some have now stopped and are totally different people - just 10 years behind.

While it doesn't cause overdose, cirrhosis or criminal activity from the user, it does become very addictive for some people and causes them to be extremely unmotivated in their life.

Is this as bad as heroin or crack? No obviously not, but a lot of people end up really trapped by it.

<comment><USER6> And I have anecdotal evidence of people smoking marijuana everyday for 10-20 years and remaining extremely productive.

Oftentimes drug use is a symptom of a greater psychological problem/issue. Perhaps the underlying issues are causing the negative behaviors and the drugs are only enabling it.

<comment><USER7> >anecdotal evidence of people smoking marijuana everyday for 10-20 years and remaining extremely productive. //

What roles, in what areas, have they risen to in this time?

<comment><USER8> I've smoked for 15+ years, I earn in the top 5% of the UK writing software for big players if that is a metric you respect. Only as a software developer although I've had the opportunity to be "promoted" I chose to write code...for more money. However I recognize that the amount I am smoking of current is affecting my cognitive load (I think). If I was drinking alcohol in the same amount I smoke cannabis I'd be an alcoholic like my father. Hmmm, wonder if there is a genetics issue...

<comment><USER9> I've got high almost daily for the past 15 years. I'm also a programmer and I am proud of what I have accomplished. A year ago I quit smoking and started preparing and eating edibles instead. This was for health reasons but another benefit is that I am now able to dose myself much more precisely. There is a level which improves my productivity and focus, where I really feel in the zone. Sometimes when I am trying to solve a difficult problem, getting high helps me to break through.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The big question is why drugs are illegal at all?

Drugs are a multi trillion dollar business. 100's of billions of dollars turning the wheels of the shadow economy every day.

Who stands to lose all that money if drugs were legalized? Who is involved in drug business? think of all of the players in the chain..

We know examples of developed countries where drugs are legalized and everyone did not become a junkie over night, or next week, or next year.

Drug money fuels a lot of things in this world, entire countries are built and destroyed using drug money, new political systems are built and presidents elected using drug money. It is convenient "invisible" hand that makes a lot of things happen in this world.

Drug problem is not about me or you becoming a junkie. Its about money, a lot of money, its about economical and political power that comes with it.

The day when drugs are legalized the convenient way to make lots of money out of "thin air" all of the sudden would be gone...

Hearings on the CIA and Drug Trafficking:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Km0Z2XmzBDw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Km0Z2XmzBDw)

John Kerry committee:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvFr5K8zJRA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvFr5K8zJRA)

Police Officer Mike Ruppert (dead now, shot in the head 2 years ago) Confronts CIA Director John Deutch on Drug Trafficking:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UT5MY3C86bk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UT5MY3C86bk)

<comment><USER11> Past experiences with widespread drug availability and addiction suggest social cohesion is lost as people become dependent on the next fix.

Look up the history of opium war in China or for more recent experiences, drug problems in Punjab India or the drug dependency in the Middle East .

<comment><USER12> In the Opium Wars, opium was illegal. It wasn't much of a risk to smokers, but it drove the cost up and drove the trade underground. Social cohesion is lost when addicts can't go through socially acceptable avennues to get the next fix they're dependent on.

If you can just pick up your fix from the corner store like alcoholics can, then you won't expect social cohesion to be affected any more than it is by alcoholics, especially since many of the people who might become addicts after legalization were likely to become alcoholics anyway.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> >The D.E.A. and the F.D.A. insist that there is not enough scientific evidence to justify removing marijuana from Schedule 1. This is a disingenuous argument; the government itself has made it impossible to do the kinds of trials and studies that could produce the evidence that would justify changing the drug's classification.

This can not be overstated. I recently discussed a prior client of mine on HN who is one of the few patients who receive the federally authorized marijuana from University of Mississippi (at a dosage of 360 joints/month). My client has a rare bone disease and has been in the federal program for over 30 years, one of my clients biggest complaints is that while he wanted studies to be conducted regarding the use/effects of marijuana the Government has refused.

<comment><USER14> Is your client possibly the same person who was interviewed for Penn & Teller's "Bullshit" on the "War on Drugs" episode[1]?

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQS910WVlKc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQS910WVlKc)

<comment><USER13> That's him. I don't generally mention him by name, but as you can tell he is an outspoken and public figure as it relates to both his disease and unique treatment. For example, I represented him in a corporate capacity totally unrelated to that aspect of his life, yet he took every opportunity to inform and educate me about his story.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The biggest change I've seen since marijuana was legalized here in Colorado is that pot isn't just one type (just like beer isn't just lagers, etc). There's hundreds of strains and some are VERY different than the others (again think Guinness vs bud light vs your favorite IPA, etc).

You can walk into a dispensary here and choose your levels and mix of THC and CBD - want 20%+ THC for an intense high? Maybe 15% CBD with no THC for almost no psychoactive high but a focus on pain relief / relaxing? All that and everything in between is available.

As research into all the other cannabinoids increases I expect to see their breakdowns included on labels as well.

And that's where the analogy to alcohol breaks down - there's typically just one active ingredient in beer but dozens in pot. And the different strains can deliver various ratios of the cannabinoids to create very different effects.

Bottom line is that I could easily see how if you only ever experienced illegal pot i.e. no choice and low quality I think you are likely to hold a different view on it than if you'd experienced the variety and nuance of legal pot.

</comment><comment><USER16> Stop treating addiction as a legal problem and treat it as a public health problem, like Portugal. Decriminalize all substances and push addicted to treatment programs. And just legalize pot entirely, one of these is not like the others (at least Canada is leading the way there).

<comment><USER17> It may need a good government, which is hard. E.g, I don't think SF can manage to handle so many homeless addictions. Yes, ideally it can be managed in this way. In fact, it's hard to be carried out. And the result would be catastrophic.

<comment><USER16> Maybe the $30-60,000 per year spent to incarcerate every low level drug offender could help. And it's not like they're avoiding managing it now between policing, encampments and incarceration. Not to mention health costs.

<comment><USER18> Very few non-violent drug offenders are incarcerated.

<comment><USER19> [http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/dofp12.pdf](http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/dofp12.pdf)

\- More than a third (35%) of drug offenders in federal prison at sentencing, had either no or minimal criminal history— lowest criminal history category.

\- Nearly a quarter (24%) of drug offenders in federal prison used a weapon in their most recent offense.

Which is to say over 3/4 of them did not.

<comment><USER13> There may be 2 seperate issues, so I think the question is:

Do the inmates in federal prison qualify as _low level drug offenders_?

Moreover, the term being discussed isn't a legal term with a definition, so as a result everyone kind of has their own opinion as to what qualifies. So for example, when I think of _low level drug offenders_ forget people in federal prison and I would also think the vast majority of inmates in state prison fall outside my definition. Basically, when I think _low level drug offender_ I am thinking about people who are in county jails.

Edit: Your citation explains the vast majority of those first time offenders in federal prison are there for drug trafficking, that is why I discard federal prison as _low level_.

<comment><USER16> My perspective on smuggling is that it can be non-violent (concealing a substance to get it through the a port of entry) and is a natural response to criminalization of a substance that people want but is being artificially constrained. Further, this question maybe entirely immaterial as I'd imagine the bulk of this would go away completely with legalization and safe access. I think we'd be left with the same levels of smuggling as we see with cigarettes.

<comment><USER18> It might be a natural response, but that doesn't mean it should be legal. There is a big difference between making it illegal to consume a product that hurts you, and making it illegal to produce and sell a product that hurts the people who buy it.

<comment><USER16> Agreed 100%, I'm saying that if we're deciding to treat this as a public health problem, provide safe/monitored/controlled access officially (like cigarettes) then the illegal network dries up as a side-effect. I'm not saying we should legalize to get rid of traffickers, I'm saying that legalizing for public health reasons will by consequence get rid of the traffickers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I've been a daily user for about 30 years now. It's more like coffee and cigarettes than it is like heroin or alcohol.

<comment><USER21> I didn't realize marijuana caused cancer.

<comment><USER22> Any kind of smoke inhalation will cause cancer

<comment><USER23> Smoking isnt the only way to consume mj, btw. Tinctures, edibles, lotions, lip balms, etc all offer alternatives. From what I understand vaping reduces plant particulate the most, but the high temps can hurt throats, so an ideal setup would be a vape through a bong.

<comment><USER24> Dabbing is something worth looking at too, shares the benefits of vapes but generally requires far fewer hits.

Just gotta watch the dosage so you don't accidentally end up stuck on the couch for the rest of the day.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I am in the UK and have been smoking cannabis daily now for 12 years. Legal or not.... does it look like I care?? At the end of the day, I am a nice guy, I help people out, I have held down a 10 year happy relationship and do pretty well at my job. I also keep fit and "healthy".

I don't care if I die, so take that away from me, and literally there is no valid argument to stop me enjoying a smoke.

Fuck the Police.

</comment><comment><USER26> So we're looking to an enforcement agency to make legal one of the very things that justifies its existence?

</comment><comment><USER27> My observation has been that drugs don't really fuck up people's lives. People with fucked up lives turn to drugs and then, when they are ready to get their act together, they also get off the drugs. Then blame the problems on the drug use.

I am pretty much a tea-totaller. I am also allergic to marijuana, so I have no desire to be around it. But I have known people in person and read articles and the like. One example that comes to mind: 16 year old boy's brother is gruesomely murdered, he becomes an addict or alcoholic and when he is 19 he decides to get clean and sober. So, he's had three years to process his grief and he is now a legal adult, not a helpless legal minor who can't do much about anything wrong in his life. Now, he wants to be sober and talks trash about what a bad person he was for using/drinking and blah blah blah.

My best guess: It is easier and/or more socially acceptable to blame drugs than to admit that life really shat on them, their parents are assholes, whatever. But, in most cases, it looks to me like they use for a reason and if that underlying reason gets better, then they will tend to stop using.

I am fond of the book "The truth about addiction and recovery" which basically takes this view.

</comment><comment><USER28> Stop demonizing heroin.

To be honest, not sure what is right here.

Is it ok to demonise interracial marriage while trying to get the minority the right to vote?

Does the end justify the means?

But if you think heroin is a demon and marijuana(or alcohol) is ok you are sadly mistaken.

<comment><USER29> _But if you think heroin is a demon and marijuana(or alcohol) is ok you are sadly mistaken._

1 of the 3 is ok, by some definition of ok. My definition: doesn't have serious health effects and users can (and do) live normal lives.

<comment><USER30> I can't for the life of me work out which one you think is OK. Neither marijuana nor alcohol, in non-excessive quantities, will necessarily cause serious health effects, and people consume either whilst living perfectly 'normal' lives.

<comment><USER28> Personally I'd rate marijuana the worst.

Obviously many people use heroin and have normal lives.

Alcohol is destroying, but in incidents rather than marijuana which I think is long term damage.

Heroin destroying lives is so complicated because most of it is societal based, it's not the drug destroying lives in current society.

<comment><USER31> > _Heroin destroying lives is so complicated because most of it is societal > based, it 's not the drug destroying lives in current society._

How is this different from marijuana?

<comment><USER32> It isn't. It's just that the effects of heroin use today is much worse, even though the drug if consumed in reasonable quantities of medical grade supply is one of the safer opiates.

The biggest problem with heroin is an adulterated supply, cut with anything from other - often more dangerous - drugs to brick dust, putting the user at substantial health risk both due to the stuff they've put in it and due to uneven doses.

The second biggest problem is societal condemnation that makes it hard for those who function well on heroin to seek help if something goes wrong.

Marijuana is less likely to be mixed with other crap, and you're less likely to face condemnation if you tell someone you use it.

Other than that, heroin has a higher _potential_ to cause damage in itself. You certainly can overdose on it, and damage yourself seriously with it in ways you'd find impossible with marijuana. But you _can_ also use heroin your whole life with few ill effects if you have a clean and predictable supply.

In terms of addiction we like to treat heroin is if it is insanely addictive, but there's little indication it's worse than alcohol in that respect (not that alcohol is a standard to aspire to when it comes to addiction potential).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I like to listen to Catherine Austin Fitts who was the undersecretary of HUD in the George H. Bush administration. Catherine often says "follow the money."

Unfortunately there are a lot of vested interests, organizations that make a ton of money from the cruel Marijuana laws: private corporations running prisons, police unions/organizations, and I would argue the big pharmaceutical companies (because Marijuana is a good natural pain killer). The war of drugs is a high-profit business.

</comment><comment><USER34> The OP speaks of a lack of studies due to a lack of supply. That's incorrect. There are plenty of studies and plenty of research-grade marijuana out there. There is just very little American material. The plant has been studied in Canada and Europe with plenty of material available from a variety of producers.

Canadian government's list of sanctioned providers:

[http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/marihuana/info/list-eng.php](http://www.hc- sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/marihuana/info/list-eng.php)

Their trade association:

[http://cann-can.ca/](http://cann-can.ca/)

The growing supply of research-grade material:

[http://www.universityaffairs.ca/news/news-article/medical- ma...](http://www.universityaffairs.ca/news/news-article/medical-marijuana-a- growing-field-for-university-researchers-in-canada/)

So stop harping on about a lack of research. The fact that a medical substance hasn't been studies within the magic bounds of a particular country should be irrelevant to any reasonable person.

</comment><comment><USER35> Stop treating Heroin like heroin. That's the very reason why we have so many opiate addicts. As a former opiate user who almost fell down the rabbit hole (unfortunately, my brother eventually _did_ fall down that hole), by demonizing heroin, you set it apart from other opiates like Codiene, Vicodin, and Percocet/Oxycontin. It's not any different from those drugs. I found out the hard way. All of those drugs are opiates and if you were to snort heroin and if you were to snort Oxycontin, you would almost certainly prefer the oxycontin. It's a much cleaner, longer lasting high while the heroin high kinda blows. Taking it in pill form isn't any different. Heroin is only sorta useful when it's taken IV or smoked, but heating it up destroys the compounds which get you high so it's not a very good ingestion route.

Pure heroin is quite harmless by itself (provided you didn't take too much). People can live a full and complete life totally addicted heroin with probably less risks than even pot. The problem of heroin is never direct -- it kills/harms via overdose (misjudging a dose, or doing the same amount after your tolerance drops) or the most common "overdose" we hear of is when Fentanyl gets cut into your heroin (Yes, Fentanyl is _way_ more potent than heroin and hospitals prescribe it all the time). The other ways people die is by mixing heroin with other stuff, namely xanax. You virtually never hear of someone just dying from heroin alone. And have you ever heard of someone getting lung cancer from their heroin?

The drug itself isn't like crack or meth where doing it for an extended period of time can permanently turn you crazy (Psychosis). Or kill you from exhaustion/sleep deprivation. People can take it for decades and show no obvious signs (functioning addict). The drug is always labeled "super hard" by the same people carrying around Percocets in their purse. But that's OK because they got it from a dentist/doctor. Percocet is oxycontin mixed with Acetaminophen and Oxy is almost as strong as heroin per mg. Demonizing heroin while you're taking vicodin or oxy is so hypocritical that there should be a new word invented for it, something that means "more than hypocritical".

Heroin's problem lies in that it really doesn't have a great medical application. What it does, other drugs now do literally (not figuratively) 1000x better. But heroin is incredibly cheap to make (relatively speaking) and provides a unique rush when taken IV. There are other drugs (like Demerol) which provide that same rush but hospitals instead inject it into your fatty tissue (ass) so it's slow to release (so you can't get the rush). So why don't drug kingpins make that stuff instead? Because those pharmaceuticals (like Vicodin, Demerol, and Fentanyl) require complex processes (many steps) and expensive labs to make well, and it's way more expensive than Heroin. Not just cost-wise but also time-wise. When you're out in some back-country in Afghanistan mixing your freshly dried Opium in a vat of Acetone to dissolve it, you're on the clock to get in and out with the product or the boss is going to be pissed.

I realize I'm starting to rant but that's because I myself always though "drugs are bad!" then I tried pot. Realized it wasn't that bad, safer than alcohol. That same "Well that's not so bad" happened to me with heroin. After snorting it I was actually disappointed and thought I was ripped off. I didn't realize it wasn't stronger than Oxycontin. I thought it was orders of magnitude stronger than these harmless little pills my dentist gave me when I got my wisdom teeth pulled. I was wrong. And that lack of understanding is what almost threw me down the rabbit hole.

</comment><comment><USER36> A problem is that women are smoking marijuana and may not yet know they are pregnant.

Medical marijuana laws and pregnancy: implications for public health policy. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27422056](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27422056)

"Although there is much to learn yet about the effects of prenatal marijuana use on pregnancy and child outcome, there is enough evidence to suggest _that marijuana, contrary to popular perception, is not a harmless drug, especially when used during pregnancy._ Consequently, the public health system has a responsibility to educate physicians and the public about the impact of marijuana on pregnancy and to discourage the use of medical marijuana by pregnant women or women considering pregnancy." [emphasis added]

Long-term Marijuana Use and Cognitive Impairment in Middle Age [http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=24849...](http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2484901)

Association Between Lifetime Marijuana Use and Cognitive Function in Middle Age The Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) Study [http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=24849...](http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2484906)

Marijuana use leads to increased stillbirth: (free download)

Association between stillbirth and illicit drug use and smoking during pregnancy [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24463671](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24463671)

"CONCLUSION: Cannabis use, smoking, illicit drug use, and apparent exposure to second-hand smoke, separately or in combination, during pregnancy were associated with an increased risk of stillbirth. Because cannabis use may be increasing with increased legalization, the relevance of these findings may increase as well."

<comment><USER36> Why are people allowed to downvote medical studies from highly regarded journals? Journal of the American Medical Association, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Obstetrics and Gynecology?

What kind of human being would want increased babies neurologically deprived from marijuana exposure or additional stillbirths?

Instead of downvoting, why don't you explain why you want these effects in infants?

<comment><USER37> Replace Marijuana with Alcohol in that comment and it's all still true.

But Alcohol is not schedule 1.

<comment><USER36> I don't follow. It is ok to downvote medical studies from leading medical journals because alcohol already harms infants? And I suppose people reason that marijuana use will not lead to any increase at all of neurologically harmed infants?

Perhaps someone could explain why they want to adopt policy that will lead to an increase of neurologically harmed infants and stillbirths.

Empathy is key. Try to imagine infants that have been harmed by marijuana use by their mothers before their mothers knew they were pregnant. Not certain why anyone would want to increase the number of neurologically harmed infants.

<comment><USER38> Utilitarian outcome is not the only basis for policy, especially in a society that has individual liberty as a core value. If it was, we could have a much more draconian society than we do. We don't ban things everywhere we find a statistical increase in harm.

<comment><USER36> Yet, we also make a distinction where people can harm themselves but we pass laws that protect others from harms.

For example, be pass laws banning cigarette smoking in public places, in parks, etc.

We also have a drinking age of 21, and many/most states now consider driving with a blood alcohol level above 0.8 as drunk driving. These acts are to protect other drivers and pedestrians from being harmed by drunk driving.

It is not unreasonable to want to ensure that fetuses are protected too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> And start treating nicotine like heroin.

<comment><USER21> I believe cigarettes and other tobacco products should be unlawful.

If one wants to grow and dry their own tobacco to smoke, I am okay with that.

But, productizing addiction of known deleterious substances should be illegal.

<comment><USER40> _But, productizing addiction of known deleterious substances should be illegal._

Are you really willing to give up on sugar?

<comment><USER41> In all honesty, I would if it meant not having to smell cigarette smokers' smoke in public places.

And the obscene amount of refined sugar in our diets isn't doing us any favors. A couple months sugar-free and everyone's palate would adapt.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> More importantly: view drug use (and abuse) as a health issue, rather than a criminal justice issue.

</comment><comment><USER43> Without arguing for anything in particular I'd just like to add the following:

If you feel or suspect that marijuana negatively affects your life, and if you want to quit (even temporarily), then I can strongly recommend visiting the 'leaves' subreddit (leaves.reddit.com).

In fact, even if you're just curious about how people compare living with and without weed as part of their lives, it could be interesting to read a bunch of the posts there.

It's a remarkably varied community; not everyone there sees weed as evil and quitting as an necessity.

And for alcohol there's a similar subreddit called stopdrinking. It's similarly open-minded.

Both have really helped me deal with (borderline) dependence.

</comment><comment><USER44> Do I understand it right? Even in states with legalised recreational use you can't do research on cannabis without DEA approval?

<comment><USER45> Recreational use and research are different things, so yes.

<comment><USER7> They can be different but it's not a necessity - you _can_ do scientific research for recreational purposes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> People lose respect for government when it places weed in the schedule 1. It clearly doesn't below there.

</comment><comment><USER47> This is like lsd in the 60s... Hopefully in a couple of decades we'll realize marijuana is shit.

</comment><comment><USER48> just don't smoke it

</comment><comment><USER49> INSIGHT: Being in a position to observe the behavior of users -- MANY users -- over a period of time, and non-users in the same settings.

Most of you probably don't have that experience.

\- Parents do. Ask parents "how did your kid change after commencing use of pot?"

\- Teachers do, if they know a student imbibes. These days teachers have a great chance to see the difference between regular students and those who smoke it.

\- Property managers of apartment properties do.

I'm the latter. I made my Silicon Valley startup bucks and have been buying and operating apartment properties since 1993, 2 years out of college.

Here's what I experience:

1) my pot using tenants do not like following rules compared to other tenants.

2) they are defiant in their attitude to varying degrees, challenging things they initially agree to ("no smoking", "new occupants must pass the same tenant screening you did and must be added to the lease", "no guest parking", "no loud parties/noise after 10pm", etc).

RECENT EXPERIENCES \- tenant moves in, it's a no smoking building, they begin smoking pot in their unit EVEN THOUGH there are 'no smoking' signs everywhere and the lease clearly calls for 'no smoking cigars/cigarettes/marijuana'. THAT'S HAPPENED 18 TIMES (18 different tenants) IN THE PAST year and a half.

\- tenant moves in, gets a warning for their car blocking other tenants in the parking lot, they kept blowing it off, parking and blocking others. FIVE TIMES over a 2 month period until they were evicted.

\- tenant moves in someone without adding them to the lease (a requirement), we catch them, the added person does not pass the normal tenant screening process and they have to leave, the original tenant keeps them there anyway, we catch them, gave them a final warning, they ignored the final warning, and got evicted

Just a very small set of examples.

IF YOU SMOKE, you are the LAST person to know if your pot use has changed you, added some negatives to your behavior. "A doctor who treats himself has a fool for a patient."

I myself imbibed for 3 years as a teen. WHAT AN UNMITIGATED DISASTER. Normal recreation time was clouded by intoxication.

If you prefer being intoxicated in your leisure time, how would you feel telling people that?

"I like being intoxicated. It's my recreational activity."

OR

"I like being intoxicated during my leisure time."

OR

"When I spend free time with recreational pursuits, I like being intoxicated."

VERY FEW pot users will admit that to arbitrary others. Deep inside, we know to ourselves "I shouldn't need intoxication to enjoy myself."

You should _not_ need to live in an altered state, intoxication, and if you are frequently choosing intoxication from pot as 'recreation', something is wrong.

<comment><USER50> How exactly do you know which of your tenants are using cannabis? Do you drug test your tenants?

> You should not need to live in an altered state, intoxication, and if you > are frequently choosing intoxication from pot as 'recreation', something is > wrong.

Your comment is ironic evidence for insobriety. Anger, stress and frustration are all palpable, and you may need some help to unwind. Hell, I could use a beer after reading it.

<comment><USER49> Imagine showing vacant apartments to prospective renters since 1993 -- for 23 years. Lots of units, lots of prospective tenants.

In 1993 I had no pool of 'before move-in/after move-in' experience with tenants. 23 years on, I have a large number of 'before move-in/after move-in' tenant experiences.

So when a tenancy went bad, over time I started making a mental note of

1) the social cues the tenant made when I first met them

2) what their behavior was after move-in

I started seeing patterns. After 23 years of "before move-in/after move-in" experiences, I developed predictors.

In my mind, I suspect that Judges, teachers, cops, hiring managers, any profession where you have a lot of "before/after" experience with lots of people -- have developed similar wisdom, similar predictors.

It's probably a survival skill humans have -- if you get burned over and over, you start connecting "is there any way I could have used this person's _before behavior_ to protect myself from their _after behavior_?"

Here are some of the screening-out cues I use:

1) during the initial showing of the unit and meeting, does the person forget something I just told them ("It's a one year lease")? Did they exhibit more than one memory lapse like that?

2) was the person inarticulate in writing (on the application), or in their speech?

3) on the continuum of demeanor (behavior and body language) from "street people behavior" to "my professional peers" \-- was the prospective tenant closer to "street person" demeanor or closer to "professional peer"?

4) does the person smoke cigarettes? Over 23 years most of my pot-smoking tenants smoked cigarettes. It makes sense I guess, smoking cigarettes for nicotine, smoking pot for thc.

The list of 'cues' I have is not perfect; people are still moving in and smoking pot inside my properties in violation of the lease.

<comment><USER51> I understand that you've had some bad experiences with people who also happen to smoke marijuana, but you are painting with much too broad a brush.

You must ask yourself: how accurate are you in your assessment of who smokes marijuana and who doesn't? For some of your tenants, I'm sure it's obvious that they partake. But, I'd wager many of your 'good' tenants do as well, and you have no idea. It's really not hard to hide marijuana use from your landlord. And from what it sounds like, the tenants who don't make any effort to be discrete with their marijuana use are also the tenants who don't care if their car is blocking another car. Perhaps a DGAF attitude would be a better thing for you to screen for than marijuana use.

<comment><USER49> 'DGAF' is not always evident in the short time we meet, interact with a new tenant. Unlike a job interview process (several stages of contact: phone, in person several times, etc.) it's not practical for landlords to spend that much time with each prospective tenant.

The 18 tenants I've evicted in the past year and half -- they ALL slipped 'under the radar.'

My "cues/indicators" list above is 100% _NOT_ all inclusive.

Until you've dealt over many years with pot smokers, in _quantities_ , you really, really have no idea how defiant/grouchy/uncooperative/troublemaking they can be, behaviors you can only witness over a period of a lease.

Here's another example. 31 yo male, he should know better, right? About the useless 'crutch' of drugs and alcohol as the foundation for personal recreation?

Smoked up a storm. He befriended surrounding tenants, and so no one complained. NOTE: in our non-smoking properties, keeping in mind that very few people smoke these days and make an effort to only live in non-smoking apartment properties, if a non-smoker is exposed to 2nd hand smoke, do they complain to Management? Oh my god. Especially pot smoke. We get complaints like "the person below me is smoking pot, you said this was a non-smoking property, I don't want to get high from their 2nd hand smoke" \-- we get COMPLAINTS. It's understandable, very few people smoke or want to be in close breathing proximity to smokers these days.

Well, I had to catch him in the act, he chummed up with the surrounding tenants "in range" and somehow got them to not complain. It wasn't easy. Caught him over the course of 2 weeks on our security cameras.

We didn't tell him "Joe, we have video evidence you're smoking" we just served the 3 Day Notice. He refused to stop. Went to eviction court, he lied to the Judge. HE'S UNDER OATH. "Judge, I stopped smoking weeks ago." Lied to the Judge while under threat of perjury. DEFIANT.

Then my attorney brought forth the photos and entered them in the record. The Judge looked at Joe. I'm thinking 'it's perjury, is Joe going to jail?' The Judge must have been in a good mood. He looked at my photo evidence for 20 seconds, BAM the gavel dropped, "judgment for the plaintiff."

Pot smokers are T-R-O-U-B-L-E.

It depends on how long they've been smoking. Those 3 years I smoked it as a teen, it was in the final year I started with bad behavior, and bad experiences I finally realized were not me.

So I don't really care how much a pot smoker says "it's fine, I'm fine, it's harmless."

My philosophy with ANYONE who uses pot, and this is solely because of my 3 years personal experience and the screwed up behaviors from pot smokers over 23 years of landlording:

get away from me. Stay away from me. I don't care if you compromise your personal life by thinking intoxication is a good foundation, just don't do it around me.

That stuff is a disaster in many ways BECAUSE the damage is _so incremental_ , that the build of up negative consequences is invisible to the user.

I have _personally_ walked the path and I now also have 23 years of screwups, pot smoking tenants causing weird problems no other (sober) tenant causes.

Let me say, I feel deeply sorry for anyone who leans on drugs and/or alcohol for 'recreation.'

If you find yourself frequently intoxicated for 'recreation' \- from pot, alcohol, whatever -- MOST people are going to have problems from it. You can throw the dice with it over the long term if you want.

<comment><USER51> > "Pot smokers are T-R-O-U-B-L-E"

There is an error in your reasoning process which has been pointed out several times now (not just by me). I encourage a bit of introspection.

<comment><USER49> No. No error.

Pot smokers make bad decisions MUCH more frequently than sober non-users.

I am in a position to observe that -- lots of non-users and a few users, at our properties

It doesn't matter if 100,000 non-experienced people tell me my opinion (based on personal experience across 23+3 years) about pot smokers is wrong.

I actually have _THE EXPERIENCE._

But, as I've said, and as I tell prospective tenants, it is not for me to tell you how to behave. My job, if you are a fan of repeated intoxication, is to keep you out of my apartments. That's all I do.

And in the past year and a half, 18 people have slipped under the tenant screening radar -- and got evicted for smoking on the premises.

We go to so much trouble to help people realize "hey, these people are really serious about this 'no pot' rule, this place isn't for me"

18 people in a year and half. Despite the fact we TOLD them, UP FRONT, no pot smoking (or cigars or cigarettes) on the premises. Before we even take a deposit.

Think about that. 18 pre-warned-and-now-evicted pot smokers. THAT'S THE POT. That's the bad decision making.

And you don't see or experience that. So I understand it's hard to grok, these pot smokers.

<comment><USER51> > "I am in a position to observe that -- lots of non-users and a few users, at > our properties"

This is the crux of it. You simply cannot know for certain who the non-users are. I guarantee you over the course of your 23 years, there were tenants who you assumed fell into the non-users group but actually didn't.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Launch of the Digital Einstein Papers - <AUTHOR> https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/12/05/princeton-u-press-launches-open-all-digital-version-einstein-papers-project

<comment><USER2> Walter Isaacson, a biographer of Einstein (and of Steve Jobs and of Benjamin Franklin) has some interesting commentary[1] on posting archival materials online. "My initial joy about the project was tempered, however, by a pinch of sadness. I realized that most future Einstein researchers would no longer have to make the journey to the cozy house on the edge of the Caltech campus where the scholars of the Einstein Papers Project were eager to embrace their rare visitors and ply them with guidance, insights and tea. They wouldn't likely spend delightful days there—as I did for my biography of Einstein—with the science historian Diana Kormos-Buchwald and her colleagues as they debated such issues as how to explain what Einstein meant when he referred to quanta as 'spatial' or his fellow Jews as Stammesgenossen (tribal comrades)." On the whole, Isaacson thinks it will be a benefit to scholarship to have Einstein's papers and other archives available online, but this will change the process of historical and biographical research.

[1] "What Could Be Lost As Einstein's Papers Go Online," _Wall Street Journal_ 5 December 2014.

[http://online.wsj.com/articles/what-could-be-lost-as- einstei...](http://online.wsj.com/articles/what-could-be-lost-as-einsteins- papers-go-online-1417790386)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Link to the actual site: [http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu](http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu)

<comment><USER3> Thanks, the other links were pretty useless. Two minutes of looking around and I didn't have a paper before me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think it's awesome that these are going online.

I'm a bit curious why they aren't pdf files - the viewer scheme they use is rather awkward, and can't be downloaded and read on an ebook, for example.

</comment><comment><USER5> I wonder if Einstein would have been able to obtain research funding if the funding climate back then was like it is now.

<comment><USER6> Einstein graduated with his Masters degree in 1900, but was unable to find an academic job. He worked in a patent office, while working on his ideas and in 1905 publishing his four groundbreaking *annus mirabilis' papers, and also getting his PhD in 1905. But it was only after he was already famous that in 1909 he got a position in a university.</comment></comment>


MBA Hackers - <AUTHOR>

I do completely nontechnical work, but I still write little scripts and programs that automate my routine tasks.  For example, I automate the inventory reports I run daily.  I also have a script that pulls warehouse productivity data and builds reports my ERP cannot.  I have dozens that I use often.  If its a task I do more than once, you can bet I've at least tried to automate it.
As helpful as knowing a little python/sql/etc has been to me, I'm surprised that no one else I know has bothered to learn.  In fact, my coworkers are often astonished when they see my process.
I would like to hear from other mangers and non-programmer employees who code as a way to improve there job. What do you do to make yourself more productive, or at least a little easier.  When will basic python/perl/ruby be a job-application skill like Excel and Word? <comment><AUTHOR> I wanted to tell this story in the main post, but it ran long.

I run the quality assurance/control department of a large fresh produce distributor. The majority of my warehouse staff's day is spent running inventory reports and checking product quality in the warehouse. Our ERP system has only very primitive QC/QA support so our daily routine was a frustratingly slow paper based process. Further, the system leaves absolutly no records by which one could measure productivity or success. During those dark times we had to just guess what needed to be done next because we didn't know what was already completed, or what was left to be done. So much slipped through the cracks... The percentage of product returned or rejected by customers was embarrassing.

I don't remember where I picked this idea up, but I truly believe that management is an engineering job. I was trying to engineer a high preformance process without any real data on how accurate our staff was, how quickly tasks were preformed... We honestly knew nothing about what we had going on at any give time. It was clear that nothing was going to improve unless we figured out how to assign and track our tasks, so I spent some time walking the process and created a list of what I needed from our ERP to effectively manage the QC operation. I forwarded the list to our ERP Vendor and asked for an estimate. The estimate was staggeringly high and implementation would take months.

Instead I built it myself. It took half a day to come up with a 70% solution, learning php and sql as I went. The system I came up with was a hacked together hodgepodge of php, sql, and a tiny bit of python running on a ubuntu LAMP server. Basically, I built an internal web-based quality control task system. I works like a big shared todo list, where the system divides the work, assigns each employee one task at a time, gives the employee the information they need to do the task, and records the information gathered by the employee.

I bought my staff android tablets for about $200 each and sent them into the warehouse. Productivity skyrocketed. I don't know exactly how much was being done prior to implementing the system, but we know it couldn't have been more than 50 quality checks a day per employee. Now we are pushing 300. Almost 6x improvement is insanely great. Importantly, my team also loves the system. They have to do so much less walking around and searching for product because the location is right on the screen. They don't have to go searching for a category managers when they find poor quality products, now they just tap a button and an email is sent for them. It doesn't hurt that they now have a clear grasp of what is expected of them.

</sidenote)Oddly in my favor; Resistive touchscreen tablets are much cheaper, and in a 33 - 45 degree warehouse my staff preferred to leave their gloves on and use a stylus. The iPad I tested first sits in a office drawer.</sidenote>.

I spent an hour here and there over the first few days cleaning up the code and by the end of the week I had a system that tracks everything the department does and completely eliminated all the process bottle necks I could identify. I even added a few javascript touches to reduce the amount of typing. Its not in anyway well coded... What's MVC? But it is stable and works very well. I haven't made any updates to the system in months, so it just sits in the corner quietly improving my life, and the company's bottom line.

TLDR: hacked up a task/todo system. saved a lot of money. made my staff, and boss very happy.

</comment><comment><USER3> Yes. I did, and do this. I started life as a marketer/sales guy.

I also find it to be very rare among my colleagues. In fact, I haven't met anyone else in the same positions I have held in any of the industries that I've been in that can or do code.

I'm biased but I think that heavily specialized professionals are not what is needed right now. I've heavily focussed on Marketing/Sales/Tech and skills from each discipline have aided me many times. I can't imagine how much more difficult it would be if I were only focused on marketing, or only sales, or only programming. Want to talk about product differentiation or potential markets? Let's do it. Want to go to see a potential customer? Awesome, fill me in on who they are and what their problems are. Want to talk about how bad my code is? Excellent, help me make it better (HNers make me feel like a script- kiddie).

Master of none? Possibly. Get shit done? Definitely. I hope we start to see more people going cross-discipline and using the skills they've learned in their careers and not abandoning the skillets as it's not 'normal'. Specialized individuals seem to me like it fits better with a large organization culture and the world seems to be moving away from that now (I'm definitely heavily biased here so my thoughts could be far from reality).

To answer the question of what do I do to make myself more productive - <USER2> actually usually focus on entire systems that drive me nuts rather than small optimizations for my own benefit (Much to the dismay of my colleagues as I don't care for finding keyboard shortcuts - they constantly laugh at me for not knowing that command+alt+shift+F3+F5 will open a new tab with the contents from the last page I had opened). The most recent example is a Rails app I built to track documents (Stored on S3) associated with machines in production (Things like build orders, quotes, shipping docs, etc.) because it was driving me crazy that a dozen people wasted a couple hours every day calling around to find the right documents. Now they just go to the site and I haven't heard a request since. It takes them moments. They want to expand it into other things now like tracking details of service calls handled by our reps around the world. With Rails in my tool belt it's very easy for me to get something up quickly that can be used at a fraction of the cost that it would for an external system. Coding it properly and keeping it simple also makes it scalable. In the long run it will probably die like all other software but the cost of implementing it now (in both terms of my time and company dollars) weighed against the benefits it delivers makes it a no-brainer.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think you said exactly what I tried to say. I would think that cross- functional employees are the future, except I never hear anyone about these types of skills when hiring or developing management talent. Despite knowing know a little about finance, accounting, and management, MBAs always seem to be one dimensional (BTW, I am a couple months from completing mine.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Not quite pure coding but I have certainly started dabbling with automator on my Mac. My favorite one so far is the special folder I setup on my desktop that automatically prints anything that gets dragged into it. This becomes very useful when you have more than one attachment to an email.

I would also recommend Hazel, which will automatically do some folder cleanup/maintenance for you based on a series of rules you setup.

Finally I use TextExpander religiously to never have to type the same email again.

</comment><comment><USER5> I can tell you that the _real programmers_ which eventually will be called in to expand on your work will hate you. But don't let that discourage you. Happy hacking

<comment><USER6> the real question is if real programmers would hate you even if it was programmed by a real programmer. Everyone thinks everyone else makes poor design decisions.</comment></comment>


The ultra-rich are illegally buying cheetahs as pets, leading to extinction - <AUTHOR> https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/08/28/africa/somaliland-cheetahs-gulf-intl/index.html <comment><USER2> Unfortunately this is nothing new. This was a thing in mogul India centuries ago, it was a thing in Europe, it was a thing in Ottoman Asia Minor and it was a thing in Roman times. The rich have always wanted to have menageries to show off their wealth.

<comment><USER3> >Unfortunately this is nothing new.

An example of it being done in ancient Rome even.

>In what might be the world's oldest recorded awkward situation, the Roman orator Marcus Tullius Cicero spent much of his term as Cilicia's governor trying to ignore a very specific request from his former legal client Marcus Caelius Rufus. In several letters sent over the better part of a year, Caelius repeatedly begged Cicero to capture and send him a group of local leopards. He needed the animals, he explained, because he was trying to launch his political career—and nothing won over voters' hearts better than live exotic animal hunts in the arena.

[https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/03/exotic-a...](https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/03/exotic- animals-ancient-rome/475704/)

<comment><USER4> Did you even read his full post because he mentions Rome?

<comment><USER3> I quoted and linked an example...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Well if, as they say, this is leading to the extinction of the ultra-rich then, the environment will almost certainly benefit.

</comment><comment><USER6> This actually might save the cheetahs. If there is a market for living cheetahs, people might try to actually breed them in captivity. We have no shortage or house cats or dogs because those animals are pets.

<comment><USER7> You'd have to change public perception to where owning one is more equivalent to a horse, which is a major investment in both land and money, than to a large dog or whatever</comment></comment>


Those Bashing Smart Locks Have Forgotten How Easy It Is to Pick Regular Ones - <AUTHOR> https://danielmiessler.com/blog/those-bashing-smart-locks-have-forgotten-how-easy-it-is-to-pick-regular-ones/ <comment><USER2> The average lock is easy to pick, but the average smart-lock does not even try to get the physical aspect of security right. Its much worse than it seems.</comment>


Why are we so surprised by the outcome of the 2016 presidential election? - <AUTHOR> http://allendowney.blogspot.com/2016/11/why-are-we-so-surprised.html <comment><USER2> I've been thinking this since the election results came in. A 1/3 chance to win for Trump is entirely within the realm of possibility, and a Trump victory doesn't mean that the model was wrong or even that the probability was wrong.

For instance, suppose I give you a three-sided die with faces labeled 0,1,1. I tell you that there's a 1/3 chance you'll roll a 0 and a 2/3 chance you'll roll a 1. You roll the die and get a 0. You can't then conclude that I was "wrong" about your having a lesser chance at a 0 than a 1 just because you rolled a 0. It was always entirely possible that you'd roll a 0 despite it being the less probable result.

(Totally off-topic, but this made me think of what a three-sided die might actually look like. Here's one: [http://www.shapeways.com/product/RBVF4Z6JY/modern- art-d3-3-s...](http://www.shapeways.com/product/RBVF4Z6JY/modern- art-d3-3-sided- die?modelId=2046022&awc=6920_1479152668_e1aa5774696bc8da1af589b482bf288a&utm_source=affiliatewindow&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_campaign=affiliate&optionId=41894904))

</comment><comment><USER3> "Software has eaten the world, and [Trump's victory] is what's been vomited back up."</comment>


Beluga is called out for text spamming, gets defensive about it. - <AUTHOR> http://community.belugapods.com/beluga/topics/please_provide_a_way_to_opt_out_from_all_text_messages

<comment><USER2> "You can now text STOPALL to any pod, and that will disable all future text messages from Beluga."

Funny how fast things can get done if you scream loud enough.</comment>


GNU TeXmacs: a scientific editing platform (2006) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.texmacs.org/Samples/texmacs.pdf <comment><USER2> Texmacs home: [http://www.texmacs.org/tmweb/home/welcome.en.html](http://www.texmacs.org/tmweb/home/welcome.en.html)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> More reading:

Preserving syntactic correctness while editing mathematical formulas (2015) [http://www.texmacs.org/joris/syncorr/syncorr.pdf](http://www.texmacs.org/joris/syncorr/syncorr.pdf)

Conservative conversion between LaTeX and TeXmacs (2014) [http://www.texmacs.org/joris/latexconv/latexconv.pdf](http://www.texmacs.org/joris/latexconv/latexconv.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER3> Fascinating piece of software. I used to use it a lot. The math input keys were nice once I got used to them. And WYSIWYG editing with a LaTeX-quality view is kind of spectacular.

</comment><comment><USER4> The keyboard shortcuts for math input are so nice! I have tried Lyx and Mathtype, and still found GNU TeXmacs better.

</comment><comment><USER5> I used this for writing two books. Nice stuff, but I have simplified my writing workflow using leanpub.com - simple markdown but you can still embed formulas, etc.

</comment><comment><USER6> I heard LIGO was done on jupyter (ex ipython notebook IIRC) though.

<comment><USER7> What does that have to do with typesetting a publication?

<comment><USER6> I thought TeXmacs had was an ancestor of notebook-like exploration and not only a formatting system.</comment></comment></comment>


Amazon Health - <AUTHOR> https://stratechery.com/2018/amazon-health/ <comment><USER2> I think these 3 will no longer provide health insurance for their employees, they are going to create a new more affordable framework and they will allow any other large company to participate.

The goal will be keep the cost of insurance the same for the employees, while eliminating the cost for the companies entirely, which is why this will take off.

It's crazy to have employers paying for healthcare, this I believe will be the beginning of the end of employer paid healthcare. It won't happen overnight but it will go fast because every employer wants to drop that overhead cost.

<comment><USER3> What is the mechanism? I don't think it is realistic to assume that health care can run on employee premiums alone. In fact we know it can't b/c individual premiums are outrageous.

So I don't think your premise is realistic. These billion dollar companies self insure and Buffet's companies offer reinsurance for the most costly million dollar claims. Even though they self insure, they will pay a company like Cigna a percentage to manage the claims and get access to their negotiated prices. All I can think of is that this is a play to get Cigna and other insurance companies to lower their management fees.

Companies have to offer insurance and pay it because no one will work for them otherwise. And companies of a certain size have to offer health care by law so it's not going away.

<comment><USER4> Premiums are as high as they are because health care is run as a for profit industry - health care in America is orders of magnitude more expensive than in other countries.

If you remove the profit motive prices will drop down towards something more reasonable, in this situation it's not unreasonable to expect that the system could be maintained with employee premiums.

The cost of initialisation of services will be huge however, it will be interesting to see how they spread it out - they may bear the costs for now, and seek to recoup them providing excess capacity for service to other companies.

<comment><USER5> The traditional economic view is that private, profit seeking enterprises actually offer better prices to consumers because of competition, while monopoly firms charge higher prices bc they have more market power, and government run enterprises yield lower quality products because they don't have incentive to compete on quality. India has a very competitive healthcare system that is largely out of pocket and while they aren't perfect, they do pretty well considering the size of the country and their per capita gdp. On the other hand, though it is common to praise "single payer" European systems, these systems are not without fault. France is actually trying to learn about innovative American models of care because their system won't be able to afford caring for an aging population

The US system is more expensive due to weird interactions of profit seeking and regulations, and idiosyncratic local systems, all exacerbated by lobbying and political issues (like hospitals being major employers in most counties). Arguably another part of the US healthcare cost premium is that the US invests the most in innovation

It's simply not true either that healthcare is cheaper by orders of magnitude than other countries. Using health care expense as % of GDP as a metric of comparison, the US is at 17-18% while France / U.K. / Germany are around 10-12%

Attributing the high cost of healthcare in the US is a bit facile and simplistic

<comment><USER6> It's relatively easy to keep the costs low in Europe: you pay in queues and cheap health care instead of money. That doesn't mean good-or-bad automatically. E.g. giving birth by C-section is a rare event in Europe but it's very common in the US, making the "born" event very expensive on average in the US. You usually get over-testing in the US and under-testing in Europe.

If you have a suspicious mole, or a woman reports pain in the uterus, in Europe you might wait one or two years before a doctor sees you. And then you might get just an "everything looks fine" or a mild painkiller, and start again to look for another specialists or just go to the private health. It's known, but somewhat silenced, that a significant number of heart/liver/kidney patients just die before they get to see the specialist because the system is overloaded. This payment-by-queue drives costs down, but is obviously a bad thing.

It's also known that the public health in Europe just don't cover some treatments, depending on the country. Or they are so overloaded that they just don't work. Think about that: you pay for a supposedly full health insurance, but if you're so unlucky to catch a Hepatitis C that it's not covered because the treatment is expensive, you just wait for your death. Costs are lowered, for sure.

Another side effect is that the top notch specialists in Europe earns about the same money as an average or a bad doctor working for the public health. This causes some of the said top notch to go to greener pastures: the US. It's very typical that the (rich) Europeans go to the US to receive cancer treatments. Thus the US costs are driven up and the Europe costs down.

<comment><USER7> This is complete bullshit. In many European countries you get screenings for most common tumors (bowel, for women uterus and breast) for free depending on your age. Cancer treatment and chronic disease treatment is top notch and you get it for free (you pay it with taxes), like everything else. There is no such thing as "not being covered because treatment is expensive"\---I had to reread that sentence twice because I thought you were talking about the US.

Life expectancy is higher in most of Europe than in the US, which would be pretty hard to achieve if people died because of "death panels" and waiting lists to see a specialist. Plus prevention is actually a thing.

Elective surgery has a waiting list that can be weeks or months, but this doesn't translate to everything else. If it takes months to get an NMR, probably it was the patient that insisted to get a useless one. If your GP marks an exam as urgent you can get it within a few days.

<comment><USER8> _There is no such thing as "not being covered because treatment is expensive"_

There most certainly is. Look at what the UK's cancer fund is going through. It's not unusual for NICE to say "we're not paying for that". For people with generous insurance in the US it's much more typical for the insurance company to roll over and pay for the latest and greatest due to public pressure.

<comment><USER7> You are confusing treatment that is expensive with treatment that is not cost- effective. Also, the parent message was not talking about cancer but hepatitis C.

<comment><USER6> There you go, in spanish:

[https://politica.elpais.com/politica/2017/02/22/actualidad/1...](https://politica.elpais.com/politica/2017/02/22/actualidad/1487769379_464928.html)

People died because the treatment was delayed for budget causes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The not for profit part and the fact that this entity won't be owned by any of the companies outright provides an interesting path to a single-payer system.

1\. Amazon, Berksire, JP Morgan and others create a large "payer" of healthcare.

2\. There are no shareholders or other parties interested in making a profit off of this payer because it is a cost center for the big (or small) companies using it.

3\. Wait for the current iteration of the Republican party to lose influence and single-payer to gain more traction politically.

4\. When politicians are looking for a way to create a single-payer system, Amazon and friends offer to hand over their large payer to join Medicare, Medicaid and VA systems to form one large government payer, effectively nationalizing the healthcare for Amazon and co.

<comment><USER10> Many existing large insurers are non profits. With millions of members.

BCBS Michigan isn't the biggest one and has 4.3 million members.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The article makes the point that the companies have complementary business competencies that could help them deliver a better healthcare experience (tech, logistics and customer service at amazon; reinsurance at berkshire; capital at JPM), but there is another advantage to these three companies working together: scale.

amazon and berkshire are in the top 10 employers, and JPM is in the top 25. while most of the talk around improving healthcare cost / quality in the US centers around technology, value based care, etc, the real economics, and company's strategies, are largely driven by scale. this collaboration is a way to immediately get a strong negotiating position in any discussion and to provide a sizable test bed for various initiatives

<comment><USER11> The article actually touched on scale when it talked about risk pooling. Its argument was that the three together are not big enough to have the same kinds of economies of scale as big health insurers, but I'm not sure I think it'll be a problem like they suggest.

If the 3 are going to do their own insurance, all that has to happen is that the gains of cutting out a for-profit middleman need to exceed the losses of reduced economies of scale (compared to the insurance giants).

Based on some quick Google searches (queries like "amazon number of employees"), it seems like the 3 together have a total of over 1 million employees. That seems like a large enough risk pool to me.

<comment><USER12> The odd disconnect with the pooling notes in the article is that it seems like all the other insurers seem to delight in creating mini single business pools even though the mega insurers themselves have plenty of customers to create single large pools (and win a nice administrative simplification). None of the large insurers also seem effective in price controlling via pooling drug purchases of their customers either - so it seems curious if this combination of businesses will be able to succeed. Good luck to Amazon and co, I hope they succeed at this venture.

<comment><USER13> > other insurers seem to delight in creating mini single business pools

How so? How could they create a large pool? They can't force individuals to choose their company.

> None of the large insurers also seem effective in price controlling via > pooling drug purchases of their customers either

How do you know what your insurance is paying vs what individuals pay?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> > insurance operates best at more scale, not less: first and foremost, the > larger the pool, the more risk can be spread, as well as obvious efficiency > gains in administration.

This may be true from the perspective of the insurance companies, but it does not mean that premiums will be lower with a larger risk pool. The global risk pool includes elderly and disabled people whose risk is paid for by healthy people. Smaller risk pools of more homogenous populations can result in lower overall premiums since they do not need to cover the highest risk individuals. For example, a corporation is comprised of employees almost entirely under retirement age, many age 20-30, and in relatively good health. This is why companies are able to offer HMO plans, because by isolating their risk pool they can more precisely model actuarial risk and thus save on premiums.

It's not how large a risk pool is that determines premiums, but rather the distribution of risk within that risk pool.

<comment><USER15> Partially true, but with size comes negotiating power. It's not like health care or prescriptions in this country have a fixed price. Insurers help set that price and the more lives they represent, the more they can dictate to providers and pharma what a procedure, prescription, etc will cost.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I look at this as a first step towards understanding the complexity of Healthcare in US with the goal to ultimately make health care more affordable to them and their employees. This may end up being nothing which is why the tone in the announcement was a bit on the "let's see what happens". This could also be a cool move by Bezo to bolster up his image as lately the media is hyper focused on tech companies.

</comment><comment><USER17> I read the original announcement and also this analysis. Is it decided that Amazon will "own" the healthcare provider? As far as I can tell this is still a joint effort by several companies with the same philosophy on how to solve the problem. Presumably if other large companies were aligned they could create their own joint partnerships or discuss the possibility of joining this one.

<comment><USER18> One avenue this entity could take is to offer itself as a non-profit third party administrator of a self-funded plan for other companies. Large companies typically put up the money for health insurance anyway combined with employee premiums and then pay a TPA company or health insurer to create the benefit plan and administer it for them. They don't actually buy insurance as a product from a health insurer for their employees.

Alternatively, they could pool funds and create an actual insurer.

The trouble with Amazon trying to become THE payer or TPA is that insurance is highly variable across the country. There are many different laws governing insurance in each state, and you need to strike business agreements with literally countless small practices, hospital systems, lab service providers, drug companies, outpatient clinics, etc. It would actually be a massive administrative feat for Amazon to provide solid coverage across the US.

<comment><USER19> > The trouble with Amazon trying to become THE payer or TPA is that insurance > is highly variable across the country. There are many different laws > governing insurance in each state, and you need to strike business > agreements with literally countless small practices, hospital systems, lab > service providers, drug companies, outpatient clinics, etc. It would > actually be a massive administrative feat for Amazon to provide solid > coverage across the US.

It's possible to start small, no? One metropolitan area at a time, make deals with local orgs, slowly transition local employees over to the new plan. The 75 employees working at the Iowa datacenter may stay on their current insurance for a while, but I don't think that's a terribly difficult obstacle for the idea.

<comment><USER18> Absolutely it is possible, and I imagine that is exactly what they will do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Among the numerous neat statements, his last one - "There is no more patient company than Amazon." \- is my favorite here.

</comment><comment><USER21> I will not touch anything with a ten-foot-pole that J.P. Morgan Chase has touched tbh.

</comment><comment><USER22> Stop telling such outlandish tales, Stop turning minnows into whales

What a piece of bull c __* article.. Amazon tax amazon this amazon that and I predicted that. Really you need to get back into your complete senses that there are limits to what can be achieved by any organization. Its for articles like this that paint a rosy picture and contribute to a bubble like stock price. Can you also predict the collapse if that happens.

And to you all intelligent readers this is gonna take a long long time to change the current system. For heavens sake don't fall for this guys crap.

</comment><comment><USER23> Am I shadowbanned? [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16273567](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16273567)

<comment> B-Con It would seem not. You got 4 points on the other one.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Reading nothing vs. reading news vs. reading books, what do you do? - <AUTHOR> I've heard so much about this, how apparently reading is one of the key thing separating successful people from the not successful, that successful people just read a crap ton of pages each day, with some people doing it with news and business publications (ie warren buffetts and bill gatess 500 pages a day style), but ive also heard in podcasts where some entrepreneurs talk about a style where theyre like not doing any reading as a hobby and just focus on other ways to spend time? So im not sure whats like a good way to go about this, how do you guys tend to spend your time? <comment><USER2> I read a fair amount of "news" and fluffy stuff during the day (largely links from HN). At home at night I tend to read actual books and somewhat "meatier" material. I just read the book _Deep Work_ by Cal Newport and I'm feeling inspired by that, so I am thinking of reserving one of my weekend days for intense "deep work" studying / research (eg, reading academic papers and dense textbooks) going forward.

</comment><comment><USER3> You can read all you'd like, you still have to take the action to be successful. (But knowledge is power)</comment>


The Election Won't Be Rigged, But It Could Be Hacked - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/14/opinion/campaign-stops/the-election-wont-be-rigged-but-it-could-be-hacked.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=0 <comment><USER2> Of course it will be hacked. I find it hilarious that people think that our political parties have some type of moral code they actually use to play by the "rules", whatever nonexistent rules those are. As long as they aren't doing something directly illegal or can deflect the blame for illegal behavior to an underling that "misunderstood the directions", the incentive is there for ALL political parties to play as dirty as they possibly can. Democrat, Republican, whatever, doesn't matter.

The party's game is to win seats in Congress and the Presidency. Not win fairly. Not win "by the rules". To win, at whatever cost, as long as that cost isn't the elected positions themselves.

<comment><USER3> Exhibit A: Gerrymandering

<comment><USER4> I think someone pointed out here that gerrymandering would be useless if people didn't reliably, blindly, vote based on party.

<comment><USER5> In the normal case, wouldn't a person usually vote in the next election the way they voted previously? A party's platform is generally the same election- to-election, and if I voted previously for that platform, I'd tend to continue voting for it unless I had a pretty significant change of heart--and then changed it again for the election following? Unless either the party or the voter swung wildly around, gerrymandering doesn't require "blind" allegiance to a party.

<comment><USER4> The issues favored by one party or another change dramatically over a period of even a decade. "Party" is just a way to make people feel like they're part of a team.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I was an election judge in Colorado in 1994, '98, '00, and '04\. I observed elections in North Carolina in 2006 and '08.

The Colorado elections used paper ballots (complete with "hanging chads") and from what I could tell were run pretty fair and square. One year there were some problems with some of the kids from the local college where rich Easterners send their lower-caliber offspring when they can't get into the Ivy League. They flooded a particular precinct insisting that they be given provisional ballots (name not on the list and ballots not counted unless it's close). They didn't meet the requirements even for those ballots and some threw a hissy fit. The local prosecutor discovered that many had already voted absentee back in their home state. They were not prosecuted, unfortunately.

In North Carolina in '06, the precinct captain ran it by the books. In '08, same precinct, same captain, many were allowed to vote provisionally even though they didn't meet the requirements (didn't live in the county they were trying to vote in). Others told me it was similar in other precincts.

Paper ballots, ID, and lots of well-trained observers seem to be the best way to avoid the threats from social engineering and hack attacks on the integrity of the voting process. I would even go for the purple dye they use on the thumbs of voters in some countries to prevent people from traveling precinct to precinct to vote for dead people and people who have moved away who are still on the rolls. (There are more than you probably think.)

In general, my observation has been that the voting process has become more corrupt over the past 20 years. It's just damn hard to catch it if the people who are supposed to enforce the rules don't care to.

<comment><USER7> But here's the problem: "You want to check ID at the polling place? You must be a racist! Here's how that represents a tiny, yet unacceptable burden, for some underprivileged group."

This is actually where we are as a country. It's depressing.

<comment><USER8> I think that the issue there is not with the ID per se, but with the cost (in time and money) disproportionately affecting the poor and also with the fact that it de facto creates a national ID system (which some are ideologically opposed to).

I would be ok with voter ID laws which accepted a multitude of valid existing documents. E.g if you allow passport, driver license, state ID, SS card and birth cert then there probably does not exist a person whom does not have at least one of those.

<comment><USER9> > E.g if you allow passport, driver license, state ID, SS card and birth cert > then there probably does not exist a person whom does not have at least one > of those.

Passports, driver licenses, and state IDs are dependent upon first having an SS card and/or birth certificate, depending on the state. Therefore, we can narrow the nexus down to a birth certificate or an SS card.

There are plenty of domestically-born citizens who do not have an SS card (based on some state birth procedures I am familiar with, acquiring a federal SS number at birth is optional at the choice of the parents).

There are also plenty of people who were not born in the US, but have become naturalized citizens.

So it seems that there would be plenty of people who have neither of those nexuses.

<comment><USER10> > There are plenty of domestically-born citizens who do not have an SS card > (based on some state birth procedures I am familiar with, acquiring a > federal SS number at birth is optional at the choice of the parents). There > are also plenty of people who were not born in the US, but have become > naturalized citizens.

I don't have ball in the game (not US citizen), but your argument is flawed, specifically in two cases:

\- Domestically-born citizens who do not have an SS card but have a birth certificate.

\- Naturalized citizens without birth certificate but have SS.

You didn't specify why it could happen that these two cases would not cover everyone in your two listings.

<comment><USER9> A person doesn't necessarily get an SS number at birth. And a naturalized citizen doesn't have a birth certificate. Therefore, some people might not have either one of these documents.

Of course, a citizen is normally eligible to get such documents by applying at whichever bureau. But, it is conceivable that some people don't have them.

Practically speaking, it is difficult to live life in the US without an SS number/card. You can't open a bank account, get identity documents, (get a passport?), get student loans, or be a employee in a company that wants to record your SS for tax compliance purposes.

Anecdotally, I have read that some people refuse to give their kids a number at birth via SS. This then means they have to go through extra paperwork later in life if they want to get one when they are adults.

Also anecdotally, I was renewing my driver's license recently, and I overheard the 40+ year old woman at the counter next to me tell the clerk she never had a driver's license or a state ID.

She seemed pretty embarrassed about it, probably because without a driver's license or state ID, it's clear that she wasn't able to participate in things like opening a bank account, for which a photo ID is required (unless she had a passport).

If this all seems kind of crazy, just consider that in the US, the federal government, state government and individual are all sovereign, just in different and sometimes overlapping ways.

<comment><USER11> Just a small correction. You can in fact open a bank account without an SSN.(I did so without any problem when I was studying in the US.)

<comment><USER9> That's cool, I'm glad to learn that.

Regulations on some things, for example driver's licenses, private mailboxes (and maybe bank accounts?), got tightened up/federalized with the passing of the Patriot Act/Real ID Act in (2004?). For example, to open a private mailbox, I have to fill out a federal form now. Additionally, I can no longer use that mailbox as a registered address for a bank account.

Did you use any kind of federal identifier, for example an EIN (something you can apply to the feds to get, often used for businesses), or did you use your passport/passport number, or none of the above?

<comment><USER10> The Patriot Act requires bank to keep home address of foreigner in the foreign country on file. But otherwise, you only need to provide passport + 1 more type of picture ID to open the bank account. This was in 2010

<comment><USER11> I only had my passport as ID and didn't have to give my home address, so it can be even easier than that in practice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I submitted this as its own post, but it didn't get much traction, so I'll link it here as well.

[http://static1.squarespace.com/static/579f40a01b631bd12f10c2...](http://static1.squarespace.com/static/579f40a01b631bd12f10c29e/t/57a759c2f5e231cfd155331b/1470585287273/000+An+Electoral+System+in+Crisis.pdf)

This paper argues that the 2016 primaries were hacked based on the fact that (among other arguements):

There was consistent discrepencies between paper and machine voting results, favoring Clinton and against Trump.

Clinton and Trump support was corralated with precinct size

Demographics are not sufficent to explain the above observations.

I have not verified the accuracy of this analysis, or found other commentary on it.

<comment><USER4> If someone hacked the voting machines, I would expect them to only find vulnerabilities in some of the machines, not all of them. Thus if the paper finds a discrepancy that isn't related to the type of machine, I would expect it is some other kind of cheating (or just an anomaly).

<comment><USER13> You don't need to hack voting machines. If you control the body that allocates them in your area you send more of them to areas favourable to your desired outcome. So in other areas the lines get too long and some people don't get to vote. That alone will swing things a few percent.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I wish that we would abandon the concept of all-in-one electronic voting machines and instead incentivize _ballot printers_.

They could have a happy touch screen UI that is easy to localize, and then print out a human-readable paper ballot for the voter to review and then drop into a physical ballot box. And you could have one machine with a special printer to produce raised-character printing for blind voters to verify.

All the advantages of a computer UI and very few of the disadvantages of the DRE voting machines.

<comment><USER15> The electronic voting machines used by many districts are not only insecure, but run by former felons (link from 2003!) [1].

The only reason I can see why we use voting machines run by criminals is that the powers-that-be want it that way. No amount of ineptitude can survive for 15 years without a small group benefitting immensely (and then selling that access).

[1] [https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20031218/0933248.shtml](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20031218/0933248.shtml)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Lack of paper trail has been an election complaint for at least 16 years now.

</comment><comment><USER17> Is there any practical difference between rigging and hacking? Whether the election outcome is manipulated by government officials, one or both major political parties, Vladimir Putin, corporate insiders at the vendors that supply voting machines, some guy named Chad, or some collaboration between any of the above, it amounts to the same thing: the loss of voter's right to hold their elected leaders accountable.

Most election tampering requires a pretty big conspiracy and is therefore hard to pull off on a large enough scale to change the outcome without being caught, but electronic voting with no paper trail makes it possible for someone to do just that without more than one or a handful of people knowing about it, which I think makes it the biggest threat to the accuracy and credibility of elections in the United States.

Even in the absence of real election fraud, if the voters have no credible reason to believe it didn't happen, then the election system ought to be fixed. Ideally, the burden of proof should be on election officials to show that the results are correct, not on activists to prove fraud.

</comment><comment><USER4> Sounds like a challenge! If any of the precincts turn up 100% for Jill Stein, you'll know it was me.

</comment><comment><USER18> It is rigged AND is going to be hacked. That's a given.

<comment><USER19> After the Wikileaks releases, we know without a doubt that the Democrat primaries were rigged for Clinton. Multiple people were forced to resign from high paying DNC posts over it.

I see no reason to think that the actual election in November won't also be rigged to the maximum extent possible for Clinton.

<comment><USER20> Why was Clinton so effective compared to the GOP's old guard? They absolutely despise their nominee- why weren't they able to pull enough dirty tricks to sink Trump?

And, again, in the general, I've seen no evidence that the Clinton camp is vastly less moral than the GOP/Trump camp- why attribute all potential rigging to Clinton when the GOP has just as much reason to pull the same tricks?

<comment><USER21> Maybe because GOP primaries isn't more corrupt than Dems. Maybe the GOP constituency actually does consist of the type of people who want Trump.

<comment><USER20> Similarly, the Democrats have a lot of people who wanted Clinton, and 3 million more of them appear to have turned out to vote than did Sanders supporters.

I just don't see how, if widespread primary rigging is effective and not all that difficult (since the DNC, who really aren't all THAT clever, supposedly "rigged" it without much in the way of repercussions) Trump could end up the GOP nominee against the wishes of the GOP elite.

It's quite easy to explain Clinton's win without any shady "rigging." It's quite difficult to manufacture 3 million net votes- that's either a lot of ballot-box stuffing or a huge voter disenfranchisement campaign and there's no evidence of either. The simplest explanation is that the Dem constituency consists of people who want her.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> It could easily be rigged without a papertrail or having to show ID to vote.

<comment><USER23> What on earth makes you think IDs are secure?

Have you been near a college campus anytime... I don't know... Ever?

<comment><USER24> Faking IDs on a scale necessary to influence a presidential election, without being detected, would be a bit more difficult.

<comment><USER23> Uh yeah, because it's impossible to manipulate an election from the voting booth under basically any circumstances. That's why ID laws make no sense.

The physical ID manufacturing isn't the hard part and never would be. It's finding the identity you're masquerading as and then actually standing in line at a voting booth.

<comment><USER4> _it 's impossible to manipulate an election from the voting booth under basically any circumstances._

That's just a lack of creativity. A popular mechanism in the past was the false-bottom ballot box (the man who first brought that to SF in the 1800s was rewarded handsomely, reported by Irving Stone).

You can have ghost voters, for example. People registered at addresses that don't exist, then bus people from precinct to precinct voting multiple times. Also, people register to vote in two different places: [http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/200...](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2004/10/people_who_vote_twice.html)

I have seen foreigners vote with my own eyes. I don't know how common that is (or any of it is, actually), but that is something that happens.

<comment><USER25> _I have seen foreigners vote with my own eyes._

How could you _possibly_ know they're not entitled to vote? Did you know them personally? Were you aware fully of their immigration status?

<comment><USER4> _How could you possibly know they 're not entitled to vote?_

You listed two possible ways in your post.

<comment><USER25> Which you didn't seem to think were relevant to list while making your claim. And which are both odd things to "just know" about a person. Did they say one day "oh yeah, I voted illegally lol"? Doesn't seem like the type of thing which comes up in conversation easily.

EDIT: To be clear, I am asking specifically _how_ you know you saw people who were ineligible to vote voting. A follow up would also be why you observed this and didn't tell anyone.

<comment><USER4> To be honest, I don't know you at all. If you don't believe me, if you think I'm lying, that's fine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> If the election gets hacked, won't it by definition be rigged by the hacker(s)? I just don't see how it's "ridiculous" to think the vote somewhat impacted by 1) some people voting more than once since many jurisdictions are basically "honor system", 2) exploits of vulnerabilities in electronic voting systems, and 3) ballot stuffing and other illicit activities by poll workers.

How prevalent those are, the full impact, etc. are debatable, but it seems a little naive to say those things never happen at all or that people who suspect they happen are crazy conspiracy theorists.

<comment><USER27> I don't think you understand how voting works in the US. Voting isn't even close to the honor system. The people who run precincts are incredibly decentralized and individual precincts have such a small impact on national elections.

<comment><USER26> In my area (and most without voter ID) anybody can give any name and address and vote as that person. The "honor system" refers to the fact people are trusted to not just look up a name/address and vote as someone else.

Yes, the electoral system and general statistics of the election mean in any one case that doesn't necessarily sway the outcome. Which is why I said the impact is debatable but to deny it could happen is naive.

<comment><USER28> Could someone please describe a plausible scenario in which an election is impacted by so-called "voter fraud"?

While elections have been rigged from the very beginning (ballot stuffing etc.), "voter fraud" is an invented concept that didn't exist before passage of the Voting Rights Act.

<comment><USER26> Not sure how many more times I can say "the impact is debatable" in recognition that individuals voting as other individuals would be an inefficient way to sway an election. However, it is fairly well documented that this happens to some degree: [https://ballotpedia.org/Dead_people_voting](https://ballotpedia.org/Dead_people_voting)

and that it is completely feasible to pretend to be another person when voting: [https://youtu.be/pZMU2oMJNHU](https://youtu.be/pZMU2oMJNHU)

But, since you asked, here is a scenario that I think is entirely plausible: A group of over-zealous activists travel to a very tight state with a handful of close precincts. They look up recent deaths in the areas and get a list of 1000 names and addresses that they then use to vote, each voting multiple times. They simply go in, give the name and address, and vote, then go to another polling location and repeat. Other groups decide on other tactics. A poll worker decides to stuff a box. A hacker changes a few 100 votes just to see if she can. No one technique alone would have swayed the election, but in concert they push it to the opposite of what a 100% fair election would have been.

In this scenario, note that there is no big evil conspiracy - just a handful of misguided people taking actions with a collective big consequence.

Obviously the risk of fraud has to be weighed against the risk that someone due a vote will be unable to do so because they couldn't obtain an ID or lost it. It's also worth pointing out that before the general election, the various shenanigans of the primaries and two parties mean that the general is not really "fair" before it even starts. Again, my point is that it's not "ridiculous" to posit that US elections have systemic flaws that could sway the outcome.

<comment><USER28> It still requires some cooperation, which means it's subject to game theory and defector risk. And there are numerous after the fact approaches to enforcement.

Just make a $1,000,000 reward for anyone exposing a conspiracy to rig an election, and audit the voter rolls on close elections, and impose stiff penalties for voter fraud.

These are all cheaper and probably more effective than voter ID laws. Strangely, these kinds of approaches come up far less than imposing an ID requirement. Also, mail in voter fraud is a far greater risk, yet is also ignored.

Voter ID laws are a cynical and despicable evil.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> OSET is trying to help with this. They are working to make open source voting systems available.

[http://www.osetfoundation.org/about/](http://www.osetfoundation.org/about/)

<comment><USER30> I'd be interested in seeing if a transparent, fair and honest voting booth can be achieved with commodity hardware: \- Raspberry Pi with a multiple checksum- verified OS image \- simple receipt printer with a verifiable hash of your vote \- etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> >> "A recent poll found that 34 percent of likely voters believed the general election would be rigged."

Even if it the US election was rigged, very possible US wouldn't even care.

<comment><USER2> I would suspect whomever voted for the winning "team" wouldn't care at all.

<comment><USER31> Given only 40% of living Americans vote, and that it's likely 35-45% voted for the party that benefited from the fraud - that would leave a very small group of people to force a reversal.

Again, possible that all Americans would reject it, but seems possible that they would not.</comment></comment></comment>


Happy 19th birthday, Cocoa - <AUTHOR> http://blog.securemacprogramming.com/?p=1115

<comment><USER2> Anyone willing to share their experiences with their use of Cocoa over the years?

<comment><USER3> I've only been into it since ~2005 (Tiger) when Cocoa itself was quite mature, but Objective-C has gone through a great transformation over that time.

There used to be so much boilerplate in declaring and defining properties and keeping track of memory, and all that is gone now. With clang, compilation is fast and errors are descriptive.

The language has taken an interesting spot because while it's a compiled language and interops easily with C and C++, using it actually feels more similar to C# or Ruby.

<comment><USER4> My timeline and experience is similar. Also, I started web development with Perl back in the 90s before moving onto Java prior to Objective C. When I started doing Objective C, it felt analogous to Perl 5 in some ways -- an OO language that let you peel back the covers to hack the internals when needed, mature frameworks, and an impressive community of knowledgeable graybeards. And the syntax, while powerful, is often accused of having a bit too much punctuation. :-)

Now there are many more Objective C developers, which has also led to rapid improvements in the language and a blossoming of third party frameworks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Quartz - the thing that let Apple jump to Retina with such ease.

I'm curious to how Carbon or Classic apps would behave if they could still run.

<comment><USER6> Could still run? As of MacOS 10.9, Carbon is still supported.</comment></comment>