Additional $2.1M Seized from Mt. Gox Accounts – Now Over $5M Total - <AUTHOR> http://thegenesisblock.com/warrant-for-mt-gox-wells-fargo-accounts-shows-additional-2-1m-seized/

<comment><USER2> Interestingly, when the big banks were caught laundering drug cartel money they only had to pay fines a fraction of the amount laundered.

[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-31/money-laundering- ba...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-31/money-laundering-banks-still- get-a-pass-from-u-s-.html)

[http://www.globalresearch.ca/money-laundering-and-the- drug-t...](http://www.globalresearch.ca/money-laundering-and-the-drug-trade- the-role-of-the-banks/5334205)

 _In March 2010 Wachovia cut a deal with the US government which involved the bank being given fines of $160 million under a "deferred prosecution" agreement. This was due to Wachovia's heavy involvement in money laundering moving up to $378.4 billion over several years. Not one banker was prosecuted for illegal involvement in the drugs trade. Meanwhile small time drug dealers and users go to prison._

<comment><USER3> What was the intentional extent of their involvement?

<comment><USER4> [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank- mexico-...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico-drug- gangs)

That is a decent article from the Guardian concerning Wachovia's activities. In particular, it contains the statements of a highly involved whistleblower that are indicting on their own. But I find the statement of facts from the deferred prosecution agreement to be more compelling:

[http://www.justice.gov/usao/fls/PressReleases/Attachments/10...](http://www.justice.gov/usao/fls/PressReleases/Attachments/100317-02.Statement.pdf)

>24.) During the investigation, law enforcement reviewed the CDC banking activity that occurred at Wachovia and found readily identifiable evidence and red flags of large-scale drug money laundering....

>26.) These BSA investigations have determined that from May 2003 through at least July 2007, Wachovia violated the anti-money laundering ("AML") and suspicious activity reporting requirements of the BSA and its implementing regulations. _The violations at Wachovia were serious and systemic..._

>31.) ...This wire activity was principally monitored through the use of a computer system.... The actual number of alerts that the system was designed to generate per month was pre-set, based, in part, on the number of investigators available to review the alerts. In addition, AML personnel were not allowed to carry investigations into the next month.... The net result was that the understaffed AML unit in Philadelphia could not keep up with the volume of wires. _The suspicious activity went effectively unmonitored._

>32.) With regard to the bulk cash business, Wachovia had no written formal AML policy or procedure for the monitoring of bulk cash to ensure that suspicious activity was reported.... _As a result, at least $4,728,626,300 in bulk cash_ from the CDCs went through Wachovia during the period of May 1, 2004 through May 31, 2007, _with essentially no AML monitoring._

>33.) Wachovia never reviewed any of the RDC deposits made from the time the product was first offered in the summer of 2005 until approximately November 2007. _During this time, approximately $47 billion was deposited into Wachovia through RDC without AML monitoring._

>34.) With regard to standard pouch activity, Wachovia also failed to enforce a self-imposed policy regarding traveler's checks. In 2005, Wachovia was warned that the CDCs were sending in large quantities of sequentially numbered traveler's checks for deposit and that this was potentially suspicious activity. As a result of this warning and other internal discussions, Wachovia sent a letter to its customers noting that, "due to the strict U.S. regulatory mandates associated with anti-money laundering policies, Wachovia has decided to limit acceptance of bulk deposits of traveler's checks through our cash letter service." The letter stated that Wachovia "will require that you no longer remit deposits containing sequentially numbered USD traveler's checks where the total value of the series exceeds $10,500." _Wachovia, however, failed to establish any internal policy or monitoring procedures to implement or enforce this rule._ As a result, from April 2005 through May 2007, Wachovia accepted more than 1000 pouch deposits that contained thousands of sequentially numbered traveler's checks in violation of its own policy.

That's about as intentional as it gets in my book. I would argue that those above statements of fact are enough on their own to indicate intent. Particularly number 34, which makes it plain as day that they were certainly aware of the problems --and made public-facing gestures at addressing them-- but internally were more than happy to keep rolling in the drug money.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Keep in mind that half of Mt. Gox's value is in BTC. They tend to receive about 1% of volume (average 0.5% commission on both sides of trade - half of which is fiat, other half BTC)

Last month or so they've had about 20K or so daily volume. So 600K X $100/BTC X 1% = about $600K/month. Let's double that for good months. Hell, triple it. $1.8 M/mo, or $900K cash. I'd assume $100K/mo for salaries, infrastructure, etc. So about $10M/year in profit.

Half of it's frozen. Meanwhile, they have $900K/mo in BTC. That's a liability if they can't properly cash out. They'd probably have to sell about 1/2 of what's in their wallets to get to solvency as people continue to want their money. They control like 60% of the market - so what would be the effect of about 30% of all BTC hitting the other exchanges? Assuming they could handle the traffic, it would devastate prices.

Or they liquidate. 60% of all BTC flooding market.

Or they go under. It'd be good for those holding in other exchanges, but that would be an epic implosion as all those BTC's "disappear".

I can't see this scenario change, unless they can start fulfilling all wires within the next couple of weeks.

Folks will split hairs about the fact that the freezes are on their subsidiary... but how of Mt. Gox's business runs through it? Enough that the distinction is pointless.

All of these numbers are ballparked, but the deeper point: much of Bitcoin's success and attractiveness is based on the Mt. Gox exchange. Too much. It's going to destroy the market as it currently stands.

The only alternative is for everyone to pull out BTC, destroy Mt. Gox, and hold as the other exchanges stabilize.

<comment><USER6> So, Mt. Gox is _too big to fail_.

Very good points. I hadn't considered the BTC that they keep on trades. I wonder if they sell some of this BTC at certain threshholds, such that they are constantly converting to fiat?

<comment><USER5> Not too big to fail in the US banking sense, where it would tumble a house of cards with global repercussions. However, I think it would do a lot of damage to the Bitcoin economy: other exchanges, Silk Road, Bitcoin gambling sites, various Bitcoin startups, those with serious money tied up in BTC.

It's entirely possible that they're fulfilling some of the orders out of their wallet, but at a max of 0.6%, if they're never going the other way (fulfilling BTC orders with fiat), that'd get exhausted pretty quickly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> For anyone who's directing their rage at MtGox for this, that should not be the target.

We should be outraged at the banking system and the lawmakers instead. They are the ones who are putting roadblocks on to MtGox, as these documents prove.

MtGox does not operate a MSB according to the laws in Japan, so if it has a bank account in the US, how does it make it a MSB?

Besides, the FinCEN guidelines are not clear for Bitcoin. For example, there's no clear definition for what is a "User" and what is an "Administrator".

Being P2P, users are administrators at the same time. (You don't necessarily need to mine bitcoins to be an administrator, if you're a user, then your client still needs to do administrative tasks such as relay transactions across the network)

Besides, bitcoins should be considered as virtual messaging service, rather than a currency as in the traditional sense of the word. In essence, Bitcoin is a distributed messaging network. (When bitcoins are bought, the buyer is actually paying the seller to send a message to the network).

We need better, clearer guidelines on this.

<comment><AUTHOR> The accounts seized were for Mutum Sigillum, their US subsidiary. The claim is that MS transferred funds from Mt Gox's Dwalla account to Mt. Gox's overseas account, which fits under the definition of a MSB in the US.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Report from #mtgox when I asked, the deposits and withdrawals in USD are still flowing, but it's so slow they might as well not be. You can move your money out of Mt.Gox as bitcoins but you take a "9% haircut" because the Mt.Gox USD are undervalued.

(Unless of course your money is already bitcoins.)

Wire transfers are being fulfilled in an average of 7 weeks.

This is 100% hearsay but I went and asked yesterday because this article popped up on HN and was deleted before anybody had a chance to comment, and I wondered why.

No comments about the seizures, other than "anything but business as usual".

<comment><USER9> > Wire transfers are being fulfilled in an average of 7 weeks.

If true they're dead. 7 weeks is unacceptable.

<comment><USER8> Even if you get 9% extra for waiting?

Consider this could happen to any Bitcoin exchange, and now the US Government has 5 million of their dollars. I would think that would put them on the road to licensed and bonded in 50 states -- they were saying before it costs about 5 million to become licensed and bonded.

Also, Mt.Gox is not a US company. SEPA/Euro transfers are being processed in a "reasonable amount of time" \-- I don't know exactly what that means. I am from the US and I am becoming verified this week, since my BFL Jalapenos have just shipped it seems much more important than only a week ago.

<comment><USER10> > Even if you get 9% extra for waiting?

I'd rather get 10% less now than possibly nothing later.

<comment><USER11> then you have a poor understanding of money.

1) there is nothing to indicate that mt gox is insolvent so its not a matter of if, its a matter of when.

2) we can track their volume, its looking pretttttty good right now.

3) 10% every 7 weeks is not a bad roi. that's just shy of 100% return for a glorified short term loan.

<comment><USER10> > then you have a poor understanding of money.

Nah, I'm just not a gambler. I know when to get out of a deal and take a small loss instead of going broke later.

And the US government seizing funds of a company I have money parked in is a pretty strong signal to get out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> AFAIK Mt. Gox doesn't have any license(s) in any of the markets they serve. Afraid it's just going to get worse for them.

<comment><USER13> That reminds me, I wonder how the CoinLab vs Mt Gox lawsuit is getting along. As I understand it, Mt. Gox entered into a contract with CoinLab to do the US transaction processing that was previously being done by their subsidary, in part because CoinLab were able to follow the various legal requirements, then breached that contract. Mt. Gox then had the sheer balls to argue that they weren't getting anything worthwhile from the contract in question.

<comment><USER14> [http://www.plainsite.org/flashlight/case.html?id=2433935](http://www.plainsite.org/flashlight/case.html?id=2433935)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> How is Mt. Gox on the legal and lobbyist front? They might be able to go hard on this with USV and others to back off the pressure and cut a deal that preserves BTC without onerous regs. (It might be expensive.)

</comment><comment><USER16> My brother has been waiting for his withdrawal of $700 for over 4 weeks. This isn't good news. I hope Mt.Gox takes care of things soon.

</comment><comment><USER17> If you trusted a company that started out trading Magic: the Gathering cards with a significant amount of your money, you probably need the lesson you are going to learn from this.

<comment><USER18> Yeah, like those idiots at ebay who started out as a pez dispenser collection.

Anybody who trusts THOSE idiots with their money deserves to lose it.

Howabout those dorks that started out as a school project and went on to become google.

You'd be double, double stupid to work for, trust money to, advertise on that stupid dorky company that started off as a hott or not clone.

<comment><USER19> > The frequently repeated story that eBay was founded to help Omidyar's > fiancée trade Pez candy dispensers was fabricated by a public relations > manager in 1997 to interest the media

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebay#History](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebay#History)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> So are they seizing Mt. Gox's money, or the money of account holders forfeit for being used in an unlicensed service?

<comment><AUTHOR> As far as I've seen no account holder's money has been forfeited... however they're clearly having withdrawal issues which may be related.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> At this point MtGox must really be kicking themselves for moving from Japan.

<comment><USER22> They never moved per se, but apparently they have some kind of US subsidiary.

They actually made a deal back in 2012 to sell all their USD business to CoinLab which would have made compliance CoinLab's problem while MtGox could sit back and collect their revenue share. Maybe they're kicking themselves for not going through with the CoinLab deal.</comment></comment>


General Thinking Tools: Mental Models to Solve Difficult Problems - <AUTHOR> https://www.fs.blog/general-thinking-tools/ <comment><USER2> Cool stuff. I'm disappointed to see that none of philosopher Dan Dennett's recent work [1] on this topic has come into these pages though. There's some overlap especially in the "thought experiment" realm, and it gets a rigorous philosophical treatment which for some is the key to this kind of problem- solving. (disclaimer: I was in the cohort of undergrads that Dennett used to review his chapters).

1: [https://www.amazon.com/Intuition-Pumps-Other-Tools- Thinking/...](https://www.amazon.com/Intuition-Pumps-Other-Tools- Thinking/dp/0393348784/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=)

</comment><comment><USER3> I call these forms of wisdom, or second-order intellect. First order intellect is insights you get through direct study of the world, wisdom is insights you get through meta-study of forms of intellect.

My underlying model of cognition extends this to 8 different levels, ending with consciousness itself. But that's getting ahead of ourselves. Third order intellect is the study of ego, how we get in our own way. Fourth order intellect is the study of identity, the forms we use to actually consider ourselves.

The rest of them concern the nuts and bolts of perception.

</comment><comment><USER4> Haven't read the details yet but if OP is here I would recommend renaming "second-order thinking" to "second-step thinking." Second-order, in the mathematical sciences, has a connotation which is likely contrary to what you intend. When speaking about something that is not literally expanded in a power series, it usually references something that is much less important that the most important contributer.

<comment><USER5> This is probably because Howard Marks popularized the idea under that name in "The Most Important Thing". He looks like FS's main source in the detail piece ([https://www.fs.blog/2016/04/second-level- thinking/](https://www.fs.blog/2016/04/second-level-thinking/)).

I think he does mean it as an analogy to the math concept, like ~x being first order and ~x^2 being second order for x near zero; x dominates but x^2 (the "second order") gets you closer to the truth. And similarly for x^3, x^4, ..., x^n.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> That's a very cool list. Two more: reduction to absurdity and divide and conquer. They're probably the most worn tools in my own mental toolbox.

</comment><comment><USER7> Similar: [https://medium.com/@yegg/mental-models-i-find-repeatedly- use...](https://medium.com/@yegg/mental-models-i-find-repeatedly- useful-936f1cc405d)

</comment><comment><USER8> Very cool. Thanks!</comment>


Apple changes default MacBook charging behavior to improve battery health - <AUTHOR> https://sixcolors.com/post/2020/04/apple-battery-health-management/ <comment><USER2> I've noticed that on newer (past few years) MacBook Pros, if their battery runs down too far they refuse to start up, even when plugged into the charger. The battery has to charge for 10-15 minutes with the "dead battery" icon on the screen. It's exactly the same behavior as iPhone/iPad. In past MacBook models, the battery could be dead--or even completely removed--and the charger would power the laptop fine.

Anyone know why this extremely irritating change had to be made?

<comment><USER3> I've been explained that this is because those computers might need more power than the AC Charger is able to provide, so the battery is also used as a "backup" for burst loads. This [1] seems to confirm it.

[1] [https://web.archive.org/web/20081225111200/http://support.ap...](https://web.archive.org/web/20081225111200/http://support.apple.com:80/kb/HT2332)

<comment><USER4> This probably goes hand in hand with the unremovable batteries. Back when they had removable batteries you could run it on AC with no battery installed and it would work fine.

<comment><USER5> No, thats purely to prevent repair. Its perfectly possible to have a removable battery and to just not boot when one is not inserted. Thats how phones used to work ~2013

<comment><USER6> A removable battery requires its own protective shell, which costs weight and thickness. When it's not user serviceable, it can just be a bag of acid resting on the main board, piggybacking on the device's own case for the required protection.

<comment><USER5> The protective shell can be only the bottom side which replaces the bottom of the case. The internal laptop batteries are quite safe to handle if you don't use anything sharp on them. We let people handle phone batteries for ages and they weren't nearly as protected as those old laptop battery tubes.

<comment><USER7> They were certainly more protected than the almost naked ones I see right now which I can singlehandedly bend (but won't given the fire hazard). And not LiPol batteries too, which are super nasty in that regard: the more energy- dense the battery is, the more of a hazard.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I got a top spec 15 MBP a year ago and I have to say the experience is appalling - 4000$ device that goes full airplane takeoff levels of noise at any serious workload, no ability to control performance (I would gladly throttle the CPU sooner to avoid everyone in the office turning my way when I start an emulator or keep the fans at lower RPM but constantly instead of letting the CPU idle at 60-70 degrees with no fans).

All of this could be fixed if the device gave me power settings but even third party paid tools that require custom kernel extensions (Volta) still don't work reliably.

My next computer is not going to be from Apple for sure.

<comment><USER9> Laptops isn't designed for serious workloads. It's a small portable devices to hash some errands at starbucks. You can't change physics laws unfortunately to make all the heat disappear somewhere.

Keep in mind Intel marketing as well which advertises CPU with way less heat than they expose in real life.

The way you have this machines is because apple is commercial company and they should follow market demands.

"10 cores", "silent": you can only choose one.

If you want a reliable silent machine, use the proper tool for the job. I.e. mac mini / imac. There is the only way to get proper cooling. You can't have silent cooling in your laptop. Especially if it's "a top spec".

<comment><USER10> _In theory_ , laptop manufacturers that use aluminum in their chassis could just put the CPU die right up against the chassis, Remove the bottom feet, and then tell you to only ever use it sitting on top of a table designed to function as a top-down heat pipe (i.e. the kind they use to make "scraped" frozen yoghurt.) The table would become the CPU's direct-contact heatsink.

Not practical at all, of course, but this is well within the laws of physics. (And people do lesser things all the time, using e.g. those laptop "cooling stands" with clearance and fans built in.)

<comment><USER11> It would be practical to at least have some form of heat transfer to the case for passive cooling advantage, but this can have the downside of the end user getting burned/uncomfortable and saying, Why does my computer get so hot?

The recent metal-cased RTL-SDR's from rtl-sdr-blog have this "problem". The metal case actually helps the chip run cooler, but it gets hotter to the touch then the early insulating plastic models.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> So many people on here seem to be intent on micromanaging their device's battery. IMO the whole point is to let macOS handle it so you can focus on actual work.

I know Apple has screwed up in the past with throttling iPhone CPU's (bad). At this point they know not to go to those lengths again.

<comment><USER13> The only thing they screwed up on was not telling people they were throttling. They're still doing it (which is good).

<comment><USER14> To be fair that's a pretty big thing to screw up. I commend Apple for a lot (see my last 3 comments), but I think they cross the line of too-voodoo too frequently. I think they'd do well to dispel more magic.

<comment><USER15> That "issue" was way overblown.

Apple's change did the right thing. It fixed a ton of older phones which before were rendered unusable since they would experience random shutdowns due to naturally degraded Li-Ion batteries.

Every manufacturer should implement the kind of fix Apple did (and I'm sure at this point, they have).

They even mentioned the change in the original release notes for the iOS update.

<comment><USER5> It wasn't the right thing. People thew out their phones because they were slow not knowing they could have been fixed cheaply with a new battery.

<comment><USER15> Apple has offered battery replacements for years before they rolled out that patch.

Replacing the battery would have fixed the issue at any time. It's not like they were holding it back.

<comment><USER16> They _were_ holding it back. That's what the several hundred million dollar lawsuit they settled was about. And their public apology. And the hundreds of articles in the tech press.

Apple's own front-line staff (ie genius's) were not informed of the throttling. So if you complained of a slow phone you were told you were imagining it, or it was an inevitable part of the newer more complex OS upgrades.

At any rate, you were told there was nothing you could do.

<comment><USER15> I think people apply a double standard when talking about Apple since they are the de-facto industry leader. The battery degradation issue is something that affects nearly all Li-Ion battery powered devices.

This includes all Android phones, PC laptops, etc.

People have such low expectations of the other products by default that no standards are applied and no quality is expected.

This is the issue. We apply (rightfully so) a far higher standard when assessing the industry leader (Apple) but we apply no standard at all to the competition which frequently gets away with the same kinds of issues (and also issues that are much much worse).

<comment><USER16> I think what you're saying overall is true to a small extent due to how Apple have positioned themselves. But this ...

> we apply no standard at all to the competition which frequently gets away > with the same kinds of issues (and also issues that are much much worse)

... is total BS. Google and Samsung are never, ever, given a free ride when they mess up. Come on. Let's not be hyperbolic.

> The battery degradation issue is something that affects nearly all Li-Ion > battery powered devices. This includes all Android phones, PC laptops, etc.

Irrelevant. It's not a question of whether the throttling is a valid solution to a technical limitation (it is). The problem is that (a) there were no major manufacturers throttling CPU speed due to battery health in phones, tablets or laptops before this. It was not a known practice. And (b) since Apple actively hid the throttling from everyone, including it's own employees, very few people were aware that a simple battery replacement would bring the phone back to like-new performance.

You seem to have gone from outright falsehoods - _" They even mentioned the change in the original release notes for the iOS update"_ to mischaracterisation _" Replacing the battery would have fixed the issue... It's not like they were holding it back."_ and now you've moved on to "what about the other guys!?" deflection.

It puzzles me how some people will so blindly defend Apple without critically looking at the facts. Just admit it was a mistake and looked really, really bad.

Apple has. Why not you?

And for the record, I'm a very happy Apple customer. I've used their computers exclusively since 2005 and their phones exclusively since 2010. I rely on their products and ecosystem to earn a living. But I'm not blind and I'm not stupid.

<comment><USER15> > You seem to have gone from outright falsehoods - "They even mentioned the > change in the original release notes for the iOS update"

It was in the note as far as I'm aware. You're saying that as if I'm trying to spread misinformation. I don't appreciate that at all. It's very rude.

> mischaracterisation "Replacing the battery would have fixed the issue... > It's not like they were holding it back."

That's not a mischaracterization. You absolutely could have gotten your battery replaced. There were even tons of 3rd party services that were offering battery replacement along with screen replacement. It's not like it was some sort of dark secret or as if they banned you from replacing your battery.

> and now you've moved on to "what about the other guys!?" deflection.

I think people should be angry that other manufacturers weren't doing anything to extend the life of their batteries. I see that as worse than using techniques to manage battery life (which the operating system is doing at all times by the way - same with your GPU).

<comment><USER16> It's a mischaracterization because as you've been informed, there was no known connection between CPU speed and battery health. Even among Apple employees.

So while your statement is technically true, it's irrelevant and misleading. Of course battery replacements have always been available! How does that change anything at all? You aren't addressing the central accusation (which is the secrecy). You aren't bringing anything new or interesting to the discussion.

Sorry, if I've been rude. But you've been corrected a couple times without acknowledging it, and continue being slippery by arguing a position without addressing the core accusation. I wouldn't say that's rude but it's frustratingly bad etiquette.

>I think people should be angry that other manufacturers weren't doing anything to extend the life of their batteries. I see that as worse than using techniques to manage battery life

Sure. I've never owned another smartphone and can't comment on how those customers feel. You're probably right. At any rate it's not relevant to how Apple treated its own customers is it?

Try to reply while addressing the central accusation. That the throttling itself is a perfectly valid solution but it was wrong to not inform consumers it was happening. That it was wrong to have customers with $700 phones and $100 AppleCare be told by Apple Genius's that they were imaging the slowdown and nothing could be done... except buy a new phone.

Now, I'm not 100% convinced Apple had nefarious intentions in withholding the info from staff and customers. But, neither you, nor I, will ever know that. All we have to go on, is the facts of what happened and how people were treated. It seems like a black and white, open and shut case to anyone objective. People were lied to, plain and simple. How can you defend that?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Why doesn't the UI report 80% as 100%? It seems like exposing this to the user is more confusing than anything, when the cells could be over provisioned and treated politely by a system controller, without the user being part of the decision.

Aren't SSD's over provisioned in this manner? You sell a drive with a terabyte of storage, but actually ship more than a terabyte of chips in the case to accommodate degradation over the life of the device.

<comment><USER18> > Why doesn't the UI report 80% as 100%?

Because the last time they tried "silently manage the battery without the user being part of the decision" it didn't go over real well?

<comment><USER19> That wasn't even managing the battery, per-se(although it is power management, it wasn't strictly about health). It was reducing clock speeds to extend the amount of time the device would be on. They _still_ do it even if the device has a healthy battery: drain the phone to 1% and you will see. Rather than running at full blast and shutting down, you can extract more runtime.

Some EVs do something similar: the Nissan Leaf, when the battery gets really low(and I mean it, far past the point where you lost all percentage and mileage indicators), will enter a reduced power mode (or popularly called "turtle mode"). This allows it to eke out a few more miles out of an otherwise mostly dead battery. There is a "turtle" that lights up on the screen, maybe Apple could just do that.

Turns out batteries hate when they are almost empty and you are trying to extract full power from them, voltage drops even more. So there are some compromises that have to be made.

<comment><USER20> The problem was the phones battery couldn't deliver enough current to run the cpu at full power, even though it had charge remaining to run the phone for some period of time in a lower power mode.

Without power management, when a high demand task came alone and the CPU tried to draw more power, the phone would crash or shut-down.

The firmware update capped performance not to extend the run-time when the batteries were low, but to allow the phone to run reliably when the batteries were worn.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Its amazing how dumb most charging is for smart devices. I plug my phone in every night and it does a quick charge then sits there and does nothing the rest of the night. It even knows my alarm clock time, surely it should be smart enough to slowly charge all night.

<comment><USER22> It's not necessarily that it's dumb, there's a bit of battery physics and chemistry involved. If you look up EV charging curves for example [1], the first bit goes fast and the last bit slows down. A rough analogy I've heard is it's like blowing up a balloon -- as it gets bigger, there's more back- pressure so it gets harder to fill up the last bit. That's why the EV roadtrip strategy is "frequent fast-charging" \-- you spend less time if you recharge from 10% to 60% twice instead of going from 10% to 100% once (also safer to take driver breaks).

If your phone _never_ gets past 80%, it could be the battery just needs replacement. Batteries are consumables, and they do degrade after a year or two or three (depending on cycling, temperatures, use, etc). iOS has a battery health indicator giving you a rough estimate of the state... if the health is low, get a repair kit from ifixit and then it's a fun evening activity to open one of those puppies up and see just how tiny everything in there is!

[1] [https://www.google.com/search?q=ev+charging+curves](https://www.google.com/search?q=ev+charging+curves)

<comment><USER23> It's not that adding additional charge to the battery is difficult. It's that the current has to be tapered off when the battery is near-full so it doesn't go over its rated voltage.

<comment><USER22> Thanks for the clarification, the analogy clearly isn't very good.

Out of curiosity, have you found a better ELI5 analogy that doesn't bend over backwards with a rube goldberg setup of pipes and waterflow? I've struggled explaining this phenomenon to people buying EV's, where charging behavior become a regular thing people need to figure out.

<comment><USER23> Well, if they're familiar with beer, and sophisticated enough to pour it into a glass: poured very quickly, the beer will develop a large head that overflows the glass, but pouring slowly creates a smaller head (or none, but don't do that).

There's not more beer, but it fills more space temporarily when poured faster.

<comment><USER22> That's not a bad example, I'm gonna try it out. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I wish they'd give us the option (on the iPhone and iPad as well) to arbitrarily set the maximum charge level. Just like on my Tesla, I'd like to be able to tell my phone not to charge above 80%.

<comment><USER25> Then 500M people complaining on Reddit that their phones only charge to 80% for some reason.

<comment><USER26> Easy: make the charge percentage display relative to the maximum configured charge. Just like it already is with battery deterioration over time: if my battery only holds 80% of its design capacity, the phone will still tell me to be 100% charged as soon as the battery hits that 80%-of-design-capacity-brick- wall.

I just want the option to manually move that brick wall down a bit (they're already telling me exactly where it is right now, on iPhones at least, on the MacBook I ask coconutBattery).

<comment><USER25> Then they'll be complaining their phone only lasts 8 hours before a charge instead of 10.

<comment><USER26> If they do that after deliberately reducing their maximum charge (a setting which would probably come with a warning that reduced runtime of the phone is the result of doing it), they'll probably also complain that their internet speed has gone down after disabling the LTE/4G option (actually that does seem to be even less transparent, because not everyone knows that LTE is faster than 3G). Didn't stop Apple from offering a switch to disable LTE/4G.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> PSA: If you have a thinkpad, the lenovo settings app lets you control this too. In lenovo vantage, go to Device > My Device Settings > Battery settings > Battery Charge Threshold.

<comment><USER28> The Dell XPS 13 also offers an interface in the BIOS that lets you set a charge limit, hours not to charge the laptop, and a bunch of other great controls.

The only big issue is that they don't expose it through a friendly UI within Windows 10. It's nonsense that I need to go to the BIOS to tweak these settings.

<comment><USER29> What's really nice about that approach is that I run linux on mine and it all still works perfectly!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> They should just make 50% the new 100% and then let you "supercharge" to 150% when you need to. I'm kind of surprised Apple hasn't done this already.

<comment><USER31> Nitpick: if 50% was the new 100% then the supercharge option would be to 200%, which sounds even better :)

<comment><USER32> Another nit: Maybe we never let the user get to 200% by refusing to charge beyond 150% (internally known as 75%?) ever.

Better yet, all devices, phones, tablets, notebook computers, headphones, speakers, ... should automatically stop charging at about 75% and then continue to run directly off of the wall. I used to think that's what all devices do because that just seems like common sense to me.

<comment><USER33> I believe this is approximately how modern rechargeable devices work in order to get so much life out of lithium ion batteries.

Maximum charge state is some percentage below the batteries physical maximum, and maximum discharge is state is above the batteries physical minimum.

There's a bit in this Wikipedia article[1] that state _charging Li-ion batteries beyond 80% can drastically accelerate battery degradation_.

1\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium- ion_battery#Charge_and...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium- ion_battery#Charge_and_discharge)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> For people who use their laptops primarily as plugged in machines, there should be a 50% max charge mode.

<comment><USER35> Why is it not possible to completely save the battery when on AC? i.e. charge the battery to 100% (or something close) but power the laptop directly via the charger.

<comment><USER36> >i.e. charge the battery to 100% (or something close) but power the laptop directly via the charger.

That's already what's happening. However that's not enough. Leaving the battery full is harmful in and of itself.

<comment><USER37> Understood. So why hasn't Apple done something about this earlier? IOW, a setting that charges the battery to a maximum of 80% when plugged in?

<comment><USER38> Because you need to predict whether people want to use it plugged in or on a full charge afterwards.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Huh. That explains why my MacBook Air is doing so much worse than I expected from the number of cycles it's reporting.

It's a mid-2013, so I'm not expecting much, but a few times I've seen "100%" when waking it unplugged, only for this to be immediately followed by an emergency shutdown, and when the reboot completes it claims "42%".

It's plugged in almost continuously these days.

<comment><USER40> If you check the power tab under System Information, you can find some battery health info that might be illuminating. For example, my newish MBP16:

      Charge Information:
      Charge Remaining (mAh): 8362
      Fully Charged: Yes
      Charging: No
      Full Charge Capacity (mAh): 8647
      Health Information:
      Cycle Count: 18
      Condition: Normal

Looking it up, specced full capacity is 8818 mAh, so I'm at 98% health right now--probably lost a point or two because I leave it constantly plugged in at work. Willing to bet yours is much lower.

There are a few apps out there that can do a better analysis too. CoconutBattery used to be a good one, no idea if it's still around, but they were common.

<comment><USER41> FruitJuice is a good app for this. [https://imgur.com/dY0n6Uw](https://imgur.com/dY0n6Uw)

<comment><USER42> CoconutBattery is also good [https://i.imgur.com/bv85ygJ.png](https://i.imgur.com/bv85ygJ.png)

It even supports plugged-in iOS devices [https://i.imgur.com/nSIJrar.png](https://i.imgur.com/nSIJrar.png)

[https://www.coconut-flavour.com/coconutbattery/](https://www.coconut- flavour.com/coconutbattery/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> It would be great if they made this available for Mojave... Catalina seems like such a shit-show that I have yet to upgrade.

God knows my laptop is spending alot of time on its charger at the moment.

Given 10.15.5 is likely to be the last version of Catalina before whatever comes next... maybe it will be time to jump in?

<comment><USER44> I've used Catalina since 10.15.1 and haven't had issues. On a 2016 15" MBP followed by a 2019 16" MBP.

<comment><USER45> Some people being lucky and not having issues doesn't mean other people don't have them. As evidenced in many comment threads recently, plenty of people have issues with Catalina.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This makes a ton of sense. I assume it's smart enough to use data like your location to charge up all the way (or more than usual) if you're in some random hotel, instead of having to remember to turn it off when traveling.

If it's smart and takes all these things into account, that would be so much better than setting some arbitrary threshold (is 50% okay? is 80% okay?). Adding arbitrary options enables a lot of bullshit advice to spread.

</comment><comment><USER46> I wish people would stop using the generic 'MacBook' when talking about 'MacBook Pro' and 'MacBook Air' \- makes it very diffcult as a 'MacBook' owner to find support articles.

<comment><USER47> Don't they have specific code names? A9999X?

<comment><USER48> A1534.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> For Thinkpads running Linux, you can do this (somewhat manually) with tpacpi- bat:

[https://github.com/teleshoes/tpacpi-bat](https://github.com/teleshoes/tpacpi- bat)

I set mine to stop charging at 85% and not start again until it drops below 75%. If I know I'm going to be away from power for a while (e.g. traveling) I manually tell it to charge up to 95%.

Anyone know if there's something like that for Android?

<comment><USER50> Somewhat infuriatingly, Thinkpads with two batteries (e.g. T480) will discharge whichever battery appears "healthier" first, rather than taking the sensible route of discharging the external battery first so that your internal battery isn't completely dead when you're trying to hot swap.

When new, the internal lithium polymer battery reports its nominal capacity conservatively, so that the measured capacity is a few hundred mAh higher than nominal, making it appear healthier. The external lithium ion batteries tend to report nominal battery capacity accurately. This means that for something like the first year of use, these Thinkpads will consistently discharge the internal battery to 5% before touching the external battery. By the time your external battery is low enough to warrant a hot swap, the internal battery is gone, and you have to power down or plug in. And of course 5% isn't a configurable threshold, so you can't change it to, say, 20% instead.

Apparently this is baked into firmware on a charge controller IC somewhere, so it's not hackable with some i2c commands like the charge thresholds.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Previously, iOS 13 (released in 19Q4) changed the default iPhone charging behavior to improve battery health:

[https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT210512](https://support.apple.com/en- us/HT210512)

</comment><comment><USER52> I thought keeping a MacBook plugged in was advertised as OK (Even said to be BETTER) since the power is being drawn from the AC source rather than the battery. What's the deal, is it better to leave it plugged in, or not?

<comment><USER53> Generally speaking it's better to keep it plugged in than to repeatedly charge and discharge it. But it's even better to keep in plugged in at 80% charge instead of 100%.

<comment><USER54> Really? I'm not very knowledgeable about the subject but I always understood that discharging the battery was healthy. Is there somewhere I can read up on why that is?

<comment><USER55> It is healthy, but discharging to 0% isn't and keeping it at 100% isn't either. It is best to plug in at 20% but only charge to 80%. Then every half a year you do a full charge to 100% and a full discharge to calibrate the battery management.

But sadly that can't be configured on a MacBook.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Hey Apple, this is the perfect opportunity to take advantage of the clean USB-C ports arrangement on new MacBooks!

Charging Mode 1) By plugging the charger into the rearmost port, full 100% fast charge please. Charging Mode 2) By plugging the charger into the other, nearer port, I'm indicating that we'll be here for a while... please trickle my battery up to 50-75% to prolong the battery's lifespan.

Indicate which mode I have instigated with a difference in "on charge" noises and show an explanatory notification in the MacOS UI. Perfect opportunity to explain what's going on and espouse your green design credentials.

<comment><USER57> I didn't think the USB-C / Thunderbolt port situation could get any more complicated and confusing [1], but congratulations, this would certainly do it.

[1] [https://www.macworld.com/article/3535896/how-to-tell- whether...](https://www.macworld.com/article/3535896/how-to-tell-whether-a- usb-c-cable-can-carry-high-wattage-power-and-thunderbolt-3-data.html)

<comment><USER56> We aim to please! :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> I hit a similar issue with an iPad today - there is no easy way to tell if it is charging slowly.

It was showing the charging icon, although only charging at 1W. Horrific UI. I changed cables, it was charging at 5W. Shit, the charger was a 5W charger for an iPod (charger looks the same, need to read tiny low contrast writing to tell difference). Changed to a 10W charger, now charging at 7.5W. Change to another cable, finally 10W.

Fortunately I had an in-line USB diagnosis tool (about $10, google for USB power meter) otherwise you are screwed trying to diagnose why your iPad seems to be charging slow...

</comment><comment><USER59> My 2017 13" Macbook Pro has seriously had garbage battery since the day I got it. I'm lucky to get 4 hours from it doing light browsing in Safari.

Comparatively, my 2014 13" Macbook Air had the best battery I've ever had. Routinely got 10 hours + doing the same thing.

And now, I have "service battery" in the tray icon. Cycle count: 101. After the battery is below 60%, any kind of "heavy load" (i.e. gcc) will just turn the thing off like a power cut.

Worst part is I can't even take it to get repaired because I'm stuck in SE asia under lock-down.

</comment><comment><USER60> I really wish we could have greater control over these choices—the ones apple goes with rarely align with the way I would ideally use my laptop.

<comment><USER61> Not sure what there is to complain about here. There's a checkbox to turn it off if you don't like it, and anyway it's designed to adapt to how you use your laptop.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> It would be nice if I could keep my MacBook battery at a healthy level without having to drain it.

With the MacBook Pro 16 you can easily draw enough energy to drain your battery while using a 100W power adapter.

Dell addressed to this issue in their USB-C laptops by making and allowing 130W power adapters. Apple requires you to tap into your non-user-replaceable battery to supplant the power usage.

<comment><USER63> I had the issue that my charger was overheating so much it would stop charging entirely. Had to ask the IT guy for a 2nd charger so I can swap between the two to make sure my laptop wouldnt lose its charge. My former employer had us all with Macbook Pros even though due to the nature of our work we couldnt do jack while outside of the office. Still unsure why they didnt just buy us iMacs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> We desperately need better energy storage tech.

It's amazing what we were able to squeeze out of lithium ion, but it's fundamentally a stop-gap.

<comment><USER65> man, I'm just still so impressed at how much better batteries are now than they were 15 years ago.

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> my favourite laptop has to be Panasonic's Let's Note I had one wayyy back model W2D and they eventually had this physical button that let you charge up to 80% for longevity reasons.

That being said, I still own a macbook pro from 2011 and it's battery is still 100% healthy so I'm quite surprised to see how much's changed...

<comment><USER67> I doubt you're really at 100%... if you go to "Apple menu > About This Mac > System Report > Power > Battery Information" you can look at "Health Information > Cycle Count" and see how many cycles you've been through... see "Cycle Count Limits" at [https://support.apple.com/en- us/HT201585](https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201585) for expected lifetime. You could also look at "Charge information > Full Charge Capacity (mAh)" and compare that to whatever the original capacity was for that model.

<comment><USER66> says 115 cycle... as it's plugged in most of it's life and full charge capacity is 6435mAh which sounds about 100% still.. oh and it's actually late 2012 rather than 2011 felt like I got an upgrade lol

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> I suddenly started getting this notification:

 _To reduce battery aging, iPhone learns from your daily charging routine so it can wait to finish charging past 80% until you need to use it_

What does that mean? The remaining 20% happens right before you wake up, otherwise the battery isn't stressed so much?

</comment><comment><USER69> If I know I'm going to leave a laptop plugged in indefinitely, I would like to be able to set it to 50% battery _manually_ instead of trying to "train" the software to get it right. Most (all?) operating systems lack this ability.

<comment><USER70> On Dell's laptops (at least, on my XPS), I can set a maximum charge in the BIOS, as well as select one from a few different charging strategies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> I have a loaded 2015 MacBook Pro. My wife insisted on it - we felt flush at the time. It spends 6 months unused, and six months as a desktop, plugged in. But if you go to use it mobiley, the battery life is about 40 minutes.

<comment><USER72> Sounds like you need to just get a new battery. That was 5 years ago.

I got 4-6 hours on my 2015 MBP depending on what I was doing after two years.

You could get a program like iStat Menus to keep an easy eye on your CPU to see if something is using it. I think it's required in 2020 where Spotify, Discord, Slack, Steam, a browser tab you opened last week, etc. will regularly decide to start eating a whole core in the background.

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> Slightly off topic, but has anyone else noticed how simply starting Activity Monitor can bring your CPU and fan under control when they're raging? True with both my 2013 and brand new 2020 MBA.

</comment><comment><USER74> According to Coconut battery, my MacBook Pro battery is now at 89% capacity after only 2.3 years and 140 cycles. I hope this change keeps me away from the dreaded 80%...

</comment><comment><USER75> I have destroyed three MBP batteries by having the laptop plugged in to the wall 24/7\. Luckily Apple always replaced them in warranty for free.

</comment><comment><USER76> Apple has been doing this with iOS already, the only thing that surprises me is that they've waited so long before doing it with laptops.

</comment><comment><USER55> Just let me set a max charging percentage like on my Thinkpad please.... After 2 years the battery on my MacBook Pro is pretty much dead.

<comment><USER77> You should probably check your battery cycle count: [https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201585](https://support.apple.com/en- us/HT201585)

<comment><USER55> Its around 350, the battery is dead from being plugged in at work 10-12 hours every day.

<comment><USER77> If the full charge is less than 80% of design capacity before 1000 cycles the battery is defective according to Apple.

You should be able to get it replaced for free, imho, but I suppose that depends on local regulations and if you have Apple Care or not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER78> I've got a Mid 2014 MBP Retina and I'm happy with it, except for playing video games. I tried to upgrade to one of the new MBP last year and I hated it. I sent it back. I tried a windows with WSL, as well as an ubuntu setup, on a very powerful and sleek laptop, but I sent it back too. I'm back with my good old 2014 retina. If I really need a new laptop, for now the only viable option is a MBP Retina 2015, how crazy is that?

</comment><comment><USER79> >Charging a modern laptop battery to 100% and leaving it there for extended periods of time—especially at warm temperatures—can dramatically reduce the battery's usable life.

This has been known for years, and this feature is relatively simple to build. I don't think it's an act of benevolence from Apple, I think the estimated cost of another class-action lawsuit has surpassed the estimated gain from decreasing the perceived life of MacBooks.

<comment><USER80> I'd be surprised if the risk wasn't seriously mitigated by hiding that option in an obscure enough menu, or a command-line tool.

</comment></comment><comment><USER81> For Dell users, you can do this as well in the BIOS if you run Linux, and the Dell battery utility in Windows 10

</comment><comment><USER82> It says changes the default. Could this be chosen manually then. Can I set up the same behavior on High Sierra?

</comment><comment><USER83> Quite a few 16" owners have been reporting their battery capacity to be down to 90% already.

</comment><comment><USER84> I wonder why this applies only to Thunderbolt 3 MacBooks and not non- Thunderbolt USB-C MacBooks.

<comment><USER85> Maybe the Thunderbolt 3 MacBooks have enough capacity to spare?

<comment><USER84> Maybe... there's not a ton of difference in specced battery life though, so 80% of that should be roughly the same. The 2017 MacBook is specced for 10/12/30 web hours/movie hours/standby days on battery vs. the 2020 MacBook Air is specced for 11/12/30.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER86> It can make it pole dance if they like, I won't upgrade macOS during a lockdown. No way.

</comment><comment><USER87> We need a leap in Battery Tech, in Charge Cycles, Capacity, Durability, Non- flammable.

</comment><comment><USER88> Weren't other major vendors doing this since middle of 2000s at least?

</comment><comment><USER89> I wish they will give a, hey Siri charge to 100% command, if I am traveling.

</comment><comment><USER90> Now I am thinking for the first time about upgrade to Catalina.

</comment><comment><USER91> Because newer Macs contain what is essentially an iOS device: the security processor. It's the data broker for the encrypted internal storage among other things.

</comment><comment><USER79> Why not just get rid of built-in batteries entirely? Not only does it lead to unethical business practices (linking battery life to hardware performance), but it facilitates a privacy nightmare.

<comment><USER76> > _Why not just get rid of built-in batteries entirely_

Built-in batteries allow for custom battery shapes that increase battery life or allow for thinner computers at the same battery life. They increase laptop durability by not requiring a removable battery cover. They allow for putting other components on top of the battery as well to better take advantage of the space inside the enclosure.

> _it facilitates a privacy nightmare_

How does it do that?

<comment><USER79> > How does it do that?

If I remove my laptop battery, I know no one can tap into my hardware covertly. E.g. turn on the microphone, enable bluetooth hardware to see who I'm near, enable 3G/4G hardware to track which cell towers I'm near, etc.

I'd gladly deal with a battery cover on my MacBook in exchange for definite privacy. Better yet, remove the battery from inside the laptop entirely and can plug one in via USB-C port as needed.

<comment><USER76> For such a niche use case, just stick the thing in a faraday cage bag. It doesn't matter that it has power if it can't exchange any signals with the outside world.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER92> So the guys from sales enter in the engineering room and take some decisions on the way devices should behave, first months maximum usage and then degrade contantly until new releases to increase adoption. Oh my, was for your battery protection (no more juice) either was a bug (if privacy was jnvolved)

<comment><USER93> Did you even read the article? I've been wanting something like this for a while. It's a solid engineering decision that needs good marketing to make sure people understand that it's good for battery life.</comment></comment>


New Khan Academy Exercise Framework Is Live - <AUTHOR> http://ejohn.org/blog/khan-exercise-rewrite/ <comment><USER3> Good stuff -- the simplification of the code is exciting for sure and is bound to encourage more to join to create more problems (it has for me!)

One question/problem/concern: Just for fun I tried out the "Linear equations 1" problem section.

So I just got the problem "Solve for x: 9x = 6". Naturally I could answer 2/3 and would expect a happy face, however I decided to answer 6/9, also a true answer, to try the system out. I was received with a sad face (incorrect answer). But, why? The solution is actually true -- it's just missing the artificial target the website has set. The site doesn't explain that it wants the lowest denominator (just "Solve for x"). I would think this to be misleading -- what do you think? How could the proper lesson be enforced here? How and why should students assume 2/3 is right and not 6/9? There's a danger here of students looking for the answer the system wants (extrinsic motivator) rather of what they have found to be right and then denied the satisfaction.

I would expect a happy face with 6/9. It seems to me that the problem should allow multiple answers -- or for the goals of the lesson to be more detailed (and perhaps include an explanation/recommendation after the fact of what the problem is really asking for).

<comment><AUTHOR> We're very aware of this kind of issue; don't worry. We're currently working on A) displaying information to let a user know what kind of format an answer requires (for the problem in question, we require a reduced fraction written as 'A/B') and B) providing more specific feedback than just 'wrong' or 'right' for cases like this when an answer can be mathematically correct but not accepted for the specific problem. Thanks for pointing this out and reminding us of its importance!

<comment><USER4> What would be cool is if you guys integrated Mathematica into Khan Academy. There is that new document format they introduced. For math it would be super useful to have the ability to really play with formulas directly in Khan Academy.

<comment><USER5> Mathematica may be overkill -- I suspect they'd just need something for basic symbolic manipulation, to reduce answers. In any case, a web-based mathematics system already exists; Sage can be run in a browser, and it integrates a number of useful mathematical features with Python:

<http://sagemath.org/>

<comment><USER6> sympy would be another alternative--it's light, it's python, but has a web interface and has a very active community.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> The exercises are live at <http://www.khanacademy.org/exercisedashboard>.

We're really proud of the improvements we've made to the framework and how much easier we've made it to add new exercises; if you're interested in contributing, please fork the code at <https://github.com/khan/khan- exercises>.

We're working as fast as we can to fix any bugs that pop up, so we'd appreciate reporting any issues using the "Report a Problem" link at the bottom of every exercise page.

<comment><USER7> I'm a 33 year old self-taught software developer, that originally skipped college, who is starting at a local community college this fall with plans to transfer to Illinois for Computer Engineering.

I can't express how much your team and Mr Khan have helped me. In June I spent one to two hours a day watching videos and completing exercises to prepare for my schools placement exam. Starting from the beginning, not only did I refresh my memory but also learned essential concepts that my high school education did not cover. Thanks to your site I placed at the highest level my school will place an incoming freshmen for mathematics.

I'm looking forward to finishing off the last 4 exercises and hope to see more soon. I would be very nervous about both working and going to school full time, during my first year, without Khan Academy helping me get a head start before the semester starts. The high quality lectures and exercises you provide are fantastic for someone like me who may not have the ability to attend office hours and tutoring as much as a conventional student.

Thank you for all that you're doing. It's revolutionary.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> From the source code:

// Yuck! There is no god. John will personally gut punch whoever thought this was a good API design.

[https://github.com/Khan/khan-exercises/blob/master/khan- exer...](https://github.com/Khan/khan-exercises/blob/master/khan- exercise.js#L180)

:)

<comment><USER9> Heh yeah, the Mathjax API is rather awful. Tons of separate file requests, configuration is only designed to work in inline script tags, and other ugliness. We've been experimenting with MathQuill - it's way faster and much more lightweight. Unfortunately it doesn't have all the features that we need otherwise we'd switch right away.

<http://laughinghan.github.com/mathquill/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> John (and others working on Khan Academy),

I've known about Khan Academy for 6 months to a year. Recently, however, I've started to become MUCH more interested in it. I'm starting to feel a strong pull towards doing things to help people in my local community - <USER2> through education. I think there's a lot of potential for Khan Academy to play a significant role in that. I haven't started something concrete yet, but wanted to take this opportunity to thank you and everyone else working on Khan Academy for what you're doing. I think it's extremely important and valuable work.

</comment><comment><USER11> It's great that Khan Academy has a 100x engineer even though some have said they don't need one. This can be a 100-year project and having a solid technical foundation will allow it to become one.

<comment><USER12> Does 100x, mean full time? Khan Academy has various full-time engineers.

<comment><USER13> I assume that is referring to Paul Graham's assertion that a good developer isn't just a little better than an average developer, but is instead orders of magnitude better.

<comment><USER14> This assertion (among many other gems) was originally stated in the Mythical Man Month, by Fred Brooks, published in 1975.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> If I understand correctly, some templating transforms the <var>s, etc., into JavaScript. Why not write the JS as a regular program? The syntax you have doesn't seem dramatically easier than just ordinary JS and has to be a bit confining.

Is it really that repetitive, or does the code need to be expanded in different ways in different contexts?

<comment><USER16> I'm wondering the same thing. I imagine with CoffeeScript it could look very nice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Supposing many more problems sets are added, how're they going to manage this proliferation.

My 6yo has been using it for a little while - I've not investigated it deeply but it seems that videos and exercises are quite tightly paired. Having many more exercise [overlapping] sets would make it hard to choose which to do.

It seems the whole system wouldn't work as well with an open access method of submitting exercises, so what's this leading towards?

Aside: I think the scratch pad could be vastly improved. When my 6 yo is doing addition/subtraction trying to write out a number line on the scratchpad is harder for them than doing the sums, it gets in the way. Of course he uses a pieces of paper instead but that seems a bit silly. They could integrate a number line drawing tool, ...

</comment><comment><USER18> Almost makes me want to go to school again.

<comment><USER19> It's available to anyone and everyone, even you! Right now!</comment></comment>


Show HN: Dinosaur Stickers For Your Website - <AUTHOR> http://markcondon.info/dinosaur-stickers/

<comment><AUTHOR> I took 20 minutes out of my day yesterday and threw this together. Like many nerds I'm a 5 year old who loves dinosaurs at heart and found the lack of dinosaurs on most websites depressing so I made this. I hope you all enjoy!</comment>


Help Repeal NY State's Antiquated LLC Publication Requirement  - <AUTHOR> http://www.davidblerner.com/david_b_lerner/2010/03/help-repeal-ny-states-antiquated-llc-publication-requirement.html Those of us who have set-up LLC's in NY State know well of the antiquated 'publication requirement' the State still imposes on so many of its entrepreneurs. (In 2007 alone, 50,000 LLC's were formed in NY State!). <comment><USER2> A cheap hack in the meantime could be to form in a borough with lower publication fees (in Brooklyn, the two papers cost ~$350, versus Manhattan's ~$2K), submit your Certificate of Publication, and then 'move' to Manhattan, and submit your Certificate of Change.

Would that work?

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks! perhaps you could also post this on the blog post.... have you actually tried this?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is law in many states. I set up an LLC in Maricopa county in AZ and it was required to publish an ad in at least two local newspapers. I asked repeatedly about doing an online ad, but they said it was a law so too bad.

<comment><AUTHOR> Just saw this: "While there once was a historic purpose to such legislation, 47 states (including the two states our community most directly competes with, California and Massachusetts) recognize that such a requirement is no longer in the public's interest."

<comment><USER4> Is that actually true? The last person I know who formed an LLC in California had to publish an announcement of his "doing business as" name in the local paper.

<comment><AUTHOR> not sure.... the more I hear, the less I believe it!

<comment><USER4> Hmm, some googling turns up that the state of California doesn't require any newspaper announcements for incorporating the LLC, but it delegates the "doing business as" registration to the counties, many of which do require an announcement. Can't seem to find any quick info on which do and which don't, though.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


3 Enemas Later, Still No Drugs - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/opinion/sunday/kristof-3-enemas-later-still-no-drugs.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0 <comment><USER2> The NY Times fails to mention that only the lawsuit against the city was settled. There are still active lawsuits against Gila Regional Medical Center and the doctors, and against the district attorney. The names of the perpetrators are:

* Dr. Robert Wilcox

* Dr. Okay H. Odocha

* Deputy district attorney Daniel Dougherty

The officers involved were Deming police officers Bobby Orosco, Robert Chavez, FNU (first name unknown) Hernandez; and Hidalgo County sheriff's deputies David Arredondo, Robert Rodriguez, Patrick Green.

In my opinion, doctors Robert Wilcox and Okay H. Odocha are rapists. Wilcox and Odocha sexually violated this man forcibly and repeatedly for over ten hours. This is rape, and they should be charged with rape.

In my opinion, the police officers and deputy district attorney Daniel Dougherty are accessories to rape, at the very least.

You can see the rapists (again, my opinion) here:

[http://www.grmc.org/Doctor-Directory/O/Okay-H-Odocha- M-D-.as...](http://www.grmc.org/Doctor-Directory/O/Okay-H-Odocha-M-D-.aspx)

[http://www.grmc.org/Doctor-Directory/W/Robert-M-Wilcox- M-D-....](http://www.grmc.org/Doctor-Directory/W/Robert-M-Wilcox-M-D-.aspx)

The list of defendants was copied directly from here:

[http://www.lcsun-news.com/las_cruces- news/ci_24461411/lordsb...](http://www.lcsun-news.com/las_cruces- news/ci_24461411/lordsburg-n-m-mans-federal-lawsuit-claims-police)

<comment><USER3> Didn't a trial already set a presidence for the "only following orders" defense for doctors? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctors'_Trial](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctors'_Trial)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> From the article: "Police are caught in a difficult balancing act"

No, they are not. If they truly believe he had drugs, they arrest him, he gets representation, and they try for search warrant.

The Doctor who performed this torture should have his medical license pulled as a warning to all others and all these police officers should be in jail.

<comment><USER5> I didn't see it mentioned in this writeup, but they did have a search warrant. Sort of.

1\. The warrant was only valid within the county. After the first doctor refused, the police took him to a hospital in another county.

2\. The warrant had an expiration time on it. The warrant was no longer valid when the colonoscopy was performed.

<comment><USER6> Should that matter? Doctors have a hippocratic oath to uphold.

<comment><USER7> This isn't ancient Greece. Of the few medical schools that use the Hippocratic oath, none of them make it mandatory.

<comment><USER8> I'm not sure why you're being downvoted - what you're saying is mostly correct[0] and actually relevant. The Hippocratic oath is very misunderstood and improperly invoked in public discourse.

The Hippocratic oath is the medical equivalent of swearing a judge in on a Bible - symbolically very important, but of next to no literal significance.

For example, I bet most people don't know that the Hippocratic oath says the following:

> I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will > withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work[1]

By definition, any surgeon is violating the Hippocratic oath on a daily basis.

There are codes of ethics that doctors are expected to uphold, and the _principles_ behind the Hippocratic oath are still relevant today, but the actual Hippocratic oath is all but obsolete.

I'm sure that the alleged actions of the doctors question violated whichever code of ethics they are bound to, but we should be discussing those instead, not the Hippocratic oath - if there is any possibility of their license being revoked, _those_ codes are the bar against which their actions will be measured.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_oath#Modern_use_an...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_oath#Modern_use_and_relevance) [1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_oath#English_trans...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_oath#English_translation.2C_version_1)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This article reminds me of an experience I had 3 years ago in Dublin, CA.

I was driving home to San Jose at about 3am, after spending the evening playing live music at a bar in Dublin. I was pulled over as I was driving from the bar to I-680.

The cops made me get out of my car. They took my pulse and examined my eyelids with their flashlights repeatedly. I was shivering a bit as it was cold and I was wearing a t-shirt. They accused me of being under the influence of drugs based on my quickened pulse and eyelids. They searched my car, of course finding nothing. I was handcuffed and taken to jail, where I had to spend ~12 hours until the next day when my wife picked me up. My car was towed (which I had to pay to get out of the impound yard).

I was completely sober that night. In fact, I've been straight edge my whole life.

It was a humiliating experience -- I had to give urine test in front of the cops once I was taken to jail. I had to get mugshots (which I assume are searchable online somewhere). That said, it's nothing compared to the humiliation the guy in the article experienced.

I definitely lost all faith in police that night. As a fairly well-off software engineer, I could deal with the costs of getting my car out of the impound yard and missing work to show up in court (no charges were pressed). For someone less fortunate, it could have really screwed up their life. The fact that police can mess with people like this is unfair and unjust.

<comment><USER10> > which I assume are searchable online somewhere

Better: mugshots.com or some-such will probably try to charge you money to remove your listings. Disruptive technologies FTW!

<comment><USER9> Yeesh... I think about this whenever I see one of those mugshot ads on a website. My paranoid side wonders if this ad is "personalized".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think the cops should now be billed for that 1.6mill. Garnish there salary to the end of their worthless life. Why should the taxpayers be stuck with these bills. The taxpayers didn't abuse and humiliated that poor man on a fucking whim, the individual police officers did. No pension, immediate dismissal, and garnishment of wages is the least that they deserve! This case should not end because they settled, make an example of these fucks.

Also, even a first year law student would be able to easily throw out any and all evidence they have obtained this way. So the entire procedure was worthless, even if they had succeeded. Makes their conduct even worse. Evil and stupid!

<comment><USER12> That's not individual cop's problem. They were taught this way. They were taught if you get a permission from a dog that alone justifies subjecting a person to torture. They were taught if a criminal addicted to every known drug in existence says something in order to lower his sentence, it's ok to use this as sole basis to break into homes and shoot whoever is in there. And the others, like doctors were taught to willingly participate in these abuses, because drugs! think of the children!

Making an example of these fucks would do nothing, because every citizen of the US that supports war on drugs is creating these fucks. Until US citizens wake up and demand the government to stop the war on US citizens, that and worse is going to happen. In war, that's what happens. This war - longest and most harmful war in American history - has to be ended. And US citizens have the power to end it, if only they has the will and reason to stop believing in lies that WOD proponents feed them.

<comment><USER13> And Himler was taught that killing millions of minorities was a good and honest action, yet the judge still found him guilty at Nuremberg. It's generally accepted that "I was just following orders" is not an acceptable reason for perpetuating atrocities.

<comment><USER14> The actions of police officers is a symptom. The disease is the war on drugs (and similar "tough on crime, soft on evidence" policies). That doesn't excuse what the police do, but it defines what you need to change if you don't want it to continue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The point that Ken White of the Popehat blog said it best [1]:

"This case sickened me. But I can't say that it surprised me. The only thing out of it that would surprise me is if any of the individual police officers or sheriff's deputies faced any genuine significant consequences arising from it."

In other words, the victim gets a $1.6 million settlement comes out of the pockets of the taxpayers. There are zero personal consequences to the individual police officers actually responsible for what occurred in this case.

[1] [http://www.popehat.com/2014/01/16/update-the-quantum-of- reco...](http://www.popehat.com/2014/01/16/update-the-quantum-of-recovery-for- rape-and-torture-by-police-in-new-mexico-is-1-6-million/)

</comment><comment><USER16> You ask yourself: where is the public prosecution? Where are the criminal cases against everyone involved?

You also ask yourself why the NY Times only mentions the civil suit and the settlement.

<comment><USER17> That is an excellent question. What happened here is obviously criminal, so why did no prosecutor pick up the case? Are cops so much beyond the reach of the law that they even get away with this blatant crimes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> One solution for police misconduct that I heard recently is to require officers to purchase malpractice insurance[1]. The idea is to incentivize good behavior, as bad actors would pay higher premiums because they're a higher risk (or simply leave law enforcement altogether).

That makes a lot of sense to me. The police do things like this because they rarely, if ever, are held accountable for their actions.

I expect the people who have a strong personal interest in that idea never happening would counter the proposal with warnings of frightful, dire consequences.

[1] [https://twitter.com/ClarkHat/status/420254393444093952](https://twitter.com/ClarkHat/status/420254393444093952)

<comment><USER19> I first heard someone mention something like this maybe 1-2 months ago and think it's great. The person compared it to being bonded like an electrician or plumber. The process to fire police officers in many districts is very difficult so this could be one method to get control of the situation.

<comment><USER20> The other great thing about this is when you read about a cop shooting someone for no cause, usually there were warning signs like he escalated a ton of situations with other suspects. This makes a third party (that is interested in not loosing millions to a victims family) start running psych tests and algorithms against arrest and escalation records. At some point the data will get good enough that people will be un-insurable before they kill someone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> > Eckert, protesting all the while, says he asked to make a phone call but was > told that he had no right to do so because he hadn't actually been arrested.

Had to read that a few times to make sure.

What were his rights at that moment?

<comment><USER22> "Am I under arrest?" "Am I being detained?" "Than am I free to go?"

Many of us know what rights we have when we encounter law enforcement, but many do not. I suppose therein partially lies the author's point -- that those who aren't as well educated or might not have access to legal advice are at a disadvantage.

<comment><USER23> So the let's suppose the cops answer "You're not detained. You're not free to leave.". What do you do now?

<comment><USER24> The standard for a detention is that a reasonable person would believe they weren't free to go. So in your hypothetical, the fact that the officer says you're not detained doesn't matter. If he says you're not free to leave then you're detained. From that point, other than identifying yourself, you should not answer any questions and ask to speak with an attorney.

<comment><USER23> But that's exactly what happened:

1) He was in handcuffs, so apparently not free to go.

2) Police told him he can't contact a lawyer because he's not arrested.

3) Police forced him to undergo a medical procedure (still, without being "arrested")

I'm not sure if "not answering any questions" would have helped the victim in that case.

<comment><USER22> I suppose that's why they paid him $1.6M.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This story is the only response needed when someone says "I don't care because I don't have anything to hide".

<comment><USER26> Exactly, though depending on the subject's intelligence I also like to provide Moxie's excellent post [0].

[0]: [http://www.thoughtcrime.org/blog/we-should-all-have- somethin...](http://www.thoughtcrime.org/blog/we-should-all-have-something-to- hide/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I do wonder if there is an end run here to either the state medical board or the specialist certifying organization for the doctors. these docs pretty clearly performed medical procedures on patients without consent or a court order. doctors need to know that if they comply with illegal police orders, they run the risk of losing their license or board certification.

<comment><USER28> I wonder if there's a way we can work through our own doctors. Send them an email saying that it horrifies you that doctors can get away with this. Ask them if they agree and if they can raise their concern to the medical board.

If there was an internal rejection of this sort of thing by doctors, maybe the medical boards would feel enabled to take action.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> >an officer wrote that Eckert's posture was "erect and he kept his legs together."

I think maybe the cop in question needs a basic anatomy lesson. He seems to think that holding one's legs together is required if one is hiding something in one's rectum.

Butts do not work like that.

<comment><USER30> and if his legs are apart, that can be interpreted as aggression. no win situation - they were looking for an excuse to go to town on this guy...

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Regarding this part:

"Doctors took X-rays of Eckert's abdomen and performed a rectal examination. No drugs were found, so doctors performed a second rectal exam, again unavailing. Doctors then gave Eckert an enema and forced him to have a bowel movement in the presence of a nurse and policeman, according to a lawsuit that Eckert filed. When no narcotics were found, a second enema was administered. Then a third."

One of the many problems with allowing this sort of procedure is that it shapes who signs up to be a policeman, and who quits the police force. Consider the statistics regarding psychopathy:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy)

"A 2008 study using the PCL:SV found that 1.2% of a US sample scored 13 or more out of 24, indicating "potential psychopathy"

There is also the somewhat controversial condition known as "sadism":

[http://www.jaapl.org/content/34/1/61.full](http://www.jaapl.org/content/34/1/61.full)

"Sadistic individuals have poor behavioral controls, manifested by a short temper, irritability, low frustration tolerance, and a controlling nature. From an interpersonal standpoint, they are noted to be harsh, hostile, manipulative, lacking in empathy, cold-hearted, and abrasive to those they deem to be their inferiors. Their cognitive nature is considered rigid and prone to social intolerance, and they are fascinated by weapons, war, and infamous crimes or perpetrators of atrocities."

In a civil, decent society, most of these behaviors are driven underground, and treated as criminal. A civil and decent society strives to avoid situations in which criminals become society's leaders. The worst aspects of war and totalitarian regimes is that they empower psychopaths and sadists.

In her book "Prison we choose to live inside" Doris Lessing makes the point that many institutions are shaped by the self-selection of those who chose to work there. She mentions the idealistic, conscientious young man who joins the police thinking that he will be able to help the public, but if he finds the work brutal and inhumane, he quits and finds some other job where he feels he can do more to help the public. And yet he is exactly the kind of man that much of the public actually wants to have as a police officer: idealistic and conscientious and authentically wanting to help people.

When we allow police work to consist of repeated rectal exams of people who are not under arrest, then the good people will be driven out of the police force, and the police force will become a very attractive profession for those people whom are the most likely to abuse the power of being a police officer. The public would be wise to feel genuine terror at the thought of a police force that consists of the kinds of people who actually enjoy the kind torture described in this article.

<comment><USER32> I have a friend that was turned down by the police force because he tested too smart. We were all amazed what that said about our police force.

<comment><USER33> The argument here is that the money spent to train a new officer and have him learn on the job would be wasted on her/him if they were to smart as they would get bored quickly and quit. Not saying it is the best argument but that is what I have read as the reason for rejecting high IQ applicants.

<comment><USER34> And the cost of not having smart officers is not taken off the police's budget ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> The worse thing about reading this is that none of it surprised me (even him getting billed for it). The article didn't mention if any disciplinary action happened to the cops but I'm guessing none.

<comment><USER23> I wonder if and how such a bill would be legally enforceable. He never requested any services from the hospital and he also never got into a emergency condition where the hospital was forced to safe his life. It's like if a random person cuts your hair off on the street and then charges you a barber service.

<comment><USER36> What I wanna know is, if he refused to the medical procedures, aren't the doctors committing a crime by forcing them on him against his will?

<comment><USER37> Wondering this too. They basically raped him, it's just that there is no prosecution. Is there any way for concerned out-of-county or even out-of-state citizens to trigger prosecution at a federal level?

<comment><USER38> Federal prosecutors generally have no jurisdiction unless the crime involves crossing state borders, national security, a federal employee, or occurred on federal property. Raping an ordinary citizen does not violate any federal law, it's a state issue.

<comment><USER39> Civil rights cases are federal since in the past states wouldn't prosecute them. If he was a protected minority class (black, native american, woman) he'd have a federal case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> What really upsets me, despite all this law enforcement's abuse, that the victims were billed for those procedures. What?! Police is forcing someone, against their will, to take medical exams and then one has to pay for that?

<comment><USER41> That fact seemed to be the common thread between the case, and I wondered if being billed with no ability to pay is what brought their cases to the public eye.

If the state had picked up the tab, would they have got away with it? How many similar cases exist where the victim has gone away quietly, too humiliated to complain?

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Why do all these articles suppose that the upper and middle classes don't really have sympathy for the lower class who are generally subject to this sort of "crime" (at least I feel it was).

Most of us are not so out-of-touch that we can't also declare that what happened to this guy was _WRONG_. And we're also not so self-centered that we can't feel both sympathy and empathy. Or maybe they only teach that to journalists?

<comment><USER43> Because it's the middle classes pushing the tough-on-crime politicking that causes long sentences, overpopulated prisons, and paramilitarised police using abusive powers. It takes an abuse of power this strong to make them take notice, as a general demographic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Yes, police brutality disproportionately affects the poor, but by no means are the middle class exempt. I can attest to this personally. I have never written about this before, but I am a middle-class, college-educated white person who was beaten rather mercilessly by the police for "resisting arrest". The resistance, by the way, was entirely verbal, specifically, I said: "no I don't think that's a good idea" and slowly backed away from them. No cursing, or disrespect, or any threatening motion.

I was then beaten rather brutally on by thigh and buttocks with a police baton such that I was unable to sit without severe pain for almost a year, and then cuffed so tightly that I still have nerve problems from the incident, almost 10 years later.

The police know very well not to beat you in your vitals (you risk dying) or your face (too bloody/visible). So they beat you viciously on your thighs/buttocks/shoulders/upper back. I lost count after a couple of blows. I then had two 200+ lb men sit on me, with one continuing to beat me with the baton. I had never physically resisted them beyond slowly backing away with hands up in a motion of surrender.

I was intoxicated, and they would arguably have been well within their rights to physically detain me and cuff me (I was singing drunkenly in a public square), but my beating was entirely because I dared to contradict them, not because I pose any kind of risk.

When I was half-dragged into a jail cell full of about 50 tattooed gang members, in which I was the only Caucasian, I felt much, much safer that I did with all the police officers of my own race who had just beat me senseless. Honestly. I was never threatened by any of my jail-mates, and at least two expressed concern about my condition (I was moaning as softly as I could).

When I asked why the police officers why they had beaten me in the police car, they told me I was resisting. However, no resisting charge was ever filed -- I was only charged with misdemeanor public intoxication, to which I pled no contest. This was all witnessed in public so I'm sure they realized they would have a hard time making it stick if I decided to fight the charges.

And to be sure, were I black and/or poor looking, things might have been much worse. And to be clear -- the pain I suffered compares nothing to the rapes suffered by the victims of this report.

Before that point, I viewed the police as kind of like the fire department, or a similar public safety organization, not as brutal thugs. I've since become very interested in the matter and learned how wrong I was.

I do recognize that a minority of police officers truly do care about their community, and not about power and adrenaline, but they're sadly decreasing in number because they don't fit in most modern police departments (and I'm also sure that there are certain police departments that are run well from the top that defy this stereotype). I've had the opportunity to observe this all up close through my involvement with another community organization that sometimes works alongside the local police department. I've heard up close how police talk to one another, and how they view the public.

But don't kid yourself. We live in a police state whose powers are growing by the year, spied on by the federal police/government and beaten down by the local police whenever we protest our treatment. The lower classes have traditionally been the primary victims, but as class disparity increases, and power centralization continues, the middle class will find itself a victim of police violence more and more frequently, for causes even more egregious than what I just described.

<comment><USER45> My condolences. I have such aversion to Police types and I wish there was more local civilian control over police departments. If there is enough support here we should seriously consider what we can do to deter poor police behavior.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> We live in a country that per capita incarcerates more of its citizens than any other in the world. Our society is by and large very safe. Yet there is still a drive to lock up even more people, for longer terms, for silly offences, and further, to turn more and more tort laws into criminal laws. At some point this has to stop. These stories are far more often becoming the norm, and I find it disgusting. The Constitution and our system of laws do not guarantee your absolute safety... They guarantee your freedom, and that justice will be served _if_ you are wronged. I read these stories with a heavy heart.

</comment><comment><USER47> I am so glad this case is getting wide spread attention.

There is no reason hospitals should be doing rectal exams or X-rays for the benefit of the local police department as a favor. Now that there has been a massive settlement, I am sure every hospital administrator and lawyer has been advising the ER to not do this shit.

Frankly, it was the doctors and nurses that did wrong here. As dumb as it is, the misguided law and policy suggests police should aggressively pursue drug crimes. I am quite sure the settlement is largely being paid by the hospital/doctors.

<comment><USER7> Actually none of it is being paid by the hospital and doctors, this settlement was with the county and city. According to another source

"Eckert still has pending suits against a deputy district attorney who signed off on the intrusive search warrant, the doctors who performed the search and the Gila Regional Medical Center, the facility that hosted the exams."

[http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/n-m-man- settles-1-6...](http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/n-m-man- settles-1-6-million-anally-probed-8-times-routine-traffic-stop- article-1.1582589)

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Yet another great reason to end drug prohibition.

The cops and the doctors perpetrating the rape should also be held personally liable in civil and criminal court.

</comment><comment><USER49> Inequality exacerbates this problem, but it is not the root cause. I have heard many stories of police abuse from middle class, White people.

It is only the ultra-rich (or ultra-connected) that the police are afraid of.

<comment><USER17> The root cause seems to be that police are not prosecuted for crimes committed while on duty.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> I am little surprised that there was merely a financial settlement. This is not just an invasion of Mr Eckert's privacy but a matter of public concern. The law enforcement officials and doctors should have been fired too, well not just by fired but criminally booked as well. I am surprised this has not happened.

On a larger note, imagine that government tries to build a military base on a mountain behind your house. They use explosives to break bid rocks. One rock flies off and falls in your backyard killing your dog. Government pays you $1m as compensation. Does the matter end there ? Most certainly not. Instead government's negligence is a public concern. I think your neighbors should be allowed to demand that government disclose what security measures they have put in place to ensure that more rocks don't fly in air killing others.

I think in the above mentioned case it must be absolutely necessary that the cops and doctors should be booked and heavily penalized.

</comment><comment><USER51> "Every man is innocent until proven broke."

</comment><comment><USER52> I'd like to point out that YOU CAN BE LEGALLY RAPED if a cop suspects you have drugs and has probable cause (which can be anything really, from a dog barking to a previous history of drug use, to clenching your ass when being padded down).

</comment><comment><USER53> Shocking but not overly surprising. However, I can't really imagine something like this happening in any western democracy other than the US (and maybe the UK).

<comment><USER54> are you nuts? this would never occur in the UK.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> I recently watched a lecture by Philip Zimbardo (of Stanford prison experiment fame) about systems that creates such situations [1]. His example was the Abu Graib. It's quite long, but there is also a shorter Ted talk on the same subject.

[1] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xpsVlY3QQc](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xpsVlY3QQc)

</comment><comment><USER45> I wonder if someone could comment on the validity of the contract between the hospital and the victim of the enemas.

For a contract to be valid both parties need consideration. Since the victim didn't consent to the enema or the other procedures how did he receive any consideration. I would argue that it's impossible to enforce this contract.

</comment><comment><USER56> This sounds beyond outrageous to people not living in USA.

It's a good thing it didn't happen to some random European tourist.

<comment><USER57> Yes it's outrageous, but why compare this to Europe? Hidalgo County is right on the border, and if this would've happened just a few miles south (in Mexico) it wouldn't be too far out of the ordinary. Some parts of the US seem to operate a lot more like our neighbor to the south than like the ones across the pond.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> For everybody wondering about the lack of criminal charges, I'll bet a Coke that Nicholas Kristof writes a follow-up column within a month about that topic. He's got himself a hot-button subject and he knows it.

</comment><comment><USER59> Sadistic police brutality is a worldwide phenomenon, but the hospital billing the victim? On the same level of psychopathic behaviour if you ask me. Would the billing even be considered outside the US?

</comment><comment><USER60> The sooner all cops shifts are "GoPro'd" for lack of a real product the better. Tech has reached a point where we can archive a shifts worth of video for atleast 6 months.

</comment><comment><USER61> This is slightly interesting but I wonder what is the relevance to Hacker News?

</comment><comment><USER62> Heh. Just watched Beavis and Butt-Head Do America recently.

"The stolen biological weapon attracts the attention of the ATF, headed by Agent Flemming who orders a body cavity search on everyone he encounters"

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beavis_and_Butt- Head_Do_Americ...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beavis_and_Butt- Head_Do_America)

</comment><comment><USER62> > But the authorities, hospital and doctors all refused to comment, and, a few > days ago, the city and county settled the lawsuit by paying Eckert $1.6 > million.

Holy fuck people are stupid. $1.6 million is not nearly enough. I would be smashing up the cops' shit if they did this to me.

</comment><comment><USER63> The phrase "not arrested" suggests that the suspect almost hoped for a chance to sue the police. Hard to blame him, when the police is displaying this amount of stupidity, lack of judgement or empathy.

</comment><comment><USER64> Our righteous indignation seems a little shrill here.

The fact that he was awarded $1.6M is being glossed over -- clearly this was not, in hindsight, a reasonable procedure, and everyone recognizes it.

<comment><USER65> The monetary settlement should be just a start. Does the doctor involved still have a license to practice medicine? He shouldn't. Do the nurses and techs involved still have jobs? They should be subject to extreme disciplinary measures at the very least. Are the cops still on the force? They shouldn't be, as they are obviously unsuitable for the job. Is the judge who authorized the warrant still on the bench?

No, there's plenty of room for indignation.</comment></comment>