Does Online Piracy Hurt The Economy? A Look At The Numbers - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/01/21/does-online-piracy-hurt-the-economy-a-look-at-the-numbers/ <comment><USER3> Copyright economics has one basic question: is the public getting plenty of good 'content'? And this has two components: 1, is plenty of stuff being produced?; and 2, does the public have easy and cheap access to it? This is just the standard economic structure; look it up: <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/IPCoop/89land1.html>

Now we can see that the common statements about the 'problem' of piracy are misconceived (often deliberately of course). The only proper problem that could exist here is if the public are being poorly served: by insufficient content or expensive/difficult access.

Industry bodies complain that their companies are 'losing' money. That is a nonsensical use of the word 'losing'. What they mean is they are not making as much as they _think they should_. But the purpose of copyright does not care about what they like to imagine, it cares about the two question above. If enough content is being produced, then by definition the companies producing it are being paid enough.

(And piracy is actually a direct positive for the economy, since it helps with the second question: it gives the public better, cheaper access to content -- indeed, just what industry bodies have been obstructing by buying legislation.)

So is there a decline of production? Well, those claiming, or rather implying, there is cannot provide any evidence, so why listen to them? And we can at least simply look around to get a rough idea. Do you feel there are less movies/music/books now, compared with say 10 years ago? That certainly does not _seem_ very sensible.

And another notable point is this: these industries say they have been suffering a terrible onslaught of piracy for about 10 years now, yet there appears to be no decline of production. Now there are two possible deductions from that: either they are talking nonsense, and/or the current level of copyright has been strongly proved to be unnecessary. If production has stayed sufficient, yet copyright has de facto been reduced, we obviously do not _need_ that level of copyright.

<comment><USER4> > Industry bodies complain that their companies are 'losing' money. That is a > nonsensical use of the word 'losing'. What they mean is they are not making > as much as they think they should.

The above is such an important point that I felt it deserved it's own quote. The "loss" put forth by the entrenched media is not a "loss". Unfortunately, not enough people recognize their slight of hand in calling piracy a "loss"

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Quote from the article:

>because SoundScan data is markedly incomplete when it comes to the releases by indie artists who have benefited most from the rise of digital distribution.

And that, right there, is the actual reason for the push by the big media giants. Piracy is simply the straw man used to get what they want past an unsuspecting public. What they fear most is the ability of the internet to allow artists to create and then __distribute__ without needing them (the existing media giants) to be gatekeepers and middlemen collecting their share of the revenue along the way.

Watch this (14 minutes): [http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/defend_our_freedom_to_share...](http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/defend_our_freedom_to_share_or_why_sopa_is_a_bad_idea.html)

What they fear most is that you, the little guy, will be creative and distribute your creativity without involving them as the middlemen.

</comment><comment><USER5> The majority of analysis on the economics of piracy are focused on record company profits in total. Does anyone know of any research on how the economics look for various groups of artists?

\----

As an example:

Artist A is a top rated multiplatinum artist

Artist B is a touring, not so profitable but making a living artist

\---

Do the economics of the industry for each artist change as piracy becomes more and less prevalent?

My gut is that artist B benefits as piracy becomes more prevalent because:

1) Artist B makes their money from touring so distribution is unimportant to them for profitability, rather distribution is a form of marketing.

2) Artist A loses because their distribution is more profitable (still not as profitable as touring for the artist) but their distribution funds their marketing.

Are those 2 points true? I'm going on what I think, but may be off.

More importantly I'd like to hear if anyone knows of any analysis performed on the different classes and how they are impacted by piracy? I would be willing to bet that if there are differences there are opportunities for niche business profits and if one wanted to make a good argument against anti-piracy legislation understanding those differences will be important for fighting those regulations.

</comment><comment><USER6> A fun aside: if an article title ever asks a question, the answer is always "no". Otherwise, the headline would just read something like Online Piracy _Does_ Hurt the Economy.

</comment><comment><USER7> I'd love to see how much the RIAA/MPAA claim that megaupload was costing them in piracy. Surely we'll see that money just come flying in now that megaupload has been shut down?

<comment><USER8> $500 million according to what I've read, here in WSJ: [http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB1000142405297020461650...](http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970204616504577171060611948408-lMyQjAxMTAyMDEwOTExNDkyWj.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Since the linked article is almost wholly a quote and rehash of Julian Sanchez's article for Ars Technica [1], why not just read that?

1\. [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/internet- reg...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/internet-regulation- and-the-economics-of-piracy.ars)

</comment><comment><USER10> The tech industry is harmed by piracy a zillion times greater than Hollywood ever has been or ever could be. Microsoft alone is pirated more than Hollywood in dollar terms. Yet the tech industry hasn't spent the last ten years trying to get vile bills like this passed. It's clearly because Hollywood is in trouble that they're scrambling. Same thing the recording industry did when they saw their own tombstone. Unfortunately Hollywood is even more powerful.

<comment><USER4> "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." Mahatma Gandhi (<http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/2776>)

SPOA/PIPA seem to very firmly place the tech world into the "then they fight you" arena.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> With sites like piratebay,org and btjunkie.org, in some sense, "show business" as an industry is affected. The number of people hitting the cinema would be less since most movie goers would just wait for the "copy" to be available for download. But the workers behind show business aren't really being let out by their employers, so I don't think it's such a huge problem.

<comment><USER12> _most movie goers would just wait_

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Moviegoers _love to go to movies_ , and movie downloaders are the same guys that wait a week in line for the new Star Wars. Perfect customers, in other words.

Did you know our town had a second-run movie theater until last year? One of the last towns to have one. They were packed all the time - but the new owners of _all the theaters in town_ closed it because people could watch movies on the cheap instead of paying eight bucks at the plex. Now everything's only open for about five weeks and is then gone forever.

I'm a busy man. My schedule often required going to the second-run because I literally _cannot focus on chunks of time of five weeks_ to see a movie. Now, my only recourse is to wait a year or so for the studios to release a version of that movie I can buy, or pirate it. Sometimes I pirate it, even though I freaking loathe Bittorrent and the hassle involved in finding a good pirate copy.

But I don't have a choice. And I _love movies_. I love Pirates of the Caribbean - my wife actually saw the first one in the cinema nearly thirty times. Once she showed up five minutes late for the evening showing and the attendant just laughed and waved her into the theater instead of opening up the cash register again, knowing she'd be back the following night. So after it closed in the movie theater, I downloaded it to continue watching it - <USER2> we bought it as soon as they decided to sell it to us, wore out one copy, and bought another.

Do you think I'm atypical? Yet Hollywood thinks _I cheated them_ by downloading Pirates of the Caribbean.

If movie attendance is down, it's not because people are waiting to see a pirated videocam version they downloaded, it's because real prices have doubled or tripled and people simply no longer have the money to go to the movies as often. In a recession, no less. Next the MPAA is just going to garnish everybody's wages on suspicion of piracy.

(If they actually do that, please don't blame me for thinking of it first...)

<comment><USER11> Saying movie goers is probably incorrect. However, I still stand by what I said that most of movie lovers, especially people between 15-22 who do not have enough means to go to every single movie they want to watch just wait for a copy of these movies to be available online. According to Hollywood, this is cheating. Pirate Bay as the name suggests thinks so too. But still, downloading movies has no significant effect of the number of movies being released every year. So really, I don't think show business as a whole is affected.

<comment><USER12> If they don't have the means to go to the movies (which I believe, yes) then there's _no loss_.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Iran Says They've Built a 'Flying Saucer' - <AUTHOR> http://gizmodo.com/#!5784074/iran-says-theyve-built-a-flying-saucer <comment><USER2> Here's the actual link, instead of the badly broken hash-bang version that doesn't work reliably for me:

[http://uk.gizmodo.com/5784074/iran-says-theyve-built-a- flyin...](http://uk.gizmodo.com/5784074/iran-says-theyve-built-a-flying- saucer)</comment>


Ask HN: What should I look for when signing an employee contract with a startup? - <AUTHOR>

Looking for a job w/ a startup whilst working on my own personal startup, really just want to avoid any  future IP headaches. What should I be looking for in the employee contract? <comment><USER2> I would take their employment contract to a lawyer and have them look at it.

In my experience, they either want everything, or they allow you a certain amount of autonomy. In the latter case, it often boils down to time and equipment. If you do things on your own time, using your own equipment, then you're probably OK, with various conditions. The most common condition (in my experience) is that what you're working on must not be something that could be construed as being related to the company's line of business, past, present, or future (which is intentionally broad).

Another thing they might have is a disclosure section, where you have the option of listing inventions or other IP that you want to claim as your own. This would be an attachment, like Appendix A. I'm not sure what the best approach is here. Again, something you should discuss with a lawyer.

Certain states have laws relating to this, which preclude overreaching on the part of the employer. For example, California Labor Code, section 2870. Here's a good link:

[http://answers.onstartups.com/questions/19422/if-im- working-...](http://answers.onstartups.com/questions/19422/if-im-working-at-a- company-do-they-have-intellectual-property-rights-to-the-st)

</comment><comment><USER3> IANAL, but things I would look for include the following:

Usually there's a separate "invention assignment agreement" that says anything you make while on the clock that's related to X, Y, and Z, you hereby agree to grant the company, even after you leave.

Sometimes that's rolled into the employment agreement, but not usually in my experience.

There will also sometimes be a "no moonlighting" provision in the agreement that basically says you're not going to take part-time work with someone else in addition to what you're doing for the day job.

In my experience most startups don't ever come close to doing this part right; they either forget to make you commit to things they should, or they try to get you to commit to things they shouldn't (and you could fight in a court later).

In short, make sure you're cool with giving up your "X, Y, and Z" to this company in exchange for the job, and if you want to add "and not A, B, and C", add it before you sign it. If those aren't germane to your job, most employers won't mind.

</comment><comment><USER4> What should you look for? A lawyer.

Any smart company has legal counsel. They probably won't be offended if you also have legal representation, especially if you explain that you are trying to protect both sides of the arrangement from any potential future ugliness. If they are still against you having a lawyer review the contact, then you'll have to decide if it is worth the risk. Personally I would consider that to be a huge red flag.</comment>


Need a Nap in San Francisco? - <AUTHOR> http://www.dozesf.com/ <comment><USER2> I though it was going to be a real service - and one I'd dearly pay for (since I often run 18+ days with meetings stacked end to end and cross timezones). However trying to sleep in public on something like a coach class airline seat is not an option - it's like trying to sleep in McDonalds. What these guys need to do is create a day room exchange - a sort of AirBnB by the half hour or maybe day rooms.

</comment><comment><USER3> Just pay an uber to take you around the block a few times, nap in the back seat.

<comment><USER4> Or go to a movie theater.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This sounds like a joke from Silicon Valley.

<comment><USER5> It sounds like a joke, but there are so many times I wish I had something like this near my office!

<comment><USER4> My whole life I have been napping for free like a sucker.

<comment><USER5> Hey, if I could get a napping desk (and be allowed to nap during the middle of the day) I would be all over that. As it stands, if I want a nap in the middle of the day, I would need to go to the car during lunch break, which isn't exactly that comfortable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Pay for nap ? WaDaF __*????</comment>


Washington governor announces shutdown of restaurants, bars - <AUTHOR> https://www.governor.wa.gov/news-media/inslee-statement-statewide-shutdown-restaurants-bars-and-limits-size-gatherings-expanded <comment><USER2> All: the debate about economic effects vs. health effects is turning nasty in places and could get a lot worse. Let's not go there. Please find ways to make your substantive points that don't nudge HN threads in that direction.

If you comment, make sure you're up to date the site guidelines. Note this one: " _Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that 's easier to criticize. Assume good faith._"

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

<comment><USER3> > All: the debate about economic effects vs. health effects is turning nasty > in places and could get a lot worse. Let's not go there.

I disagree. I don't think the fact that a subject is a launchpad for abuse in some threads is sufficient grounds for suppressing it elsewhere. Those are frequently the subjects that need the most, and most non-nasty discussion. Yes, very much, please, head the advice to steel-man your debate opponents relentlessly. That's the proper response, not banning the whole conversation. dang, I love you man, but your tendency to preemptively kill stories on controversial topics, not so much. I can see that it makes moderation easier, but the cost is high.

<comment><USER2> Ah, I see I could have been clearer. By "go there" I mean let's not go further into nastiness. I don't mean let's not debate—quite the opposite. Nobody's killing the story or the discussion. The point is to discuss it in a way that doesn't destroy the container, which is our ability to keep discussing things in the future.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for the clarification. I do see the strategy of preempting debate used elsewhere on HN, e.g. re social justice or ideological diversity. I'm glad that's not what you're signalling here.

<comment><USER2> We don't moderate the site that way elsewhere either.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is going to be an economic catastrophe unless there's somehow a nationwide bailout to literally all brick and mortar businesses. I know of several local bar/restaurants that are considering shutting down for good, and a colleague near Melbourne told me of 4 that already have (I'm eastern US). Even if this all blows over in 3 months, we'll have a huge surge in homelessness and folks needing social assistance across the board.

<comment><USER5> Suspend rent payments

<comment><USER6> Without work, I can't make hours to keep my health insurance, so I'll be forced to buy COBRA, which is just as expensive as rent.

(Or I could risk going without, while living at this continent's ground zero for a pandemic.)

Entire industries are being shut down. There are no easy answers here.

<comment><USER7> Protip: COBRA is almost always more expensive than a comparable plan you can buy from an exchange. Often hundreds of dollars a month more expensive if you have a family.

<comment><USER8> The only problem with getting a plan on an exchange is that you may need to satisfy a deductible again. YMMV of course.

With COBRA I believe you can also pay your premium after the month it's due. This can be advantageous because you can opt to not pay for your last month before switching to another plan if you end up not using any services from your COBRA plan that month.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> It's probably best if we aggregate these links in one place rather than having a separate thread for each new location. (Similarly to what we did at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22550840](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22550840))

NYC: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22589463](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22589463)

California ("calls for", not enforced): [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22587062](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22587062)

Others?

<comment><USER9> Ohio [https://twitter.com/GovMikeDeWine/status/1239275883560648705...](https://twitter.com/GovMikeDeWine/status/1239275883560648705?s=20)

<comment><USER10> Wow, the responses...

<comment><USER11> People in Ohio think the virus is a liberal conspiracy.

<comment><USER2> Please don't take HN threads into regional or political flamewar.

<comment><USER11> That was an observation of fact.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> When talking about economic damage it is also worth thinking about what we are trying to avoid in the US- if SARS-Cov2 gets to 60% of the population, then at a 2% case fatality rate we are looking at 4 million excess deaths. Most importantly, that is a humanitarian tragedy that we must avoid. However, having numbers also let's us put an economic value out there for what we are trying to save.

A 1% reduction in the case fatality rate saves roughly 2M people. Let's assume that each would live another 10 years and that each person year is worth $100k. That means a 1% reduction in the case fatality rate is worth 2 trillion dollars. That's roughly 10% of GDP. You can play with the numbers a bit, it's hard not to end up in the "taking a multi year recession might be worth it" territory. Obviously, there are decreasing marginal returns to various actions, but the it's important to keep in mind the scale of what we are trying to avoid.

<comment><USER13> Current total deaths are 6,000 with China already saying the worst is behind them. Why the US would have 4M deaths?

<comment><USER14> Probably means 4M assuming that no containment measures are taken.

Like someone said on twitter, "In the end, it will be impossible to know if we overreacted or did too much, but it will be QUITE apparent if we under reacted or did too little."

<comment><USER15> Right, the rich have nothing to lose, the poorer capitalists pay for the over reaction. That's why we see an over reacting, panicking society, because the rich benefit from it. It is the only reason they do anything, I hate to break it to you.

<comment><USER14> If nothing is done, the least privileged will suffer the most due lack of access to health services and a financial safety net.

<comment><USER15> But what is most assuredly going to happen is what benefits rich people. The rest is collateral damage or pure luck. Is what it is, nothing new under the sun.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> IMO the only question now is how long it takes the rest of the country to follow suite. Here in NC our governor announced the closing of all public schools on Friday, but I've heard from several friends that in my city (Raleigh) the downtown bars and restaurants were pretty much at normal capacity this weekend. I don't think the general public is going to truly take this seriously until they're told that they have to.

<comment><USER17> I also live in the Raleigh area, and it has just been baffling how care-free everyone is...

<comment><USER18> The relevant facts are, one, only much older people have to worry about it, and two, the cure already exists in washing yourself. This common flu is here to stay, the absolute risk to vast majority of people is extremely insignificant.

<comment><USER19> Covid19 is closer to SARS than the flu, and is known to cause permanent lung, kidney, and testicle damage, even in young and healthy patients.

Even among young patients, the ICU rate is as high as 10%. A low mortality rate for young people assumes access to an ICU.

All of New York State only has about 600 unoccupied ICU beds. If the number of infections in New York breaches 6,000, the fatality rate among young people is likely to be 10-20x that of the flu.

Young people need to worry about Covid19/SARS2

<comment><USER18> Those are some important facts, thanks for sharing. I'd like to see the probability of healthy people getting permanent damage however. That would change my mind. Until then the extremely low fatality and infection rate for average people, as well as the incubation period being so long that it's unrealistic to contain it, is enough for me not to worry about it.

<comment><USER20> You're being selfish. Everything isn't just about you.

<comment><USER21> reedx8's post is about reedx8's level of worry and personal risk assessment, which is 100% about reedx8.

<comment><USER22> reedx8's personal risk assessment is only 100% about reedx8 if they have no loved ones, and don't care for any lives other than their own.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Good. Aggressive steps like this are the only way we'll get a handle on what's happening. The alternative is exponential runaway and complete disaster.

Full disclosure: I live in Seattle.

<comment><USER24> Another Seattle resident here... I wonder if we're only a few days away from a Hubei/Italy-style lockdown where you can't go outside except for groceries and pharmaceuticals. Is there precedent for that in American history?

<comment><USER25> No precedent for it, and a lot of Supreme Court precedent against it. Nonetheless, as an also Seattle resident, it has dramatically changed the city through voluntary behavior of the population. This has been an incredibly destructive blow to everyone in the formerly thriving restaurant and bar industry in the city.

<comment><USER26> [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/12/us/coronavirus- quarantine...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/12/us/coronavirus-quarantine- questions.html)

> The C.D.C. rewrote its quarantine guidelines in 2017 and they have never > been tested in court. The Supreme Court has also never dealt with an > infectious disease quarantine case, [Lawrence O. Gostin, a professor at > Georgetown University Law School who specializes in public health law] said.

<comment><USER25> Freedom of travel, upon which quarantine rests, has been thoroughly adjudicated in diverse public safety contexts. It is unlikely that the court will deviate dramatically in this specific case from centuries of precedent regarding restrictions on travel relating to public safety. The CDC's guidelines may be new but not unprecedented.

The outliers where the courts allowed the kind of special reasoning being proposed here, which has happened on occasion, have almost universally enabled shameful chapters in American history e.g. Japanese internment. Courts are understandably reluctant to allow this kind of expedient violation of Constitutional rights.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> This may get downvoted, but I think the following judgement-free statement is true: this is starting to look scary/serious /solely/ because of the measures the governments are taking, and the media circus around it. Otherwise (while it would have almost certainly "started to look serious" eventually, probably for a short time), at this point, you would not have even noticed given the actual numbers.

<comment><USER28> Either you don't do anything and it eventually _gets_ serious, or you do something and it _looks_ serious.

> you would not have even noticed given the actual numbers.

Surely you'd notice if 15%+ of your family's elders died in one year. People don't seem to get that it's not so bad (health wise) as long as you take serious decisions to slow the spread, so yes, you're right, it _looks_ serious, because it is, and it would be much worse if governments didn't do anything about it.

<comment><USER27> That remains to be seen. The consequences of current actions, while the current impact of the virus itself is basically nil, will be severe, including extra deaths (and lack of births, for that matter - didn't occur to me to count that but looking at demographic articles I realized it's also lives lost in the net), and massive waste of life-years due to economic disruption that will disproportionately affect the developing world, the poor and the young. Which one is worse, I don't know, but over the last few days my opinion is starting to change towards the latter being worse.

<comment><USER28> > while the current impact of the virus itself is basically nil

You should read about Italy, and how they're running out of hospital beds. Which means usually non life threatening issues are getting much more serious.

It's not a boolean choice between "saving lives" and "saving the economy"... If you don't do anything: people get sick, sick people can't work, the economy tanks, hundred thousand people die. If you do something, less people get sick, the economy tanks anyway, but less people die. As it turns out it seems like most government prefer prioritizing human life over money.

<comment><USER27> Most of the cases of the infection are mild. Nothing has happened yet (yes, nothing - the number of deaths currently happening in Italy is still, statistically, a blip), and yet already more people are not working for weeks than what would if everyone got sick at the same time, given the working-age mortality and complications rate. And we haven't even started yet.

It hasn't seemed binary to me before about this weekend, but it's increasingly starting to seem binary as the over-reaction escalates.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> _"Restaurants will be allowed to provide take-out and delivery services but no in-person dining will be permitted._

I live an SRO. I don't have a kitchen. I currently don't have a fridge. I have a small grill and some shelving to store stuff.

I eat a lot of takeout. I'm glad to see I can still get takeout.

But, wow. This is beginning to look pretty scary.

I was homeless for a few years. The quarantine/containment measures are turning into a really big problem for the homeless population.

I don't even know where to begin trying to talk about that. At this point, I find the whole homelessness in the US thing simply infuriating. We mostly need to solve our housing supply issue and people are wholeheartedly against that and it's just infuriating.

I will add that Little Caesar's now has a "pizza portal" where you order online, pay online and enter a code to get your pizza yourself without ever interacting with a person. I don't know how to scream this from the rooftops so everyone gets the memo, but someone should.

<comment><USER30> > But, wow. This is beginning to look pretty scary.

> I was homeless for a few years. The quarantine/containment measures are > turning into a really big problem for the homeless population.

How so? I assume that soup kitchens and the like will still be open.

<comment><USER31> It's not just about getting access to services; all of those homeless services are _awful_ for limiting disease spread. Soup kitchens are going to force people into relatively close contact.

<comment><USER32> And the volunteers tend to not show up in times like this, so it falls apart pretty quickly

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I'm probably in the minority but I lean towards the UK model. My suspicion is that the mortality rate is lower due to inadequate testing.

Call me a cynic but after 9/11 I'm weary of temporary measures that become permanent in one way or another.

<comment><USER22> I'm going to go ahead and call you a cynic here.

Do you really think there's any way that the State of Washington will be permanently banning events over 50 people?

Do you _really_ think there's any way that the State of Washington will be permanently preventing the operation of bars, dine-in restaurants, and entertainment facilities?

I'm generally pretty skeptical of creeping government powers myself, but this just...doesn't seem like a place where the government is going to keep these things shut down permanently. Which of these enacted bans are you concerned about becoming permanent?

<comment><USER34> No, but it could normalize doing all of that in the future. Giving up rights once usually make these rights less untouchable in the future which doesn't have to mean that the current measures will be permanent.

<comment><USER35> Counterpoint: the west has had quarantine measures in its traditions for centuries, while developing the individual rights approach. We haven't had to use them much in living memory, but they were not permanent in the past.

Quarantine has been a necessary fact of human life for centuries. We just lived in a blessed time.

<comment><USER34> You're right and I don't necessarily agree with the original comment but governments have a much bigger place our lives today than in the past. They also have a much better ability to actually permenantly enforce those new restrictions.

The patriot act and all the measures taken because of 9/11 are still here simply since it is now so easy to keep them active which wasn't true in the past at all. Not because they are needed. The same could happen in the future!

<comment><USER35> I agree it's certainly something to watch for. One difference is everyone is paying attention. People didn't care about the details of the patriot act.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Gov. Baker has done the same today in Massachusetts. A one month ban on on- site service starting Tuesday. Any food establishment will be allowed to do delivery or take out even if they didn't previously have a license for it.

[https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2020/03/15/charlie- ba...](https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2020/03/15/charlie-baker-order- gatherings-25-dining-in-restaurants)

EDIT: It's until April 5th, so 3 weeks not a month:

[https://whdh.com/news/all-mass-restaurants-and-bars- ordered-...](https://whdh.com/news/all-mass-restaurants-and-bars-ordered- closed-for-3-weeks-due-to-coronavirus-gatherings-limited-to-25-people/)

<comment><USER37> A license needed for delivery/takeout? How is that justified?

<comment><USER38> Handling food safely requires training and process. Delivering food is a totally different environment than serving it in house.

<comment><USER37> There is nothing complicated about putting food in a delivery box and driving it somewhere.

<comment><USER38> How many meals should you deliver in one delivery? In what order? Where can the food be in the car? (Is it ok to put it on the floor?) How long can the food be allowed to get cold before it's no longer ok to deliver? What are you expected to cover, insurance wise, for your delivery drivers? How is your business prepared if your delivery driver has an accident? How much do you need to contribute to vehicle maintenance? Who owns the vehicle?

Yeah, I'd say it's definitely not just 'throw food in a box' and driving it somewhere.

<comment><USER37> As much as you want, whatever order makes sense, anywhere, yes, FDA says 2 hours in the danger zone, google the rest or get a legalzoom consultation if you're unsure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I have lived in the US for 20 years now - I am a millennial. I am originally from Peru. When all of this started I thought the US was going to handle it. We all were going to rally together and take care of each other. We would exercise social isolation and hold this virus off. The rate the trend is going should be scary for anyone (at least the people reading hacker news). I am surprised of people thinking this won't affect them. If widespread and out of control, it will affect everyone.

Funny enough that my country of birth, Peru, just declared a national emergency and declared quarantine for everyone in the country. Peru is a democratic country - at least for the last 20 years - but it had to enact this to stop the virus from spreading. It's a bold move, it's not a popular one, but it's the right one imho.

We should be doing the same, our current leader is - unfortunately - a coward who will always be afraid of taking a risk. It's on us then, as responsible citizens to make sure we don't go out unless we really need to for a while - at least that we can control. Just my two cents.

<comment><USER40> Americans are going to be handling it but the POTUS has multiple well known weaknesses that was always going to cripple response.

Weird you expected better out fo him.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> This is overall a good move if we want a chance to greatly slow the spread. However it needs to be coordinated with the rest of the country if we want to minimize the total downtime. Shutting down Washington now and having to wait weeks for Idaho to follow (where there are no reported cases) is just going to force Washington to extend theirs as long as it takes for the last state to shut down.

<comment><USER42> Small nit: Boise has one recorded case. It was recorded Friday.

<comment><USER35> How many tests have they done? The spread pretty clearly seems to be all over the US at this point.

<comment><USER42> Right, the actual number of cases is almost certainly over 1. The parent comment just said Idaho had no reported cases which is factually incorrect. The first reported case was on Friday.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Anyone found any good info on the risks of food itself.

Eg kitchen staff is infected, coughs into meal

1\. Do you get if it's cold food, like a salad or sushi?

2\. If yes, do you get it if it's warm food, like indian food?

3\. If yes, do you get if you reheat/microwave the food? If so, what is required/

Have not seen a lot of discussion about this. Did see that in china restaurants would certify the body temperatures of all involved.

<comment><USER43> It transmits in several ways, including droplets:

[https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prepare/transmissi...](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prepare/transmission.html)

And WHO says it lives on surfaces for a couple hours up to several days.

[https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a- coronaviruses](https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-coronaviruses)

So, personally, I'm not eating anything if someone coughs on it or around it. I'm not even buying fresh fruit and veggies at the store right now.

I can't find any information about heating the virus to kill it.

<comment><USER44> > _I 'm not even buying fresh fruit and veggies at the store right now._

Just cook it.

<comment><USER43> Apples? Lettuce?

I mean, I cook some carrots, potatoes, broccoli, yes, but I don't want to risk cross contamination at this time.

<comment><USER29> Pan fried apples are quite good and not hard to do. A little nutmeg and cinnamon. A sprinkle of brown sugar. Maybe a dash of cooking oil.

Yum-my.

Also, you can go looking for historical dishes. Early Americans had recipes that were heavy on things like cabbage and apples together because it might be all you had left in the cellar towards the end of winter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Canlis (fine dining place, think Michelin) made a really interesting switch in order to keep the lights on. They shut down their restaurant and are starting a drive-thru burger stand, a bagel stand, and a meal delivery service, rather than lay off all their workers. I'm going to try their burgers tomorrow.

<comment><USER46> I'd suggest they put a couple of picnic tables out in the parking lot for take-out. Curious about other commercial operations that could satisfy the rule "... all gatherings under 50 participants are prohibited unless previously announced criteria for public health and social distancing are met"? Take-out biergarten? Silent disco?

<comment><USER47> > I'd suggest they put a couple of picnic tables out in the parking lot for > take-out.

Why, though? The whole point is to stop people gathering in public places.

> Curious about other commercial operations that could satisfy the rule

Again, why? These rules weren't put into place as a challenge for entrepreneurs.

<comment><USER46> I want to eat and drink with my family and friends. And it's spring, so I want to do it outdoors.

A food truck with a couple of outdoor tables has got to be lower risk than a full-service bar/restaurant, while still giving us human companionship.

<comment><USER47> The combination of "I want" with "lower risk" (rather than "no risk") speaks to a lot of the problems we are facing right now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Puerto Rico also started a curfew that restricts movement except going to/from work, grocery stores/pharmacies, or health care: [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/15/us/coronavirus-puerto- ric...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/15/us/coronavirus-puerto-rico.html)

I'm in Seattle and, other than these closures, complete movement restrictions would be the next step here.

</comment><comment><USER49> This is a good move. We're obviously moving slower than we ought to and only time will tell how late we are.

The one thing we, in the US, have been consistent in this is that we're too slow to act.

There's obviously a risk of the pendulum swinging the other way but until we see a down tick in cases we have to assume we've got ground to make up.

Case growth won't start decreasing until social distancing is widely adopted.

<comment><USER50> If a country discovers the measures are too strict, it can always reduce them a little bit. The US looks like just a pair of weeks away from disaster, acting now may be enough to make that disaster brief and having the situation under control shortly after.

<comment><USER51> The next 10 days are prime. We do this right now, isolate hard, or it will look more like Italy than we would like.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Similar measures were just mandated in IL. Basically, take out and delivery are your only real options. We are kinda stocked up, but we will both keep ordering in just to keep local businesses going. Our family unit is oddly priviledged during this outbreak.

Tbh, I am slowly starting to get worried as recent FED move again focuses on banks and not on small business relief.

<comment><USER53> The FED's job is monetary policy. It isn't to bail out businesses.

<comment><USER52> Yes and no. Its mandate is to keep the stability of the financial system, price stability, full employment..

As you can see, bailing out businesses, as you framed it, could be helpful in avoiding full fledged system collapse, which just happens to be their mandate.

edit: corrected opening sentence

<comment><USER54> Anything the fed does affects large and perhaps medium sized businesses directly. A couple of percent lower interest rate on their line of credit matters fuck all for small business facing a total collapse in demand.

Same with SBA loans - how much paperwork will it take to owe a huge sum to the government with an uncertain business environment in a few months? A lot of small places will just close.

Fiscal stimulus is the only approach to keep these businesses afloat. Honestly at this point it might be better to skip the middle man and cut checks to individuals.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Also in MA and other states. But VERY important to note: "Restaurants will be allowed to provide take-out and delivery services".

</comment><comment><USER56> As usual, these announcements never come with any promise or a plan of economic relief (or at least reference to plans already made) for businesses force closed, creating more panic. I don't understand why it's so hard to just say: "We will take care of the businesses affected by this policy and more details are forthcoming."

Shutting them down is the right move. Taking care of small businessowners running on thin margins - like mom/pop restaurants - is also the right move.

EDIT: Unless the government has no plans to help small businesses. Which is completely possible and probably even likely.

<comment><USER57> Can't restaurants still offer takeout/delivery?

<comment><USER58> Many of them, no.

And bars, for instance, aren't allowed to serve their primary purpose via delivery. Or movie theaters. Or music venues. Or retail. Or....

It's gonna be a mess, because we already know the government is going to fail to alleviate the impact.

<comment><USER59> Retail can't deliver... What is the primary non-deliverable thing you get from retail?

<comment><USER60> The context was in harm to retail stores that can't do delivery, not in problems for the consumer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> I expect many fast food to just follow Chik fil-a's example of going drive through only. I was wondering when a state would take that option themselves.

Still like comments about original restrictions of larger gatherings, many grocery stores and big box stores can have more people in them than a restaurant and touching more items too

</comment><comment><USER62> Good. Seattle resident here. Have been ordering takeout for the past two weeks and honestly don't understand the large parties I've been seeing in local pubs for the past week. I find it sad that this needs a 'proclamation' from the Governor, when basic common sense is that you need to avoid crowds.

</comment><comment><USER63> For places that don't want to close restaurants. Would it be legal in America for the restaurants to check everyone's temperature before they enter the premise (guests+ cooks+ waiters).

Wouldn't be perfect but could slow transmission down while giving them a way to earn money.

<comment><USER51> People are contagious the entire time.

Right now matters, this is why:

[https://old.reddit.com/r/WeAreNotAsking/comments/fitsej/covi...](https://old.reddit.com/r/WeAreNotAsking/comments/fitsej/covid19_next_week_is_critical_isolate_to_the/)

Basically, we have one shot at this. Max number of unidentified transmitters coupled with max number of potential infected people.

Depending on how many of us will, can isolate hard, 20 days from now the wave of sick, and weaker people hit the hospitals.

We have a 5th the beds per 1000 compared to many of our peer nations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> Illinois governor Pritzer announced the same about 8 hours ago starting tomorrow evening (takeout / delivery would remain open). Conveniently aligning with the closing of schools I guess. I strongly expect tomorrow will be my last day in the office for a while.

</comment><comment><USER63> I know this probably won't be enough, but how about tax exemption for all business affected by shutdown order in 2020 paid by the federal government

</comment><comment><USER65> They've done this in Illinois too. What's happened is people are self- isolating to prevent the spread even though government is pleading with them to do so. So, they're having to force the issue. If people still don't get the hint they'll have to put curfews in place.

<comment><USER65> At this point I hope they do. I'm sick of seeing the governor pleading on television and people not taking him seriously. I have friends that literally don't get that this is much more serious than the flu. There are daily posts on Facebook about how it's a conspiracy of the government to control us or there's posts about how this illness isn't worse than any flu that's come through and it's going to bankrupt people. Just sick, ignorant people that don't give a rats.

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> This is good. You can find in this thread that other states are following the suit. This _might_ , just might if we're lucky, that the curve will start becoming quadratic and then logarithmic.

</comment><comment><USER67> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22583594](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22583594)

</comment><comment><USER68> How long does this go on for? Realistically we can't just live with the world shut down (can we?) with a vaccine far off, this can't be the new normal?

<comment><USER69> I think we're about to find out very quickly exactly how much labor is nonessential.

<comment><USER6> We're going to find out which can work remotely. The "I can haz cheeseburger"s will survive while every arts organization goes under.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> It has been refreshing to see the mask come off of those feigning care about "undesirables" who would be disproportionately affected by this virus. At the end of the day we come down to economic calculations to decide whether to let hundreds of thousands to millions of people die in this country.

The moral choice isn't always the most efficient one. I wonder if we will have the courage to make the moral choice?

</comment><comment><USER71> not trying to be a wise ass in anyway, a legitimate question .. i'm wondering do you have to shutdown a bar that still allows smoking? can the virus even survive on surfaces and in the air if tobacco smoke is present?

<comment><USER72> Smokers are a higher risk group for Covid-19, so you should probably avoid such bars, even if they weren't going to be shutdown.

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> California Governor has just done the same: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22589365](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22589365)

<comment><USER74> Gov. Newsom is only providing "guidance".... The local bars by me are promising to stay open since its not a legal order :(

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> NYC too

</comment><comment><USER76> Aside, but I want to call out Miami Dade Public Schools for being the only public school system I'm aware of that has had a contingency plan in place for years:

 _On rare occasions it may be necessary to close a school(s) due to weather or other emergency situations. If this occurs, the district will make every effort to ensure that our students ' educational opportunities continue while at home. Throughout the years, the district has compiled a comprehensive collection of online content and digital resources. The district also provides mobile devices for students to check out for home use to ensure that district students (non charter) can continue their learning without interruption.

...

The Instructional Continuity Plan (ICP) has three components: Content Delivery, Mobile Devices, and Internet Access. Content Delivery explains which resources students will use for core instruction and which materials can be used as supplemental resources to enhance core instruction. Mobile Devices provides the steps the district is taking to ensure that any student who needs a mobile device to access the instructional resources will be provided with one, upon request, for the duration of the schools' closure. ... Internet Access poses the greatest challenge to ensuring that M-DCPS students can continue their studies while at home. The district has taken steps throughout the years to assist students in getting access to the internet at home through projects such as The 1Million Project; however, partnerships with service providers is crucial to providing free or reduced-cost internet service to students should the district close in case of emergency situations._

[http://icp.dadeschools.net/#!/fullWidth/2943](http://icp.dadeschools.net/#!/fullWidth/2943)

Also:

 _Miami-Dade County Public Schools (M-DCPS) is continuing its efforts to provide support to students and their families during school closures, which begin tomorrow, March 16. From distance learning, to community feedings, to facilitating childcare for essential medical personnel, M-DCPS stands firm in its commitment to support the South Florida community during this time of uncertainty.

A support hotline was established for teachers, students, and parents seeking assistance with distance learning.

During school closures, students and families may pick up hot meals to go, both breakfast and lunch, between 9:00 a.m. and 12:30 p.m.

A Mental Health Services hotline will be available for students.

An Employee Assistance Program hotline will also be available._

[http://covid19.dadeschools.net/#!/fullWidth/3024](http://covid19.dadeschools.net/#!/fullWidth/3024)

In contrast, I am extremely disappointed in how haphazard things are going in NC. I'm particularly disappointed in the UNC system which appears to have done zero advanced planning.

<comment><USER77> Hurricane prep helps with lots of emergency scenarios, it seems.

<comment><USER76> I don't think this is hurricane prep. I was in Miami for Andrew. Hurricanes knock out power for weeks. Kids wouldn't be able to learn from home during that. I can't really think of another scenario where kids are stuck at home while infrastructure is all fine other than the one we currently find ourselves in.

<comment><USER77> I agree, but if you are prepped for a hurricane, you should be ok in this scenario.

We still have water, sewer, power, and internet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER78> one has to wonder. If this virus didnt disproportionately target baby boomers...would we still see this level of response?

</comment><comment><USER79> My Daughter was working as a temp between jobs and the work has now been stopped, she had two second interviews planned in Sydney this week now both positions have been retracted and nobody hiring or interviewing, she has about 7 weeks of cash savings and 4 months lease on a rental. Oh and no unemployment benefit or subsidies as she is New Zealander working in Australia.

Young People at the lowest risk from this virus are going to be much worse off than just catching a fucking bad cold.

The UK's answer to the problem is starting to look a lot more sensible than total economic chaos being caused by all other methods.

Happy to be downvoted to nothing because I am so over this.

<comment><USER80> > Young People at the lowest risk from this virus are going to be much worse > off than just catching a fucking bad cold.

It's not a "fucking bad cold" for young people.

\- Over 50% of ICU patients in Netherlands from COVID-19 are under 50. [1]

\- Over 50% of ICU patients in France are under 60. [2]

\- Over 40% of patients requiring hospitalization in China were under 50. [3]

Young people are not invincible. The fact that they can use up a significant chunk of already scarce medical resources suggests that we really shouldn't be sending that message and encouraging young people to not give a sh*t about the epidemic.

[1] [https://www.ad.nl/dossier-coronavirus/40-a-50-nederlandse- co...](https://www.ad.nl/dossier-coronavirus/40-a-50-nederlandse- coronapatienten-op-intensive-cares-meer-dan-de-helft-is-onder-de- vijftig~a058aad2/)

[2] [https://www.motherjones.com/coronavirus- updates/2020/03/300-...](https://www.motherjones.com/coronavirus- updates/2020/03/300-people-with-coronavirus-are-in-intensive-care-in-france- most-of-them-are-under-60/)

[3] [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2002032](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2002032)

<comment><USER81> Those numbers measure the wrong thing. The proportion of young people in care means nothing without knowing also the proportion of young people infected.

<comment><USER82> South Korea had a large proportion of young infected people: [https://medium.com/@andreasbackhausab/coronavirus-why-its- so...](https://medium.com/@andreasbackhausab/coronavirus-why-its-so-deadly-in- italy-c4200a15a7bf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> Can't wait to lose my job over this complete overreaction to this virus.

</comment><comment><USER84> Great action, well done

</comment><comment><USER85> Welp, I guess my trip to Sakuracon is officially cancelled...again.

<comment><USER86> heaven forbid you miss a weekend of fun so that some of our fellow humans might live

<comment><USER2> Personal attacks are not allowed on HN. Please review [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and please don't post like this here.

Note this one: " _Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that 's easier to criticize. Assume good faith._"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER87> Most restaurants around here already had 1/4th of customers and almost never over 10 at a time sufficiently distanced away. It still provided workers to come in any way and get whatever minimum wage they can. I feel this move is boneheaded and is just a knee jerk reaction without actually knowing the above fact. Most folks working in restaurants don't even have a week worth of savings. They don't have investments or own homes. They still have to pay rents pretty soon. Governer is ignoring all of these to make an appearance that he is making swift aggressive action. He has made zero provisions for all of these people who will be on the verge of losing their roof. The least he could have done would be to mandate no evictions during these closures so the financial load is transferred to rich rent collectors and investors with sufficient fat as opposed to these poor people.

</comment><comment><USER88> This feels like a much worse outcome than just taking the virus on the chin and letting 40-70% of the population get sick. That may seem contrarian, but this panic feels worse than the actual virus. More people will die from economic hardship than from COVID.

<comment><USER89> You're talking about conceivably millions in the U.S. alone.

55% * 6% fatality rate * 330 million is >10,000,000.

That's a lot of people to sacrifice to keep bars and restaurants open.

<comment><USER88> 6% where are you getting that number? The highest I've seen is 3% and that's in people older than 80...

<comment><USER89> [https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099\(20\)30195-X/fulltext)

So our best sets of data are the WHO analysis of Wuhan which puts it at 5.6%. And the diamond princess which gives us a 1% fatality rate. But here's the big catch, those infected on the Diamond Princess got all of the medical care they needed.

And the issue is once our healthcare system gets overwhelmed the rate will shift from 1% up to the 5.6% (And Wuhan could have gotten much worse)

<comment><USER90> Also, South Korea was around 1%. It's a number that has grown in credibility, unfortunately. I was hoping 0.1%.

<comment><USER89> It's awful when you consider that losing 1% of the population is the best case scenario.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Meet Your Microbes: uBiome Offers New Service - <AUTHOR> http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/meet-your-microbes-ubiome-offers-new-service/

<comment><USER2> I hope they're ready for the people with Morgellons. Some of them are persistent and not as rational as they could be. I can see this service being initially popular with the Morgellons crowd until the results return negative for whatever mysterious organism is supposed to be the cause.

I sound dismissive of Morgellons, but I'm not. It sounds terrible, and it's a shame that people have misdiagnosed itch disorders. But an itch disorder isn't unknown unfindable alien bugs.</comment>


Ask HN: Best books you read in 2019? - <AUTHOR> Mine were the Three Body Problem and The Unicorn Project <comment><USER2> Kozo Yamamura, Too Much Stuff - Capitalism in Crisis</comment>


Boston Dynamics Robot dog enforces social distancing in Singapore park - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/av/technology-52619568/coronavirus-robot-dog-enforces-social-distancing-in-singapore-park <comment><USER2> Is it just me, or is this absolutely terrifying?

<comment><USER3> I'm just waiting for someone to step into frame and kick it off its feet.

If that was the UK kids would be kicking it on sight the minute the news crew left. If it responds with some kind of weaponry then it's terrifying.</comment></comment>


Egghead.io - short screencasts about AngularJS - <AUTHOR> http://egghead.io/

<comment><USER2> John's an awesome guy. He has a great ability to consume technologies and present them in a clear and concise way.

These videos are professional and helped me quickly get up to speed with Angular (the greatest web framework yet).

John's videos are also featured on the Angular website.

PS - John also has the great pleasure of being a developer evangelist for Webstorm (the greatest web IDE) at Jetbrains.

PPS - You should follow him.

<comment><USER3> What a strange comment. Why is Angular the greatest framework yet? Why is Webstorm the greatest web IDE?

I'm against worshiping tools...

<comment><USER2> No worshipping. Just (parenthetically) expressing an opinion.

<comment><USER4> It's fine to express an opinion, but for the sake of others, could you state why you believe they are so great? And if you really want to help, please state other frameworks, IDE's or text editors you have used.

<comment><USER5> At the same time, couldn't you do your own research and come to your own conclusion like he has?

<comment><USER6> I don't really contribute a whole lot to Hacker News, but generally on here (unlike reddit) people are expected to back up their opinion. Not make sweeping statements and expect the other person to research if the person was right or wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Thanks everyone!

I never expected Egghead to get so popular before I even launched a single course... I don't even have the logo done yet!

Anyway, keep checking back and/or follow the twitter account @eggheadio for updates (until I get a proper news feed built-in). I've got plenty more videos in the pipeline!

<comment><USER8> Totally awesome. Thanks for providing such an amazing resource to the community.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I just posted these less than a week ago on the Angular mailing list, and I think I might have blown any potential cover you had John... or at least any time to get a logo done =) Sorry! [https://groups.google.com/d/topic/angular/pvV6JOTHXiA/discus...](https://groups.google.com/d/topic/angular/pvV6JOTHXiA/discussion)

That said, beginners should watch the first 10 videos or so. Once you're comfortable with the idea behind directives, start watching the isolate scope videos. Those are golden. I've spent a TON of time staring at the angular directive docs trying to grok the different transclusion and the different scope declarations, with no luck. These videos are what actually taught me how this stuff works. They were so desperately needed.

Thank you John!

<comment><USER7> You're welcome. I made them just for you :)

<comment><USER10> These are really nice. I had wanted to get into angular and after watching a few of these I've already had many 'aha!' moments. Thanks for the hard work.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> John I just want to say thank you. Unfortunately text cannot quite convey how grateful I am for you making these videos but if I could tell you in person you would know.

I developed a web app in Angular.js and find it a great framework to work with, but unfortunately there wasn't any great way to learn it when I was starting out. The documentation makes sense once you know Angular but it isn't good for someone just starting out with the framework. I actually remember watching your videos on youtube about writing directives last summer and thought they were one of the most concise yet unassuming "tutorial" videos in the tech world I have ever seen.

Thank you!

</comment><comment><USER12> Can anyone share how does it compare to knockout.js? Coming from a .net winforms background, the knockout.js seems more 'home' for me (similar to the databinding in winforms), whereas there is a lot of 'new' concepts in Angular.js and I'm kind of lost in their tutorial...

<comment><USER13> It weights more than KO but also does a lot more. The 2 way databinding is easier than KO (don't need observable/computed, just simple JS objects). Since I've tried Angular I've not used KO on any new project.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> This is great. One of the trickiest parts of learning AngularJS is figuring out how directives work, and how to write your own effective directives. The Angular team posted a couple of vids the other day that helped me a lot [http://blog.angularjs.org/2012/11/about-those- directives.htm...](http://blog.angularjs.org/2012/11/about-those- directives.html)

I'd love to see more videos focusing on directives -- as I think the rest of it is fairly straight-forward. It looks like there are a number of vids here that address directives, so I'm looking forward to watching them.

<comment><USER15> I'm at that point right now with Angular. The whole thing still feels like black magic to me. I can't get out of the jquery mindset.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I've been watching those videos lately because as a non developer, I find it difficult to wrap my head around Backbone. I tried the tut+ Premium tutorial, CodeSchool & CodePeep videos without luck.

So I though maybe it's the framework that's not for me and looked into AngularJS and stumble upon those videos and boy those it make AngularJS SO MUCH EASY to understand. Or maybe it's just that angular is easier for me the understand than Backbone.

Anyway, Awesome videos and very easy to follow. Also that Webstorm IDE look nice :)

<comment><USER17> I wouldn't recommend webapps as step one for a new developer. Remove all these frameworks and toolkits and just get comfortable with JavaScript first. Do problems like these: <http://projecteuler.net/problems>

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Unrelated:

I am trying to convince a client to use angular instead of backbone.

They are however thrown off by the fact that there aren't many startups using it in production. And I can't figure a satisfactory answer to that. Any explanations why is that?

<comment><USER19> Tell them Google (TM) is using it. That should still carry some weight.

<comment><USER20> To add some weight to parent comments, there are lots of comments from Googlers using AngularJS here <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4113530>. I recently switched from Backbone to Angular and have no plans on going back. [edit: I'm not a Googler, I just use Angular]

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> That guy knows how to explain stuff. I also like that those videos are short and he tries to keep it simple and focused on one thing.

I've tried to watch some videos made by Miško Hevery and others and they may be also great... but some of those videos are more than hour long and for me that is just a bit too much to swallow. Seems like there are so many unnecessary details that it makes it difficult to get and remember the important stuff.

John Lindquist seems to know how to gradually build up to more and more detailed knowledge... and I love it.

</comment><comment><USER22> I'm really loving this 2-4 minute video format. Small pieces like this are much easier to consume and remember.

</comment><comment><USER23> lol, I posted this a week ago on HN and it didn't seem to get any traction. Strange the submission didn't combine on submit seeing how they have the same url. <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5115302>

</comment><comment><USER24> I've been wokring with Angular for several months. John showed me in 3 minutes what "transclusion" is, something the documentation has failed to do even after numerous readings. The format, examples and explanations in these tutorial are perfect - keep'em coming

</comment><comment><USER25> This is awesome. I've watched some of John's AngularJS videos before, and they've been the best resources on the subject that I've seen.

His earlier stuff on ActionScript 3 and design patterns was superb, too.

</comment><comment><USER21> I wish others used Egghead.io as an example how to do video tutorials. Finally high-res videos where you can read the code with no trouble.

</comment><comment><USER8> Donated. These videos are top notch. Looking forward to many more.

</comment><comment><USER26> Well done. One nit. The IDE interaction is annoying.

</comment><comment><USER27> Very cool resource. Thanks for sharing.

</comment><comment><USER28> Very nice. I love the fact he is using AngularJS with Zurb Foundation instead of Bootstrap.

<comment><USER29> That's my current stack as well. Though some of the recent changes in the next version of Bootstrap might tempt me back.

<comment><USER30> Can you please elaborate, what's special about the next version?

<comment><USER31> Here's the v3 roadmap <http://blog.getbootstrap.com/2012/12/10/bootstrap-3-plans/></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Space X CR6 First stage landing - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAzwuEmZcmE <comment><USER2> Non-engineers see this as a failure. Engineers and scientists see this as an awe-inspiring success from which to learn, iterate and try again. I don't fault reporters for exagerated headlined focusing on failure. They don't know any better. That is not what their lives are about and most might be challenged to understand that nothing in that video constitutes failure in the context of evolving a design. In fact, failure is absolutely necessary in order to better understand the problem you are trying to solve.

<comment><USER3> I don't agree that failure is absolutely necessary. I think success is generally more informative, because it gives you data about something that works end to end.

If your rocket blows up on the launch pad, you just learned that you shouldn't overpressure your fuel tank (or w/e). But if your rocket lifts off, goes to space, and lands, you learn thousands of things that work that you can use again.

<comment><USER4> I strongly disagree.

I have seen a company be destroyed because they got things almost right, from the beginning. This "success" informed their every decision and created an enormous resistance to trying anything new and in the end it turned out almost simply wasn't good enough. The initial success destroyed them.

<comment><USER5> That destroyed two Space Shuttles and killed their crews.

Both the failing field joints ("O-rings") and detaching external tank insulation weren't _quite_ bad enough to kill a Shuttle, were all but ignored, until of course they couldn't be ignored.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I can't help but feel bad for that one poor little RCS thruster doing its level best to keep the first stage upright, but ultimately running out of fuel.

<comment><USER6> Judging from the ensuing explosion there was still fuel left over.

<comment><USER7> Making it a little puzzling ask to why the engines didn't try harder to lower the vertical velocity on approach. Perhaps there are improvements to be made in the control systems.

<comment><USER8> I have a feeling their engineers may have considered this. This is after all rocket science.

<comment><USER7> I also have this feeling, but from my limited experience with control systems you might want to try the simplest first.

There is a tremendous amount of variables to consider, and the analysis of how to take each into account is non trivial -- if you don't measure some variable precisely enough it might make the whole system less stable, the solution might get worse due to increased computational load, the conditioning might degrade, etc.

So with the number of controls they have and the predictive models available, I'm sure they're actually scrambling to refine their systems right now.

<comment><USER9> The thrust to weight ratio of a single engine firing is so high that they have no option but to fire at the last moment. Firing for longer would result in the rocket going back up, it can't hover.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> As if this weren't impressive enough already, according to a comment made by Scott Manley[1] it sounds like the final maneuver (where it appears the rocket is making a fairly strong lateral correction) is entirely intentional. Not sure if anyone here can confirm or deny the claim, but apparently the trajectory prior to landing is not supposed to be exactly above the barge as one would expect - I understand it may be an attempt to limit exposure/damage to the barge in case of failure.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9I55o8hQgs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9I55o8hQgs)

<comment><USER11> just the fact they can hit a barge after falling back from space impresses me. I wonder if there are any islands they could use instead, surely they had to have looked for one. Would a stationary oil platform work better?

<comment><USER12> They do launches with different trajectories, so you'll run out of fuel if the landing site is fixed and you're launching the rocket in another direction. Besides, you'll anyway need something to transport it back to mainland.

If all this goes well though, the intention is to eventually fly it back and land it on the mainland.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Elon says it's in slow motion too

"High resolution, color corrected, slow motion rocket landing video [https://youtu.be/BhMSzC1crr0"](https://youtu.be/BhMSzC1crr0")

[https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/588463193070022656](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/588463193070022656)

<comment><USER14> How high did it get? Does it burn the whole way down (I assume it uses those little X-wings to 'fly down?) When does it start the descent burn? How fast is it going at this point? How much does it weigh, what sort of forces are we talking about? How hard is landing this puppy in terms of human achievement? Top 10% of tricky things humans have so far achieved?

[edit] wouldn't it be easier to hover it a few meters above land and grab it with some big robot arms?

<comment><USER15> It burns three times after the second stage detaches. The first is to get the landing zone closer to the takeoff, the second slows it down from 1300 m/s to about 250 m/s, the third slows it to (hopefully) 0 m/s on the landing pad. Here's a diagram: [http://media2.s-nbcnews.com/i/newscms/2014_51/812491/141217-...](http://media2.s-nbcnews.com/i/newscms/2014_51/812491/141217-launchprofile_f4fcb1ed474952c078a75c07a96cae6f.jpg)

If the 'x-wings' are what I think you're referring to, they're the landing legs. They are shaped like that to have as minimal impact on the air resistance of the ascending rocket as is possible. They open just before landing.

It can't hover. Even just using a single one of the nine engines, the engine can't be throttled down enough for the rocket to hover. The landing method relies on what they call a 'hover-slam', where they fire the engine during landing to slow it down just before it touches.

Landing this is extremely impressive. It is going four times faster than the speed of sound, and they are landing it on a pad smaller than a football field. Vertical landing of a returning rocket has never been done. It's also the key step in the process of dramatically lowering the cost of spaceflight which could usher in a new era of technology around earth, and on other planets.

<comment><USER16> What's the difference between the tests on earth (as seen on youtube etc) where the engine runs the whole time and seems to display good throttle control and this type of landing?

<comment><USER17> The Grasshopper tests had a full tank of fuel and (if I recall) additional ballast, to counteract the thrust of the engines. That's what allowed them to hover and perform the various low-velocity translation tests.

Of course, these barge landings are the first high-velocity tests, so there'll be kinks to work out.

<comment><USER16> Thanks, that would explain that.

I was impressed by how small the barge looked compared with the F9 it's clever that the F9 can autonomously target such a small area. If they keep targeting 'Just Read the Instructions' by the time land based landings come to be it will be nailed. Awesome stuff!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It was jaw dropping as-is, but when they finally do stick a landing I imagine the engineers will be running around like little kids screaming with the pure joy and exhilaration of it all. I hope they share the video at mission control as well when the day does come!

The sheer drama of how fast it comes down, the awesome power of the Merlin engine just blasting away delta-v... I wonder how many g's it takes on that final burn?

Would a drougue have simply added too much weight or too much complexity to deploy? I guess slowing down the freefall velocity before the burn just doesn't really help all that much?

Amazing that Falcon Heavy will have _27_ Merlins on board.

<comment><USER19> A drogue would seem unnecessary; a Merlin can scrub off plenty of m/s real fast, and if it can't do it fast enough, they have more of them. In fact, it might be easier if the thing is coming in faster, because you get to run the engine a bit longer and have more time to adjust your aim with the engine's greater control authority.

Anyway, they don't seem to have any problem managing the vertical velocity. It's been the horizontal each time. And this time, only a tiny bit off.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> The best part of their reusable rocket project is how incremental the progress has been. I'm not sure I would have appreciated the difficulty of what they're doing _as much_ without these failures.

<comment><USER21> Even cooler is how they're pulling off these tests on production flights.

<comment><USER22> Getting paid to develop product features is the best way to do it!

<comment><USER23> A ton of lessons here.

If you deliver your primary objectives well and keep improving at everything else in the process, your customers will keep on loving you for it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> This is an "unpublished video" on a non-SpaceX YouTube channel. Who uploaded this?

<comment><USER25> From reading the comments over on /r/spacex, this looks to originally have been an unlisted video in SpaceX's youtube channel, and shortly after appearing on reddit it was made private. Not before several people had made copies, however, and re-uploaded it (one of those people has the same reddit username as the youtube channel linked here).

That said, impressive video. This shows how close they are truly getting.

Unfortunately, it doesn't stop clickbait headlines that imply that this was a setback (for a while, drudgereport was running a story with the headline akin to "SpaceX rocket fails to land on landing pad"). Maybe that is why the video was made private, out of fear of appearing like a failure.

Of course, now that the cat is out of the bag they are better off embracing the video.

<comment><USER26> According to a comment from a collaborator of Musk, saying they dealt with larger public distrust before, clickbait headlines won't make a difference to Musk and his team. I'm sure they'll get through with this one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> this footage give a real sense of how close they are to getting it right

<comment><USER28> Watching it made me realize I only had an abstract idea of how difficult it was to even attempt this. It's insanely hard, and they're so close!

<comment><USER29> Yes its a very hard problem but what makes it hard ? Is it engineering of the components, algorithms or expensive tests and economics of it ? Maybe people before Elon Musk were not interested in solving this problem not because its technically hard problem but because their existing business model is much more lucrative.

<comment><USER19> From a technical standpoint, it's tough. You've got big expensive machinery that operates at or past any reasonable limits in extreme conditions and moreover gets destroyed with every test if you make the slightest mistake. I know that when I end up with an iteration interval of an hour it seems like development takes forever. SpaceX is able to test, what, every couple months?

But the economics is probably more important. The incumbents have such sky- high development costs that reusability seemed like an impossible task to do economically. Last time anyone tried they came up with STS, which was highly capable but ultimately dangerous and ruinously expensive. A new reusable system seemed like it would take half a trillion dollars in development, and would probably never have the flight rate to make it worthwhile. Elon thought that he could do it better. NASA believes designing a reusable system would be too expensive for them. They're probably both right.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Come on people, have a go at it yourselves:

[http://moonlander.seb.ly/](http://moonlander.seb.ly/)

<comment><USER31> Or even better:

[https://kerbalspaceprogram.com/](https://kerbalspaceprogram.com/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I wonder what happened there. Looks at 4 seconds the guidance system figured it needed to pull an ultra manoeuvre to slow the the horizontal speed(was drifting left) but ended up with a solution putting the rocket upright again at nearly 0m. If it would have left some altitude for stabilizing I think they would have had it.

Arm chair rocket science is fun.

<comment><USER33> According to Elon's tweet that seems to have disappeared by now, they had static friction in bipropellant valves introduce a lag that the control system couldn't handle.

<comment><USER34> Can you or someone else please explain what that means in slightly less technical terms without dumbing it down too much?

<comment><USER33> A control system is a feedback loop that connects measurements (orientation, speed, acceleration) and steering (grid fins orientation, engine power and gimbaling, RCS/other means of attitude control) in order to steer the entire system into a desired state (in this case, upright orientation and 0m/s velocity exactly at the point of touchdown). The control system measures the state of the rocket and _directly_ adjusts the control inputs - i.e. it's not a series of if-else instructions, but more like "engine_gimbal_x = P * yaw + I * integral(yaw) + D * dyaw/dt"[0] - the inputs and outputs are wired together through a set of mathematical transformations.

The "lag" is a delay between your steering signal and the state of the system changing in response. In this case, because of static friction, valves controlling fuel flow reacted with delay (I'm not sure if they're talking about Merlin's valves or attitude control engines though) - so the rocket did not react immediately after being told to do so.

There's a whole math field around that topic, known as "control theory". There are ways to determine the limits of inputs and outputs that will allow your control system to keep everything in the desired state. In this case however, the input lag wasn't accounted for and it pushed the system out of the space of stable states, beyond the ranges where the control unit could keep up with the changes, so it ended up oversteering. Fortunately, in this case it's mostly a software problem, i.e. they could tweak the controller to deal with the lag.

The best way to imagine it is to recall your first experiences with a bike or ice skates - trying to balance yourself on them is exactly the kind of thing the rocket was doing, probably with similar results.

My control theory is a bit rusty nowadays, but I hope this clears up some things.

[0] - if you ever hear about "PID controller", this is exactly where the name comes from - proportional, integral, derivative.

<comment><USER34> This was exactly what I was looking for. Thanks for taking the time to go into this level of detail.

So looks like if they can solve for modeling this latency (likely a software problem), there's a decent shot they'll nail it the next time around?

<comment><USER33> If this turns out to be the only problem then yes, they have a decent chance of doing a proper landing the next time around.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Why did it explode in such a dramatic fashion? I thought the booster was almost entirely empty when it returns to the barge.

<comment><USER36> There is always some extra fuel and oxidizer, as it is used to slow the vehicle, and is needed until touchdown. If the vehicle were to run out of propellant before landing, it would crash. In addition, the LOX makes any combustion spectacular.

<comment><USER37> Complete destruction is obviously expensive. Finding a way to prevent an explosion if it falls over after landing seems worthwhile.

If it hovered for 5 seconds at .5 meters, for example, could it burn off enough extra fuel?

<comment><USER38> > If it hovered for 5 seconds at .5 meters, for example, could it burn off > enough extra fuel?

The Falcon 9 cannot hover. The thrust of the single landing engine, even when throttled down to minimum, will provide significant lift to the empty rocket. That's part of what makes this maneuver so difficult and so awesome: it's called the hoverslam, where you achieve 0m altitude and 0m/s velocity at time = 0.

For reference, though, the Grasshopper/F9R-dev1, could hover due to it only having 3 engines, not 9, and because they could ballast it with additional fuel.

<comment><USER33> > _it 's called the hoverslam, where you achieve 0m altitude and 0m/s velocity > at time = 0_

Also known as making a "suicide burn", at least in the KSP world.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> It must be amazing working in a field where failure is almost as exciting as success.

What's the main obstacle to slowing down and stabilizing the rocket on its descent to the platform? Is it just a matter of speed or also the shape of the rocket and its center of gravity? Would a set of 3 parachutes might slow it down a little bit or at the very least straighten it before the rockets need to kick in saving some fuel?

<comment><USER19> SpaceX seems to be able to stabilize fine with RCS and/or their grid fins. The rocket design must be reasonably stable--even tail-first.

I don't think incoming velocity is much of a problem. Terminal velocity is gonna be no more than 90 m/s. The engines on that stage are more than capable of slowing it down--and fast. In fact, they're too powerful--it can't hover.

<comment><USER39> If it's a matter of control then all it needs is just a bit more fine tuning. My money is on success next time they try it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Anybody know anything about the tech they're using to guide the stage to the barge? Since the flight is so short, I suppose they could get a GPS position on the barge at liftoff and pre-program that as the initial target, but I'd think they need some kind of terminal guidance actually tracking the barge to hit it reliably. Maybe visual or radar, or a radio beacon or something?

<comment><USER13> On the live feed, just after +1:30 I heard "Recovery platform has acquisition signal"

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> We know it does three separate burns while coming back down (Boostback, entry burn, landing burn).

I wonder if each burn starts with the RCS thrusters to turn the stage "nose up".

i.e. when it's free falling, does it always roll around and fall nose down, requiring RCS to get it back to nose up?

It would be awesome to see footage from the entire return trip. Do they have cameras mounted on stage 1?

<comment><USER41> From what I've seen there are vanes on the top that guide it down, keeping it upright during reentry and descent.

[http://images.gizmag.com/inline/crs-5-crash-5.jpg](http://images.gizmag.com/inline/crs-5-crash-5.jpg)

<comment><USER42> They're called grid fins:

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

I believe they are less to "keep it upright", but for better accuracy. The rocket doesn't really having a hard time staying upright because all of the weight is on the bottom where the engines are.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Is there a reason you couldn't have things on the side of the landing pad that "grab" onto it and secure it?

It could be as simple as a huge ring of cable that just closes around the top of the rocket, then pulls it tight on all sides- like the guidelines on a tower to keep it stable.

Maybe they don't want to do that because they think they can do it without it?

<comment><USER33> > _Maybe they don 't want to do that because they think they can do it without > it?_

If they master vertical landing without external support equipment, they can pull it off on Mars as well. I think that's their other goal here.

<comment><USER44> That's certainly the case. It has to be entirely self-contained to the rocket.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> What happens once it lands successfully?

Won't one stray wave tip it right over into the ocean?

Those landing struts are only 1/10 the length of the rocket.

If this wasn't so tall, it wouldn't be nearly the problem that it is.

Are they perhaps really trying to develop a Dragon landing system?

And using this extra tall rocket as a worst-case scenario?

<comment><USER46> I'm not an expert, but here's my understanding:

> What happens once it lands successfully?

It becomes a lot easier to get permission to attempt a landing on dry land. But, as I understand it, they will always need to land some rockets at sea. In the long run, they hope that they can then re-use the rocket, which will drastically reduce the cost of launches.

> Are they perhaps really trying to develop a Dragon landing system?

They almost certainly are, but this is unrelated to that, I believe.

> And using this extra tall rocket as a worst-case scenario?

No. The length of the rocket is ultimately determined by the amount of fuel it needs to carry. The first stage will always be very long like this. Note that this rocket came from a successful mission which launched a Dragon capsule to the ISS on a re-supply/science mission.

<comment><USER47> >But, as I understand it, they will always need to land some rockets at sea.

Yeah, this is something I didn't realize. Flying back to land requires fuel, which cuts into the payload capacity. If a payload is too close to capacity, a sea landing may be the only option.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> "Just Read the Instructions"? Sounds very Culturey.

<comment><USER33> That's straight from Banks. As is the other barge, that is to be named "Of Course I Still Love You".

[http://www.tor.com/blogs/2015/01/elon-musk-iain-m-banks- just...](http://www.tor.com/blogs/2015/01/elon-musk-iain-m-banks-just-read- the-instructions)

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Anyone know how fast the engine's gimbal is? The video makes it look like the gimbal lags significantly behind the angle of the rocket, so even when you're rotating one way, you end up burning more toward that angle as the engine slowly gimbals to the other side.

Granted, this is in slow motion. I just would've expected the engine to be gimballing to the other side even before there was a noticeable rotation.

</comment><comment><USER50> It's interesting to think that if you are building rockets, up til now you've never really gotten to take the rocket apart _after_ flying it - it's burnt up in the atmosphere or at the bottom of the ocean somewhere. I imagine there will be lots of interesting insights that come out of recovering, undamaged, a flown first stage and taking it apart to see what's experienced wear etc.

<comment><USER51> NASA has been recovering their rockets from ocean landings for some time.

See: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gbtulv0mnlU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gbtulv0mnlU)

<comment><USER33> But only after getting them totally messed up by salt water. Also, those were solid-fuel rockets, which are significantly simpler than liquid-fuel ones. There's probably a lot to learn from an undamaged liquid-fuel first stage that went to space.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Question: Why don't they land into the water instead of a hard surface? (Wouldn't this give them more leeway in terms of impulse?)

Edit: i.e. landing on a net stretched (under the lake/ocean-surface) by 3 or 4 ships - reel the net it in to raise stage out of the water, I'm pretty sure seawater is _not_ significantly corrosive from 2-3 hours of exposure.

<comment><USER53> The eventual goal is to land it on land, they're only doing water landings right now due to the high chance of failure. In the future, the first stage will land back at the rocket pad, which massively reduces the logistics for re-using it.

There's a cool mock-up video of what that might look like: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ca6x4QbpoM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ca6x4QbpoM)

<comment><USER52> So you're saying the real cost-savings don't kick in until you're landing it back on the pad, hence salvage from sea is only important as far as perfecting the technology?

<comment><USER54> Yep. They're doing it at sea because they're in the late alpha stage of this reusable program.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Seems that the control system only tries to guide it on the X & Y axis, but if I was controlling it and saw it coming in at that steep angle, I'd fire hard on the Z axis to try to raise it up, fix the angle, and then lower it down again.

Is it correct to say that this landing control system never tries raising the craft vertically?

<comment><USER13> It's tricky because it can't hover, one engine on minimum provides too much thrust.

So if you do raise it up, you'd have to stop the engine, then wait a little and re-light it again.. which I think is tricky to do, and the engines only have so many "re-light" cycles in them, so you don't want to use up too many , else you can't re-use the thing for another real flight.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> If any of the engines has a TWR above one when landing, even at it's lowest setting, i can't help but wonder why don't they use a smaller engine which can be more effectively used to land.

I'm sure theres a perfectly good reason for this, there's a reason SpaceX has its reputation, but i'm curious as to why.

<comment><USER15> For one, developing reliable rocket engines takes a long time, you can't just whip up a new one. The current Merlin has a very large throttling range already when compared to existing engines. The size of the engines they use now is defined by the need to get payload's to space, the landing has to be secondary.

<comment><USER57> Grasshopper was able to hover, or even perform a powered descent and was probably lighter than an F9 first stage, so I don't think this can't be it. They likely do have an engine configuration capable fo a lower minimum thrust, but they're choosing not to use it presumably because it's not optimal for the primary mission, and they believe it's not necessary for the landing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> I almost think it would be easier to let it do what this video shows, and build a giant metal net to just prevent it from sinking. Or is that harder than landing on a small platform?

<comment><USER59> My thoughts too, but I guess any ingress of sea water makes it necessary to junk the engines. Also, once you've solved the 'landing problem' once, presumably the method can be reused on each and every subsequent landing; if you are looking at many such landings it becomes worth doing it 'once' and properly.

<comment><USER33> > _if you are looking at many such landings it becomes worth doing it 'once' > and properly._

Yup; the point is, SpaceX is not trying to just _recover_ the first stage, they're trying to solve the vertical-landing of rockets for rapid reusability - which is vital not only for cost reduction, but for their plans to go to Mars. Because if they solve landing here, they can use the very same technique to land on Moon, Mars and other planets.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Pretty inspiring after all this time that the problem is not so much getting stuff up, but landing it successfully. I kind of feel like this is where we should have been in the 70s.

<comment><USER60> Pretty sure the original plan was mars after the moon. The cold war shifted away from the space race, and we built skylab instead. Some of the mars plans were pretty crazy. send 3 rockets. 1 with crew and supplies, 2 for the return trip. 2 just in case something went wrong.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> I wonder if you could put thrust deflectors on the legs, then vary the fold out to help stabilise it just before landing.

</comment><comment><USER26> Someone on ArsTechnica said it was a sticky valve causing thrust lag and trajectory swing.. anyone thought the same ?

</comment><comment><USER62> That's tricky stuff.

What was the intention behind not doing a water landing, like with the Space Shuttle boosters/tank?

<comment><USER63> I think the plan is to eventually land it somewhere that it can be checked, refueled, and sent straight back to space.

The barge, I suspect, is simply for safety/liability at this point ;)

(Even if I'm dead wrong, and they want to land it on a barge forever: seawater is some nasty, corrosive shit that I wouldn't want my rocket dunked into! :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> Such a bummer! So close. Keep it up guys, you'll get it soon!

<comment><AUTHOR> That's two for two for getting to the ship, definitely not a bummer!

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> Any info on how much damage the barge took from that explosion?

<comment><USER65> "Droneship is fine. No hull breach and repairs are minor. Impact overpressure is closer to a fast fire than an explosion."

[https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/588490238936240129](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/588490238936240129)

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> this might be a silly question but why can't they use parachutes? wouldn't a mostly empty rocket float? or is there an issue with the salt water and whatnot

<comment><USER67> They intend for it to land on land in the future, not out at sea. For that they cannot use parachutes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> Was this filmed from a drone? I couldn't find any info.

<comment><USER69> In the middle of the ocean It seems doubtful... I'm also intrigued by the angle - maybe a helicopter?

<comment><USER68> Plausible it could be launched from the landing platform prior to the attempt. Although, you'd think a drone could have a closer viewpoint. Anyway, very cool to see.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> It looks like the main engines didn't cut quick enough.

</comment><comment><USER71> Makes me wonder if they just leave them on the ground of the ocean or recover them?

...I bet otherwise the Russians or Chinese would love to get their hands one of them :)

<comment><USER29> Chinese are just waiting until it succeeds. Their hackers are probably on stand-by to download the blueprints and the code. lol

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> Its tail is wagging way to much. Landing will always be a crap shoot if they don't get that stabilized.

<comment><USER33> You mean thrust vectoring? It's intentional, it's how the rocket steers itself.

<comment><USER72> You mean it's not pixie dust? ;-P

<comment><USER33> Naah, pixie dust is what the rocket is covered with before launch; you can see it falling off during lift-off. Check out the launch videos. ;).</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Thorium-Fueled Automobile Engine Needs Refueling Once a Century - <AUTHOR> http://www.industrytap.com/thorium-fueled-automobile-engine-needs-refueling-once-a-century/15649 <comment><USER2> "The company has been experimenting with small bits of thorium, creating a laser that heats water, produces steam and powers a mini turbine." This is the only line in the article about how it works and it doesn't make any sense. It certainly isn't a nuclear reactor. If they meant that thorium is used in the laser, what powers the laser?

The company website ([http://www.laserpowersystems.com](http://www.laserpowersystems.com)) certainly doesn't add any credibility.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm getting a bit tired of all the Thorium link-bait about that car. As far as I can tell, there's no working prototype, no working engine, nothing. Just some hope that this may some day be possible. So why does everybody keep repeating this non-news?

I love Thorium as much as the next geek, but give me some results, rather than repeating the same baseless speculation over and over.</comment>