San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-25/juul-ban-in-san-francisco-is-expected-to-be-passed <comment><USER3> Its very sad to see personal liberty treated with such contempt in cities like San Francisco.

I have a friend who's 80 year old grandmother was addicted to cigarettes. He wanted to buy her an ecigarette for christmas to help her quit, even though he subtly felt like it may be for naught given her age and how long she had been addicted. I suggested a Juul just because of how easy it is to operate and the high nicotine content, given its targeted toward people trying to quit.

A few months ago he showed me a picture of her "empty pod drawer". She didn't want to throw out the pods because she was hoping there was a way to recycle them. There were probably a hundred. She doesn't smoke anymore.

Maybe, in the worldview of the officials, no one would consume nicotine. That isn't the world we live in; in the world we live in, these city officials are simply indirectly responsible for the premature deaths of thousands of people. Moreover, I don't even know if that's a world we should be idealizing, in the same way I don't know if a world without alcohol or caffeine or tylenol would be more ideal than the one we have. Just to start thinking about it: nicotine is a nootropic, and recreation is definitely great for your productivity and wellbeing. There aren't zero positives to the chemical.

Its mostly just sad to see addiction so continually demonized in our society. We want to point blame, and then push it out of our minds like it doesn't exist. And in the case of these city officials; literally push it out of their city. I can only hope that, one day, the people who run that very strange city start the process of learning to treat other people with the love and care we all deserve.

<comment><USER4> When one's personal liberty crash with other's personal liberty, it's not personal anymore. If you believe there is a right to smoke, think about the violation of other's right.

I don't want to inhale the smoke or aerosol containing nicotine. That's my right.

If an action which exercising your right violate other's right, that action must be forbidden for protecting the other's right.

So, in this case, the right to smoke shall be allowed in the condition in which my right of no inhaling it shall be honored.

Now, if you don't have a level 3 biohazard facility, you shall not be allowed to smoke.

My right is constantly violated almost everyday.

<comment><USER3> You _do not have a right_ to not inhale someone else's smoke. Let's be very clear about the language you're just throwing around like it doesn't mean anything, because the Rights recognized by the Constitution aren't just something that have no meaning.

That's why I never said that I believe people have a Right to smoke, yet for some reason you quote me like I did say that. People don't have a right to smoke, just like you don't have a right to not inhale other peoples' smoke.

Even your usage of the language "rights allowed" shows a clear misunderstanding of how Rights work. Rights are not "allowed" or "granted"; they are "recognized". They are God-Given, assuming you believe in that kind of thing (our fore-fathers did).

<comment><USER5> Their actions make me sick and not comfortable. This shouldn't be allowed.

<comment><USER3> Unfortunately, you also don't have a recognized right to not be sick, nor one to guarantee comfort. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be regulated. But the situation is a little more complex than the absolute of "ban everything that makes me feel funny."

<comment><USER4> In my country(Japan), there are cases which ordered the neighbor/colleague to compensate the health damage he cause by passive smoking for his smoking inside his house or his desk.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'll never understand why lawmakers think that fruit and other flavorings for tobacco are aimed at getting kids hooked. It's almost like they think no adult has ever enjoyed fruit or candy, and that making teens smoke plain cigarettes will keep them from being rebellious.

I've tried almost every variation of ecigarette mod out there except mechanical mods, because I'm not an idiot enough to know I'm too much of an idiot to use one safely. Nicotine salt (the type used in juul and smok nord, among others) are the best- balance of nicotine from the sub-ohm types without the obscene amount of vapor pouring into your lungs, and the filter doesn't constantly clog / burn like the older, smaller pen and marker varieties.

Does it suck that also makes them perfect for teens to hide their addiction? Sure. Then again, there's also a market starting to boom for tobacco-free nicotine pouches, using tea leaves or other filler. It's also way, way cheaper to get the liquid for vaping online than it is in stores anyway.

This ban, at the scope of the city, won't help teens, and it's only going to hurt the people living there. For better or worse, drugs like caffeine, tobacco, alcohol, and THC are here to stay.

<comment><USER7> Adults like flavored nicotine too, but have you _seen_ the ads? They're blatantly targeted at kids. Hell, I saw one once that showed a vape plugged into the USB port of a kid's laptop in class, where the advertising was basically saying your teacher won't know it's a vape.

<comment><USER8> Then BAN THE ADS!

<comment><USER7> Right, because intentionally designing a harmful product to appeal towards kids and get them hooked on nicotine is perfectly fine, just as long as we eventually crack down on the ads.

<comment><USER9> Please don't be snarky.

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

<comment><USER10> There is snark almost every story comment section. And derision and sarcasm and mockery. How is this comment so much worse that it uniquely deserves a rebuke?

This comment is really quite mild actually. Certainly not worthy of a moderator stepping up.

<comment><USER9> People have different interpretations of these things. If you see a particularly bad comment that deserves moderation, we'd appreciate your letting us know about it.

Yes, there's far too much snark and derision on HN. It's an internet forum after all. Surely you're not suggesting we should do less about it?

The "how is this comment so much worse" objection is based on a fallacy. You don't not get a speeding ticket just because other cars were going faster.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is perverse given that tobacco cigarettes are still widely available. I can't remember the last time I was actually satisfied with a decision from the Board of Supervisors.

<comment><USER12> While I don't live in SF or even CA, I'll try to offer an explanation of why this might make sense based on what I've observed.

I'm 29, which puts me sort of at the intersection of two age groups right now. I'm starting to be able to connect with older folks, and I can still connect with younger 20somethings.

Nobody I know under 25 smokes cigarettes. Anecdotally, cigarettes in that age group are nearly universally abhorred. Vaping, however, is seen as counter- cultural and cool. Moreover, and perhaps worse, it's seen as nonaddictive and harmless. Yet severe, almost crippling nicotine addiction is celebrated in popular culture (e.g., [https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/06/sophie- turner-d...](https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/06/sophie-turner-dark- phoenix-juul)).

In fact, I've seen a depth of addiction to Juul that exceeds what I've seen from older pack-a-day cigarette smokers. I know folks who have to take a hit off their Juul every 3-5 minutes all day long except when sleeping. When sleeping, they won't sleep through the night continuously, and if they do they won't sleep more than six hours because they'll need to wake up and take several hits.

Kids do not want to smoke cigarettes. Young people generally do not want to smoke cigarettes. Cigarettes are mostly a risk to the older generation. Juul and other brands have caused a new generation to become _shockingly_ addicted to nicotine all over again from scratch.

Of course, with all that said, one must wonder which group of people should be prioritized: kids or the older folks? This legislation is trying to protect the former at the expense of the latter (by taking away an effective smoking cessation tool). Clearly, this does not make sense in San Francisco -- a city that more or less does not have kids at all.

<comment><USER13> It's also worth noting that the unpopularity of cigarettes preceded the rise of vaping by several years. So it felt like the problem was finally being solved for a while.

<comment><USER14> The biggest issue with cigarettes was the cancer risk. Vaping is much lower risk (if any) for cancer.

So even if people just swap smoking for vaping, a HUGE problem was solved.

<comment><USER15> While I agree the cancer risk is probably lower... I don't think we really know what the true cancer risk is for vaping yet, let alone the risk for other cardiovascular diseases like COPD and popcorn lung.

This product hasn't existed for very long, so long term studies just don't exist yet.

That said, there is some research that suggest caution is at least still warranted: [https://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/smoking-facts/impact- of-e-...](https://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/smoking-facts/impact-of-e- cigarettes-on-lung.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I hate cigarettes, I hate the litter, the smell, and the smokers' belief that they have the divine right to pollute my airspace. I also hate the taxes I spend on keeping them in hospital - but. E cigarettes don't cause litter, the smoke is far less offensive. If people are going to smoke they will smoke. SF would be far better off banning actual cigarettes.

<comment><USER17> Ecigs cause tons of litter from the refill cartridges and from the batteries. Ecigs are much worse of a pollution problem than actual cigarettes.

<comment><USER18> Really? It seems like every pack of 20 cigs, seemingly at least 10 of the filters end on the ground somewhere, apparently based on some kind of fanciful "Oh, _this_ isn't litter somehow..." thinking.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Convinced part of the problem with political offices is that elected politicians have no incentive to actually consider second order or third order effects of any piece of legislation they pass. Everything is optimized for first order effects only e.g. optics because that is what they think "shows" they did something.

<comment><USER20> As a result the entire planet is in grave danger due to climate change. How do we fix this? To borrow a little from Switzerland, I think a direct democracy at every level of government is needed. But first we must have many more remote jobs so people don't feel pressured to live in cities. They can then result in the creation of new cities elsewhere with a direct democracy via cryptographically secure apps.

<comment><USER21> This very much HN bubble thinking. In the grand scheme of things, a very small percentage of jobs are conducive for remote work.

<comment><USER22> Almost all office jobs could be remote only.

<comment><USER23> Sure, but office jobs are a fairly small portion of the overall workforce. Based on [0], it looks like the "Information", "Financial activities", "Professional and business services" and I'll assume 50% of "other" and the government jobs could be done remotely. I'm sure this is missing some jobs in the other categories, and there are certainly many, jobs in these categories that can't be done remotely, but so goes. That leaves < 30% of jobs that could be done remotely.

[0] [https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/employment-by-major- industry-...](https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/employment-by-major-industry- sector.htm)

<comment><USER22> I would say ~30% is not "fairly small". Also that 30% predominately works circa 9-5 and is disproportionately responsible for traffic congestion.

Plus, it's unclear how those industries get split. For example utilities, trade, healthcare, and leisure/hospitality all have a large number of office jobs. And cities have a higher concentration of office jobs than rural areas. I would be willing to bet that in most medium-large sized cities, half of all jobs could be done remotely.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> So I dug up the actual ordinance itself¹ and it turns out to not be a "ban all e-cigarettes" ordinance. It is in fact "ban e-cigarettes that have not received FDA premarket approval". Which is to say, if the FDA actually does their job and approves the damn things, then they can be sold in SF again.

¹[https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=7111897&GUID=7C3...](https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=7111897&GUID=7C3912E3-BB56-420D-896E-6FEA1391287D)

<comment><USER24> That's a pretty significant part which was left out of the article. I mean it is effectively a ban right now since e-cigarettes don't have approval, but requiring FDA approval seems far more reasonable than a permanent ban.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> All prohibition is asinine but this has to take the cake.

Even if there is no way to prevent more kids from getting addicted to vaping (and that's a big if), having less kids and many less adults smoking cigarettes is such a huge win for public health.

\--

Anecdotally I went from 2 packs a day to chain vaping for a few years, health improved enough to start being much more active, finally weaned down nicotine, quitting vaping was hard but not near as yard as other cigarette quits, have been nicotine free for almost a year (not even a puff) and now I avg about 10+ miles a week running and 50+ miles a week biking and am in the best shape of my life at almost-40.

<comment> munk-a I am happy that's worked out for you - and e-cigs are definitely less dangerous than conventional cigarettes, but the adoption rate of smoking among younger folks has spiked since flavoured e-cigs were introduced.

I really want vapes to be available as an alternative to conventional smoking but the companies pushing them now are addicting a lot of new users, if the market participants were more responsible these devices could have been all positive.

<comment><USER26> I work with someone who's crusaded against e-cigs and part of the reason the ban was put in place was that JUUL was making kid-desired flavors like "candy corn" and "unicorn milk".

E-cigs are essentially a very addictive substance (Nicotine) and a bunch of unregulated (and unreported) substances + flavor.

They're also disguised as usb-keys and hard to detect (not like a cigarette).

I'm sure SF lobbied with JUUL before laying down the ban-hammer.

<comment><USER27> I vape, used to smoke 20 a day quit for 7 years, started again and then switched to a vape.

JUUL absolutely should be banned from marketing at children, it's blatantly obvious they know what they are doing.

I'm generally not in favour of legislation because it often either doesn't work or has bad 2nd order effects but this is one of those cases I'd make an exception for.

Over here in the UK they limited the max strength of vape fluid to 18mg (previously 24mg was common) and reduced the max tank size (I kept my old one as the they are where interchangeable).

It remains to be seen what effect if any that has though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Instead of writing short rages or immediately drawing party lines, those who enjoy consuming nicotine might benefit from writing openly and honestly about the fact that they enjoy these products. Perhaps mention the fact that current research leans in the direction that secondhand vapor is less harmful than secondhand smoke [1] and so vaping could be treated as more of an individual freedom.

Personally, I think society should allow adults to vape, though I believe there should be incredibly strong regulations against companies benefiting from the sale of addictive chemicals. The interesting conversation to me is how to protect children and inform the public while not compromising liberties that don't _need_ to be compromised.

[1] [https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Comparison-of-the- effe...](https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Comparison-of-the-effects-of-e- cigarette-vapor-and-McAuley-Hopke/531a2a28e64e69b62070daf161992f94de9636e1)

From the abstract: "For all byproducts measured, electronic cigarettes produce very small exposures relative to tobacco cigarettes."

<comment><USER29> "Personally, I think society should allow adults to vape..."

Not to nit pick, but that sentiment may be backwards. Society should not _disallow_ vaping. By default, we are free beings and we are allowed to vape. Until someone stops us by threat or force.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Let's work through the logic here:

San Francisco assumes that the existing controls on the purchase of tobacco products by minors are a failure. They must act.

San Francisco's reaction to this is to ban all tobacco products from the city, for the children. This is perfectly rational.

But wait, no, their reaction is to ban the _harm reduction option_ and keep the worst tobacco product known to be the most addictive and the most harmful to health on store shelves, where they believe they can't keep it from being purchased by minors.

The headline should read, "San Fransisco insists that minors switch to cigarettes." That's the only rational conclusion any sane person could draw from this.

<comment><USER7> Vaping plus flavored nicotine is marketed at kids. If vaping were strictly an alternative to cigarettes, marketed at existing smokers, as a harm reduction alternative then it would be fine. But it's not, it's marketed as a hip new thing, getting kids hooked on nicotine that would have otherwise never touched a cigarette.

Also, that flavored nicotine smoke smells nasty. Most smokers tend to be aware that people don't like their smoke and they make some effort to keep it out of people's faces, but vaping isn't smoking, it's _vaping_ , and cool and less harmful than cigarettes, so who could possibly object to vape smoke filling the air? /s

<comment><USER31> Where is it being marketed? I've never noticed a Juul ad before.

<comment><USER7> Some time ago the MUNI stations in SF were absolutely plastered with these ads.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I f __ __ __hate SF. Housing /homelessness crisis? Do nothing. Terrible roads which are worse than Chicago (which gets tons of snow): do nothing. Horrendous traffic? Do nothing.

But: Vaping! Freak out! NIMBY! Move fast!

Agree with all other comments, this is stupid. Vaping isn't great. But banning it without any other options is...ultra dumb.

<comment><USER33> >SF. Housing/homelessness crisis? Do nothing

The city is attempting to address this very complicated problem and invest in shelters / affordable housing. A lot of wealthy home owners protest when they attempt to build housing for the poor (in their backyard). I'd argue the homeless problem in SF is more of a national / United States issue than SF specifically.

>Terrible roads which are worse than Chicago

I haven't been to Chicago in like half a decade but I don't think the roads in SF are terrible?

>Horrendous traffic? Do nothing

Traffic isn't bad unless you spend all of your time commuting in the East Bay, the Peninsula, or you pick terrible driving times on the weekend. During the work week the traffic within the city outside of FiDi is usually fine (which is most of the city). Outside of SF proper traffic is definitely pretty bad though, especially in the East Bay.

I can usually leave on a Saturday at 8am, get to upper North Bay (Novato, etc), crank out a 5+ mile hike, grab lunch, and be back at home by 11:30am without hitting any traffic. People who decide to sleep in and leave at 11am definitely hit a ton of traffic (because that's a terrible driving time).

>Agree with all other comments, this is stupid. Vaping isn't great. But banning it without any other options is...ultra dumb.

I don't really get it, I imagine it's more of a jab towards Juul than anything else.

<comment><USER34> "I can usually leave on a Saturday at 8am, get to upper North Bay (Novato, etc), crank out a 5+ mile hike, grab lunch, and be back at home by 11:30am without hitting any traffic."

Surely you must be exaggerating? How quickly do you cover 5 miles hiking? How quickly do you eat lunch for that matter?

<comment><USER33> Did it last weekend, 1200ft increase in elevation. Pack a sandwich to eat or grab one on the go. I hike often and hit the gym 4+ days a week so I might be moving faster than average. My lunch stop is usually 10-15 min.

Either way, if you start the hike before 9am in the North Bay you'll beat the traffic rush out of the city. You could spend an extra couple hours if you wanted. As long as you head back before 2pm you'll beat the re-entry rush into the city.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Wow. Ban the way that so many have people quit their tobacco addictions with. Just enforce the existing no smoking laws. I get it's annoying when people vape wherever but as someone who used to to quit then eventually quit vaping, we're taking an extremely valuable tool away from people who would like to quit.

</comment><comment><USER36> From the article: ``illegal . . . for online retailers to ship the goods to San Francisco addresses."

Does anyone know how the government of SF would enforce that on an online retailer not based in SF? Tell them they've been fined, then sue them in state court if they don't pay?

<comment><USER29> The idea that my local government is telling me I can't have a perfectly legal product delivered to my home is infuriating.

<comment><USER37> I'm not from US so I was pretty surprised to see that a city would have jurisdiction to do something like that.

<comment><USER36> The city I live in (in the US) collects sales tax from online retailers, so I am inclined to think that the government of SF has some way to inflict pain on the online retailers that ignore this ban.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Pot and tobacco is legal. Juul HQ is there. They are doing their best to destroy SF from within.

<comment><USER39> They are muscling Juul for money. They don't want another Uber incident where they don't get any cash.

SF City is one of the most corrupt institutions I know.

<comment><USER40> Soliciting a bribe?

<comment><USER39> A "Salesforce voluntary Contribution" to the Transit center.

<comment><USER40> How is that a bad thing?

<comment><USER39> Its robbery and corruption.

<comment><USER40> Show me a capitalist not being paid for their work and I'll agree.

<comment><USER39> I want to accept the challenge but I don't understand it. Are you asking for a case where a capitalist loses? I can show plenty even in the US. Hell, the number #1 platform of the democratic platform is to abolish private insurance, and its not tied to a buyout as far as I know.

<comment><USER40> I simply reject the idea of ownership and property that implicitly gives you a right to take profit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> But regular cigarettes are still fully legal?

<comment><USER42> Yes, but teens apparently don't think regular cigarettes are (as) cool.

<comment><USER43> And forbidding something definitely makes it uncool amirite?

<comment><USER44> If you're claiming that forbidding e-cigs makes them cooler, then that might be a better overall outcome because the people who desperately want to be cool will migrate to the suddenly cooler illegal e-cigs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> The HN response seems strongly negative so far. Can someone educated in the space play devil's advocate and share ideas on why it might be a good move?

<comment><USER46> Easily. Vape usage among children and teenagers is going up. That should be stopped.

[https://www.drugabuse.gov/news-events/news- releases/2018/12/...](https://www.drugabuse.gov/news-events/news- releases/2018/12/teens-using-vaping-devices-in-record-numbers)

>Reported use of vaping nicotine specifically in the 30 days prior to the survey nearly doubled among high school seniors from 11 percent in 2017 to 20.9 percent in 2018. More than 1 in 10 eighth graders (10.9 percent) say they vaped nicotine in the past year, and use is up significantly in virtually all vaping measures among eighth, 10th and 12th graders.

It's already illegal for kids to buy them, but it's trivial for them to just get'm anyway when the shops are already selling them. This will mean that kids will have to leave the city to get it, or get it on the black market. That will reduce usage, and send a message to other cities that it's a tenable proposition (somebody had to be the first to ban it).

There are valid issues. The typical anti-prohibition ones that crop up are "criminal black market uprising" i.e. the mob in Chicago during alcohol prohibition. I'm not sure this is as valid as vape usage isn't as prevalent as alcohol, nor is it as integral a part of our culture. Worth watching, though.

Another issue is the apparent hypocrisy - for some reason, cigarettes can still be sold in the city, besides being decidedly more disgusting, environmentally unfriendly, and unhealthy. On the one hand, they got this vape ban through quick, so it might finally allow the banning of tobacco products as a whole to come through as well. On the other hand, why target vapes before cigarettes? I have no idea.

In any case, the goal is to get kids to stop smoking. Doing one part of that (banning juuls) isn't the entire battle, and shouldn't be treated as such.

There's the devil's advocate argument. I personally believe that a better solution is no prohibition, but _massive_ tax to ensure the proper cost is being levied on these products - i.e., for cigarettes, purchasers need to offset their decision by providing the State with the funds to cover the environmental, public health, and public image impact of the cigarettes. Similar to the carbon tax argument. Furthermore, government resources being levied on educational outreach to ensure that the public is aware of the genuine detriments to these kinds of products. Finally (this is already implemented), ensuring companies like Marlboro aren't allowed to make false claims regarding the unhealthiness of their products, even hinting as such through imagery (i.e. showing an ad of a doctor smoking or something).

<comment><USER21> _Easily. Vape usage among children and teenagers is going up. That should be stopped._

Because banning substances has worked so well in the past - see weed.

<comment><USER46> >see weed.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, without further argument. Marijuana usage went up a couple percentage points in Colorado after legalization.

[https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-viz-met-colorado- lega...](https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-viz-met-colorado-legal- marijuana-by-the-numbers-htmlstory.html)

Prohibition kinda works, kinda doesn't. I think it really depends. Banning something like alcohol that the vast majority of the population partakes in was very silly. Banning heroin? I'm not so sure it's as simple.

<comment><USER47> i think that if the legalized substance has strong sanctions and limits, it can work. Like smoking is legal, but disapproved, heavily taxed, and limited in public. If the sanctions don't or can't exist, legalization won't work in the long run.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> So all these people hooked on juul are gonna switch to real cigs. Nice.

<comment> munk-a Sure but... it's sort of crazy that juul has been allowed to get a whole new generation of folks hooked on tobacco. There's been a myth spread around that e-cigs exist solely as a more healthy alternative to traditional cigs - <USER2> are more healthy but those candy flavours have resulted in my office now having more smokers in it than ever before... and they're all under 23.

<comment><USER49> Smokers, as in cigarette smokers, or as in e-cigarette smokers? I thought all the candy flavored tobacco cigs (minus menthols) were blown out of the water back in 2011 or whenever the new tobacco act was passed. Interestingly enough, the law led to clove cigarettes being relabeled to cigarillos in order to get around the law.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Some background:

The specific ordinance (#190312) that passed is covered on this page: [https://sfgov.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3895574...](https://sfgov.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3895574&GUID=BABC44F3-8798-49AF-A75D-A27561A77B0D)

That page links to this video of the discussion last week on the measure (no video yet from today's meeting): [http://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/player/clip/33463?view_id=1...](http://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/player/clip/33463?view_id=10&meta_id=727356)

The ordinance just passed the Board of Supervisors and will need to be signed by Mayor London Breed to go into effect.

There are no minutes from today's Board of Supervisors meeting posted yet, but you can see from last week's minutes that the ordinance has support from all 11 members of the board: [https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/bag061819_minutes.pdf](https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/bag061819_minutes.pdf)

If you want to comment on this legislation, I think the best way at this point is to contact London Breed's office by calling (415) 554-6141 or emailing email@example.com. Again, the mayor has to sign the legislation before it becomes law.

</comment><comment><USER49> This just screams of a moral panic that's no different from when Congress held hearings about how violent music lyrics or violent video games were corrupting the youth.

<comment><USER51> It's worse because music lyrics are protected speech and can't be banned.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Of all the things they could be doing… taking a crap in the streets is fine, but vaping is not. Got it.

<comment><USER28> You can write to them about your feelings that they should be focusing on different things.

\- email@example.com

\- [https://sfbos.org/contacts-office-clerk-board](https://sfbos.org/contacts- office-clerk-board)

Or if you have thoughts about this particular issue, it is now in Mayor Breed's hands:

\- email@example.com

\- [https://sfmayor.org/contact-mayor-london- breed](https://sfmayor.org/contact-mayor-london-breed)

<comment><USER53> Do you think they care if you waste your time on that? The board has proven to be incompetent for decades. The government of SF is fundamentally broken.

<comment><USER28> I think that your comment is counterproductive. Even if the board wouldn't listen today, if more people wrote, more people would feel a sense of engagement with their city, thus more people would do other things, and more things would change. Also, just how much time do you think this would "waste" out of your day? You could do it sitting on the toilet.

<comment><USER53> There is no evidence that having people voice their concerns to unconcerned idiots is in anyway productive. If anything, talking to deaf ears makes you feel like you have even less of a voice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Pretty ironic given the same day Juul buys[1] 123 Mission for approx 400 million dollars.

[1]: [https://sfist.com/2019/06/18/juul-just-bought-a-28-story- som...](https://sfist.com/2019/06/18/juul-just-bought-a-28-story-soma-tower/)

<comment><USER43> Woot! This is NCC Group's office. Are they getting kicked out?

<comment><USER55> I work in this building, but not for NCC Group. The word is "yes, once our lease is up." I assume all tenants are in the same boat.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Really, really awful legislation. Just shows you what a terrible job the SF supervisors are doing.

<comment><USER28> You can write to them about your feelings.

\- email@example.com

\- [https://sfbos.org/contacts-office-clerk-board](https://sfbos.org/contacts- office-clerk-board)

Or if you have thoughts about this particular issue, it is now in Mayor Breed's hands:

\- email@example.com

\- [https://sfmayor.org/contact-mayor-london- breed](https://sfmayor.org/contact-mayor-london-breed)

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> I can't help but question if this is really how the forefathers intended the land of the free to solve difficult problems by simply banning them. All this hope for a better future is making a worse present with no real proof that will even payoff.

</comment><comment><USER58> Consistency fail: it's OK to be a pothead in SF but not smoke e-cigarettes.

</comment><comment><USER59> Perhaps the ban should have been targeted at ways to decrease the litter and pollution that comes from disposable vaporizer products. Other commenter have pointed out how Juul pods are treated as disposable and can end up as litter on the sidewalk like cigarettes. However, there are refillable pod systems that would cut down on behavior like that.

A side effect of requiring refillable pods may be an increased initial cost for the device and a bottle of juice, but at the moment there are refillable systems that are cheaper (and lower quality) than Juul.

As far as the waste from batteries and the risk of devices not being disposed of properly, my personal device actually recommends contacting the manufacturer or a shop that sells the product to perform a proper battery replacement. The old battery is then disposed of safely.

Vaping in a way that affects other people is always wrong, but until there is a push for society to call out the users who vape in improper places, legislation will not fix the issue. I would like to see more efforts to educate current or potential users about the risks of vaping and also the risks of misusing their devices. The current culture of vaping cannot be relied upon to accurately reflect the health issues that can from from it, as the vaping community seems to always fight back against any possible health risks.

</comment><comment><USER60> Does anyone have a link to the text of the actual legislation? The article paints this as a general ban on sale/distribution/manufacture, but elsewhere narrows it to "on city property", so I'm curious about what the legislation actually says.

Regardless, it's asinine that San Francisco would ban e-cigarettes and not _actual_ cigarettes. It's also pointless; nothing stopping people from heading to Oakland or Daly City (or further) for their vape pens/juice.

<comment><USER61> Here is the link to the proposed ballot measure, which was somehow not linked to by ANY of the sources covering this story. [https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/LI031919.pdf](https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/LI031919.pdf) Looks to be two separate measures, one banning all nicotine products from being sold, manufactured, or distributed from City property, the 2nd banning all Non-FDA approved products (vapes) from the entire city: 190311 & 190312, respectively.

<comment><USER60> Nice, thanks! Yeah, it's ridiculous that news sites seem to be deathly averse to actually linking to sources; if they took a cue from Wikipedia maybe they'd be less vulnerable to "fake news" accusations...

Thanks to that, I was able to find the "legislative background" for the restriction on non-FDA-approved tobacco products: [https://sfosb.org/sites/default/files/documents/SBC/190312%2...](https://sfosb.org/sites/default/files/documents/SBC/190312%20Leg%20Review_0.pdf)

And for the prohibition of tobacco sale/manufacture/distribution from city property: [https://sfosb.org/sites/default/files/documents/SBC/190311%2...](https://sfosb.org/sites/default/files/documents/SBC/190311%20Leg%20Review.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Imagine if San Francisco could come up with some similarly hardline solutions to our actual problems!

</comment><comment><USER62> Almost 2 years ago I saw a comment on HN from a guy who quit smoking after reading Alan Carr's "The Easy Way". As a person who was heavily addicted, often smoking more than a pack a day, struggling to quit for good, I decided to read the book. It did wonders - for almost 2 years I haven't smoked and I don't miss it. It also helped friends to whom I recommended the book. I wanted to drop a comment here in case I can inspire others to give it a try.

<comment><USER63> A friend of mine who I was hounding for years to quit got this book six months ago and quit. Then he gave it to his dad and _he_ quit. I was fortunate enough to quit six years ago but it sounds like this book is really transformative. I haven't read it myself, only seen these effects.

<comment><USER45> This intrigues me. I'm not addicted to smoking but am going to check the book out because I'm sure I'll pick up self-discipline tricks from it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> They want to ban a safer alternative to cigarettes for people addicted to nicotine?

Are they trying to make the health consequences of their existing drug abuse problems even worse?

<comment><USER60> \begin{tinfoil}

The rich and politically-connected SF elite figure this'll kill the underclass faster by pushing them toward cigarettes.

\end{tinfoil}

More seriously, I'm more-or-less in favor of banning e-cigarettes... if they actually bothered to ban actual cigarettes, too. The failure to pass a general nicotine ban has turned a presumably-well-intentioned piece of legislation into yet another paver on the road to Hell.

EDIT: apparently the actual laws are more nuanced than that, and while they do specifically target electronic cigarettes, that targeting is as an example of a class of product not previously considered under existing legislation. I haven't read through the full details on the relevant ordinances[1][2], but it ain't quite as simple as "SF wants to extort Juul for money"; on the surface they actually seem pretty well-reasoned.

[1]: [https://sfosb.org/sites/default/files/documents/SBC/190311%2...](https://sfosb.org/sites/default/files/documents/SBC/190311%20Leg%20Review.pdf)

[2]: [https://sfosb.org/sites/default/files/documents/SBC/190312%2...](https://sfosb.org/sites/default/files/documents/SBC/190312%20Leg%20Review_0.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I have never smoked cigarettes, and I have a severe reaction to the smoke from them, when merely walking behind people on the sidewalk. I have never had a single, negative reaction to vape smoke. My nose doesn't even detect it.

Also, I hate it when cigarette smokers throw butts on the ground or in the gutter. I've had yelling matches with people on the street over it.

I understand the issues with vaping, but seriously, this is just insane.

</comment><comment><USER61> Seems like politicians just trying to win public favor by taking broad swings at a hot topic, rather than trying something that would actually protect the youth, or anyone for that matter. How has history not convinced these people that prohibition is ineffective and a waste of public funds?

</comment><comment><USER65> So this sounds super ridiculous:

1) so vaping pot is ok? Vs nicotine

2) the largest fucking evape co (JUUL) is hq in sf

3) JUUL is investing heavily into vape tech and cannabis

4) have you ever been to any place in SF without smokers

5) SF has the highest number of michelin starred resta of any city on the planet - which means that you have a bunch of stressed out industry ppl who are going to smoke cigs/vape cigs

—

Also, who the heck is "passing" this bullshit. They should have a /r/ for "stupid things sf wants to do"

I dont smoke cigs or vape or even smoke cannabis!!! Yet i build cannabis tech. But get your nimby ass out of here and stop acting progressive.

Progressive is to force the tech companies to provide data and services to help you manage city sentiment.

Because youre failing at being progressive.

</comment><comment><USER66> So I can still buy a pack of cigarettes at any corner store - just not an e-cigarette?

What the fuck, SF?

<comment><USER67> I can't help but think of San Francisco as a giant joke that can be used to make fun of liberals. "San Francisco first city to ban e-cigs, leaving cigarettes perfectly legal" reads like something from the Onion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> I do not understand why this thread is so against this legislation.

Issues with e-cigarettes:

1) they bypass laws regarding cigarette advertising: compare e-cig packaging with cigarette packaging; this is problematic, especially for youth (the non- users most likely to be vulnerable to advertising for such products)

2) contrary to what is portrayed, they are _not_ interested in helping people quit tobacco usage: tobacco companies have a large stake in this business

3) e-cigs minimize the danger of tobacco, by making the "delivery mechanism" seem most problematic, and thus "solvable"

4) there are other methods to deal with cigarette addiction (nicotine addiction, in particular): they just aren't as sexy

As for the law itself, it sets a historic precedent (if it truly bans e-cigs outright, rather than just on city property/public spaces): tobacco products can no longer skirt flat out prohibition.

I find it ridiculous that:

1) Juul's spokesperson cites "thriving black market" creation as a problematic side effect of this law: the point of prohibition is not to stamp out usage entirely (as history has shown this is not feasible), but to make it more difficult than usual to obtain said prohibited product. Its all about probability. Furthermore, when it comes to habits, even small barriers to existing habits can go a long way in changing them (and conversely, removing small barriers to new habits can go a long way in promoting them).

2) Commenters claim that e-cig users can just go to other jurisdictions, making this law "pointless": again, its about introducing barriers.

The law is far from a perfect solution, and I doubt it was intended to be, but it's just a small step in the right direction.

Finally, I think substance abuse problems fundamentally come from a lack of satisfaction/connection with the world around us. There are a billion and one ways to handle this issue, and I think normalizing substance usage only works as a barrier to usage (e.g. Netherlands: remove the "sex factor" due to "prohibition") when the substance has already been commonplace for years. E-cigs are new enough that prohibition can send strong signals to people who might be considering getting into it, especially because as a society we have successfully built quite a lot of "energy" behind the idea that tobacco usage in general is fairly harmful/not sexy (c.f. the situation with alcohol, where it remains synonymous with "socializing").

<comment><USER69> Because, at best, it is a very dubious and hamhanded way to solve a problem that is ill-defined.

Is the problem advertising, or advertising to minors, of nicotine products? Then ban that.

Is the problem that minors are able to buy vapes even though they shouldn't be able to? Then strengthen enforcement (ah, but that costs money).

Is the problem that some vape products are too easily smuggled into schools and look like USB sticks? Fine, then set a minimum size requirement on vaping devices. Heck, mandate they be colored a bright primary color.

Who cares what Juul or the tobacco industry says? They will say whatever they need to say to sell stuff, we know that. What matters is that vaping is substantially less harmful than tobacco by all accounts.

Personally, I could potentially get behind a total ban on tobacco, as it is very harmful and costly to society, although I'm generally anti-prohibition. But what makes no sense in any possible universe is banning vaping while keeping cigarettes legal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> I swear officer, I'm high. This is all weed! /s

I can understand wanting to control access to something that kids are getting into, but it feels like we're repeating some mistakes here.

</comment><comment><USER39> "At the same time, the City will gift free e-cigarette devices to prevent people from sharing devices and transmit diseases to each other"

</comment><comment><USER63> Haha, I wonder how much of an effect this is going to have. Most SF kids know how to take BART down to Daly City and everyone knows enforcement of using a vape is not going to happen. Like you could always smoke weed on the streets of SF. It was defacto legal for years.

It'll be interesting to see if taking BART/muni down to Daly City will be a problem.

</comment><comment><USER71> The moral panic regarding tobacco and nicotine is well past its expiration date.

Yes, the prevalence of smoking was a problem; yes, it's social acceptability in places people had to be (workplaces for example) impacted the health of people who didn't want it; and yes, some people still get addicted with sad consequences.

BUT, at some point you have to let people have their freedom to choose and not stop people using nicotine products who understand the risks and don't have dependence issues.

Vaping tobacco products is excellent for quitting because the nicotine delivered is less effective. There is not _less_ of it, it has diminished desirable effects.

MAOIs are drugs which inhibit a kind of enzyme in the brain and among other effects have strong drug interactions increasing the potency of many psychoactive drugs.

Cigarette smoke either contains or has similar effects to MAOIs the effect which is significantly more addictive [1] nicotine.

1\. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16177026](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16177026)

</comment><comment><USER72> What the actual fuck

</comment><comment><USER73> "Cigarettes and other tobacco products will remain legal in the city, along with recreational marijuana."

But e-cigs are banned?

That's messed up. If you're going to protect people's health (at the expense of some freedom) be consistent about it.

</comment><comment><USER74> Meanwhile you can buy vape cartridges of weed at any dispensary in SF. What makes no sense is SF is going to wait for the FDA to study ecig health effects while at the same time the FDA has made its position pretty clear on weed.

</comment><comment><USER75> Love SF, great move. Drugs and their addiction are not good for your health period.

</comment><comment><USER76> I got the best online platform where anyone can find marijuana products easily. [https://greenlandshop.site/](https://greenlandshop.site/)

</comment><comment><USER20> The homeless in SF use cigs, not e-cigs. It would've therefore been productive to actually ban the sale of cigs instead so as to drive out the homeless, but why would one expect an ounce of unbiased logic from politicians?

<comment><USER77> > to drive out the homeless

How nice of you to think of the homeless too. Where do you want to drive them to?

<comment><USER20> Actually I think that substance abuse (cigs, alcohol, heroin, etc.) is the reason why many of them are homeless to begin with. The right thing to do for them would be to medically cure their addiction, thereby making them capable of helping themselves. This is hard to accept for those who don't know how to cheaply and sustainably treat addictions.

<comment><USER27> Not just addiction, a significant chunk of homeless prople have a mental illness that isn't been addressed.

Given the way healthcare works in America (or doesn't as the case may be) I'm curious how that could be addressed.

<comment><USER20> Mental illness exists mostly due to controllable factors. Those who don't know of or understand these factors consider it a mystery that requires medical management. Medical management is legitimately required due to evidence of genetic or structural damage only. It is quite overused otherwise.

Here are many of the somewhat avoidable factors that result in mental illnesses: (1) insufficient sleep (2) insufficient physical activity (3) serious infections (4) excessive stress (5) high BP (6) high bad cholesterol (7) insufficient omega-3s (8) unhealthy processed food intake and/or SAD diet (9) vitamin and mineral insufficiencies (10) side effects of prescription drugs, not limited to PPIs and anticholinergics (11) narcotic use or abuse

If you fix the above lifestyle factors, there would be far fewer cases of "mental illness".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER78> So, like in Chicago with the gun-stores, you'll have vape stores open up just outside the city limits. It's not illegal to vape, just to sell vaping products or ship vaping products to SF addresses.

</comment><comment><USER79> Ban e-cigarettes, but get pot smoke blown in your face on every other street corner.

I don't know why I keep expecting consistency in my public policy but I am once again thoroughly disappointed.

</comment><comment><USER80> There is a bit of a contradiction in banning e-cigarettes "for the good of the children" while legalising cannabis, which is known to have adverse effects on teenagers.

</comment><comment><USER81> Vaping is epidemic in US middle schools and high schools. Restrooms are filled with vaping smoke and causing lot of problems for others. Schools are not doing anything about it.

<comment><USER82> So.. should we ban everything which teens find trendy for everyone? E-cigs are already age-restricted, same as alcohol and weed (which kids are also consuming). Why is vaping specifically targeted? Perhaps we should go after the schools which are not doing anything about it or after the parents who aren't paying attention to their kid's finances?

This is just another moral panic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER83> I have yet to read or hear any reason that vaping nicotine is harmful, beyond addiction potential.

Which imo is nowhere near as harmful as tobacco. I don't understand the hysteria.

</comment><comment><USER84> All of the issues Californians face and this is all they can accomplish? Another ban? The largest economy in the US and this is it? What a shithole. Literally.

</comment><comment><USER85> Good.

I got a recruiting email from Juul a couple of weeks ago : "Help power the movement to end cigarette-related deaths!"

That's bullshit. From all the stats I have seen so far (and to be fair, since I don't smoke, it is not a subject I follow very closely), e-cigarettes are on track to negate all the progress made on young smokers.

A good proportion of the teens that start vaping and go on to start smoking cigarettes would not have started smoking without juul.

And before somebody starts claiming that Juul has zero responsability there, Juul is also paying social influencer directly targetting teens.

</comment><comment><USER86> Cool, good to see that all the other problems are solved.

</comment><comment><USER87> Seems ludicrous to ban vaping without banning smoking. I wouldn't ban either personally, but if you're going to ban one...

<comment><USER71> "Queers hate techies". I saw it spraypainted on the sidewalk a while back.

Banning vaping and not tobacco keeps with the aesthetic of embracing tradition and rejecting technology. Ridiculous, but unsurprising.

<comment><USER45> The "queers hate techies" thing is all over. While walking down Valencia once and checking out ATA's window gallery, I got the impression that the vandalism might be coming from them. Or someone masquerading as ATA.

[1] [http://www.atasite.org/](http://www.atasite.org/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER88> I could understand a "secondhand smoke"-like law being applied to them, but a ban? When cigarettes are legal?

</comment><comment><USER89> The real reason this ban is good is because e-cigarettes cause lots of plastic (cartridge) and battery pollution. Regular cigarettes believe it or not are not as bad for the environment (even the filters break down after a while).

I don't think this health issue really matters because if someone is addicted to smoking regular cigarettes that only affects them. Pollution from e-cigarettes on the other hand is bad for everyone, even the non-smokers.

<comment><USER51> That's even more foolish than banning straws. There are so many other worse waste producing things like single use takeout containers and Keurig pods.

</comment></comment><comment><USER90> Wait, they are banning e-cigarettes but not normal more dangerous cigarettes? How does that even make sense?

</comment><comment><USER91> Then ban cigarettes too? SF is a joke.

</comment><comment><USER92> This has to be political, as singling out vaping while allowing alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, AND requesting tax dollars for "safe spaces" for drug injection, make zero common sense.

Let this be a lesson - politicians will greenlight you as long as you fill their coffers

</comment><comment><USER93> Bold move by the city!

</comment><comment><USER94> Sigh... with all the real and urgent problems the city (homelessness, housing shortage, vehicle break-ins, etc.) has they somehow have time to enact garbage laws.

We need new blood in our city government.

</comment><comment><USER95> Wouldn't this cause issues like drug dealers?

</comment><comment><USER96> Good, this some Joe Camel all over again.

</comment><comment><USER97> "After Donald Trump took office the next year, the agency said it would push back until 2022 a requirement that vape companies submit applications to continue selling their products. Once a product has FDA approval, the legislation would allow its sale in San Francisco again."

The city supes want e-cigs regulated by the FDA before they are sold, just like regular cigarettes are.

Just because FDA approval is not mandatory until 2022 does not mean that Juul can't submit an application for FDA approval now, if it wants to sell in SF.

</comment><comment><USER98> Hundreds of people openly selling and shooting heroin downtown and they pass an e-cig ban, what a joke.

</comment><comment><USER99> Poop city has bigger problems than E-cigs. When will these politicians get their priorities straight?

</comment><comment><USER100> Why though?

</comment><comment><USER101> E-Cigarette Nazis fuck off

</comment><comment><USER102> At first I was against it, then I heard a rant from the local cornerstore about how e-ciggs were one of his best sellers and he was pissed and I realized it was probably a net good since it was both rabidly popular and really unhealthy. Sure, it's ironic cigarettes are still legal, but that doesn't mean we should stop passing marginally good laws.

</comment><comment><USER103> Crazy. Good for them. It's like we forget about big tobacco. From a health/social point of view I'm glad they coming out ahead of everyone else. Curious how it will play out in the end, and if the Mayor intends on signing it.

<comment><USER29> Forget about big tobacco? Are you kidding? Bans like these are a huge boon to big tobacco. I'm sure they're writing thank you notes to the Board of Supervisors as we speak.</comment></comment>


How VC's make money - <AUTHOR>

<comment><AUTHOR> VC's make money, even if you don't. Their fee structure is much like hedge funds: They make 2% of all assets committed PER YEAR (how much is actually invested) and 20% of any monetized gains, as they close.

That 2% is a lot of money, and makes a lot of self interest around investing a lot of money as soon as possible after the fund has been raised. I'd even go as far as to say that most VC funds only make money off the 2%.

So remember that when you are talking to them. They make money even when you and the LP's don't.</comment>


Jane ni Dhulchaointigh – The Magic Is in The Process [video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.atalkaday.com/talks/2014/3/16/-jane-ni-dhulchaointigh-the-magic-is-in-the-process

<comment><USER2> Didn't watch it but I was kind of bummed when I realized that was her name, and not a joke about race conditions

</comment><comment><USER3> Original link: [http://youtu.be/NKjyXtLVs20](http://youtu.be/NKjyXtLVs20)

</comment><comment><USER4> Watch it. It's an amazing story about a great product. Best analog hacking ever.</comment>


A man walks into a bank - <AUTHOR> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/93a47a62-daf0-11e1-8074-00144feab49a.html#axzz26RekU6Zn

<comment><USER2> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4344720>

</comment><comment><USER3> I believe this story has been posted here before and the full story can be read here: [http://www.goodthink.com/writing/view_stories.cfm?id=11&...](http://www.goodthink.com/writing/view_stories.cfm?id=11&page_id=2)

</comment><comment><USER4> Old story posted several times.</comment>


A new formula for starting a startup? - <AUTHOR>

A trend I've noticed:
1) Come up with a grand vision; something sci-fi-ish. 2) Create an amazing video campaign showing the possibilities (optional: have the start of a prototype). 3) Raise money on Kickstarter; also navigate the VC world to raise money (I reckon the crowdfunding first really helps). 4) Hire an army of engineers and start building the thing. Pray that you can deliver on all promises on time.
First of all, does anyone agree with my basic premise that this startup strategy is becoming more prevelant? And perhaps more effective due to better video editing and crowdfunding as a platform for this.
Next, what do you guys think? Is this an ideal way to create great things? If you look at step 1, and then step 4, it seems that what really is trying to be accomplished is for a visionary to acquire an army of engineers, and everything in between are stepping stones. Though perhaps this is probably too naive of a viewpoint to have.
Would love to hear HN's thoughts. <comment><USER2> The crowdfunding-first approach only works if you have a physical product to sell or if you can ride a hype wave of hope for the future.

Gullible crowdfunding as proxy for traction or accomplishment is an intriguing trend though. Who knows how wacky things will keep getting?

<comment><USER3> _Gullible crowdfunding as proxy for traction or accomplishment is an intriguing trend though_

This is an alternative path into an incubator such as YC, as evidenced by LightTable and Diaspora. It's a built-in audience who has proven itself willing to hand you money.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Best Git GUI for linux? - <AUTHOR> I use github's GUI client regularly on Windows. I've seen a few alternatives for linux, but no real discussion as to which is ideal. Does anyone have any opinions? <comment><USER2> I would say Emacs + Magit ([https://github.com/magit/magit](https://github.com/magit/magit)). The legend says that some people started using Emacs for Magit only.

You can also try this [https://hackernoon.com/be-125-more-efficient-with- git-60556a...](https://hackernoon.com/be-125-more-efficient-with- git-60556a1ce971#.88gs7koqx) to some point emulate what magit does with plain CLI and a fuzzy finder.

</comment><comment><USER3> Perhaps something like Visual Studio Code? Which editor do you use?

</comment><comment><USER4> gitk</comment>


Turning .NET assemblies into FPGA hardware - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Lombiq/Hastlayer-SDK <comment><USER2> FPGAs are fundamentally a dataflow system. You have geographically distributed compute units, with reconfigurable routing. CPUs (obviously) work by bringing the data to a single fixed central processing unit. So the key question for all these software->FPGA tools, is how they handle this transformation. The problem is that often the way you layout your program is introducing implicit constraints that prevent optimization that aren't real but simply an artefact of how you write software.

The thing is, I don't believe that transformation is a solvable problem (not least because really clever people keep trying and keep releasing terrible attempts). In real life, people program GPUs using special constructs and instructions. Hell, they use special instructions for the vector operations on CPUs. So why are we pretending you can write generic code in languages designed for CPUs and have them run performantly on FPGA? What you end up with a tiny subset of the language that maps to already existing hardware languages with a little bit of syntactic sugar and a boat load of misunderstanding of the limitations.

<comment><USER3> > So why are we pretending you can write generic code in languages designed > for CPUs and have them run performantly on FPGA?

Because software people have never paid a cost for _state_ in their programming.

Software folks are so poor at managing state that some clever people actually built entire languages around that fact (garbage collection).

I'm optimistic though--Rust is really the first example of "Managing state is pain in the ass--maybe we need to rethink this" that exists in programming languages. I suspect more are to follow.

<comment><USER4> _Rust is really the first example of "Managing state is pain in the ass--maybe we need to rethink this"_ There was Ada decades ago. I could also say react... The word that you use: _state_ is too vague to my taste.

<comment><USER3> > There was Ada decades ago.

Which then morphed into VHDL on hardware. So, fair point.

I really don't understand why Ada never caught on and I don't understand why it isn't getting a renaissance.

> The word that you use: state is too vague to my taste.

I chose "state" explicitly because it encompasses volatile memory, data persistence (file systems and the like), connections between things, etc.

All of these things have a significant cost when you are designing hardware, memory is often flip flops and highly constrained, data persistence requires a _LOT_ of abstraction to use, connections between things cost time, possibly pins (a limited resource) and possibly an interface specification.

Hardware designers suffer real, genuine pain when a new feature needs to appear--can that fit on the chip, will that affect maximum frequency, did the cost just go up, and _only then_ how long will that take to design and debug.

<comment><USER5> Ada never caught on for several reasons:

The compilers were priced in values totally out of reach for most mortals, which ended up buying Modula-2 or Pascal compilers instead.

On UNIX systems, it meant buying an additional compiler beyond the C one that was already on the box. When UNIX SDKs became commercial, you had to buy two (UNIX SDK + Ada), which was even less appealing.

C++ was still coming into the world, and most compiler vendors though that Ada was impossible to be fully implementable and thus never bothered. Ironically, Ada compilers are much simpler than C++ ones.

Finally nowadays from around 6 surviving compiler vendors, only GNAT is community friendly (in spite of the usual license discussions), the remaining ones keep selling their compilers at enterprise prices (talk first with the sales team way).

So it is hard to get mass adoption this way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> i wouldn't really call this programming FPGAs with .NET languages. it's more just converting .NET code to run on FPGAs. those are two different things.

also, i don't really understand how moving something that is compute bound down to an FPGA is what you do. FPGAs are slow compared to CPUs. where they help is if you have something that can be parallelized and/or you want it to happen in a real-time manner.

it would be a big win if there was a more modern HDL language. VHDL actually has a lot of nice features. however, i think a cross with it and an ML language (like F# or OCaml) would be a wonderful fit for programming FPGAs, that is designing (or at least dictating) hardware with software.

<comment><USER2> I don't think the languages are the real problem. It's the tooling that sucks. The fact that simulation generally comes from a different vendor to the synthesis means that the simulation environment will implement the behaviour of the language, not the behaviour of the target device. This means you can never verify your design without a full hardware test - at which point you can't probe signals. That could be fixed if someone simulated devices accurately rather than simulating the specification of the language. This is exacerbated by synthesis warnings that range from "I one hot encoded your state machine as has been common since 1984" to "Yo dawg you forgot to reset this signal, so the set and reset priority are unclear, I'm gunna just fuck the whole of your design for ya". We all enjoy those post-synthesis log parsing scripts! By the way - they can't fix the logging because Cisco/Nokia/DoD have spent decades parsing those logs and if you change them you'll break their workaround.

Secondly, because the people who understand FPGAs are hardware engineers the tool vendors hire hardware engineers (and software engineers who are willing to tolerate hardware engineers) to write their software, the result is tools written using the development practices of the dark ages.

End of rant.

<comment><USER7> In defense of the poor hardware engineer: HDLs are not like other programming languages. You are literally writing a netlist of a circuit. Hardware engineers are hired to write FPGA code because it is a hardware design problem, not a software one.

<comment><USER8> I really disagree with this. HDLs are exactly like other programming languages. What in your mind makes HDLs fundamentally different to software languages? Your point about netlists doesn't convince me at all since you aren't creating netlists with a HDL. A description written in a HDL can be turned into a netlist.

<comment><USER7> Have you ever worked with HDLs before? The thing you are working on Is a netlist, not abstract code. As the name implies, you are describing hardware rather than abstract software. The layers of abstraction are ones that are built by the programmer (or defined in hardware block libraries) rather than ones from a language. HDLs do not have a single entry point. Every line of code runs concurrently with every other line of code. It simply is not like typical programming.

<comment><USER8> Yes I have used HDLs. You are working on a creating a hardware configuration. But you are not writing a netlist. That is like saying when you are writing a software program that you are "working on the machine code". The only difference between a HDL and "software" languages is a different set of restrictions. Every software language/framework or whatever also has unique restrictions. The restrictions HDLs have are not in any significant way tangibly different then those that exist in the software land.

You have software languages as well where "every line of code runs concurrently". Any dataflow framework for instance. That's not even to name functional languages where evaluation of statements can be done completely in parallel based on data dependencies.

Software is a lot more then the old c style run a program line by line until it hits the end of main().

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I love playing with fpgas, but the compile time and size limitations are always horrendous or simply not tenable for most applications. This library narrows that down to be even worse [0]. On most of alteras chips you'd be hard pressed to fit a few of their own filter libraries, let alone your own code. Honestly I'm not sure what you would use a tool like this for. If you want asic development, you will likely need to use an hdl for better synthesis. If you want dot net languages, you are going to want a regular cpu.

Can someone tell me what this would actually be used for? I'm sitting here scratching my head.

[0] _> Currently only the Nexys 4 DDR board (which is NOT the same as the non- DDR Nexys 4, be sure to purchase the linked board!) is supported, so you'll need to purchase one. Note that this is a relatively low-end development board that can't fit huge algorithms and it only supports slow communication channels. So with this board Hastlayer is only suitable for simpler algorithms that only need to exchange small amount of data._

<comment><USER10> The approach here is to use FPGAs as compute accelerators, much like GPGPUs, and in somewhat similar use-cases. I.e. if you have an embarrassingly parallel compute-bound algorithm then it might make sense to offload it to FPGAs to gain performance and power efficiency.

Keep in mind that the target audience is not hardware engineers but .NET software developers. If you know what Altera libraries are then you're not the target audience :).

<comment><USER11> > in somewhat similar use-cases. I.e. if you have an embarrassingly parallel > compute-bound algorithm then it might make sense to offload it to FPGAs to > gain performance and power efficiency.

Also concurrency! GPU is SIMD; FPGA need not be.

<comment><USER10> Yes, FPGA "threads" much like CPU threads can contain complex logic, and different from each other.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> There's also something called ARTIQ which I'm told allows high-level programming of FPGAs as well. I'm not familiar with it but it may be interesting for others: [https://m-labs.hk/artiq/manual/introduction.html](https://m-labs.hk/artiq/manual/introduction.html)

<comment><USER13> ARTIQ is a framework for real-time control of atomic physics experiments. Probably you were thinking of migen ([https://github.com/m-labs/migen](https://github.com/m-labs/migen)) which is used to implement ARTIQ.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Note that this github project is only the PC host code for your FPGA. The actual .NET-to-FPGA translation code isn't open-sourced.</comment>


Why Bitcoin Is and Isn't Like the Internet - <AUTHOR> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-bitcoin-isnt-like-internet-joichi-ito

<comment><USER2> It isn't like the internet _because electronic ledger technology and instant money transmission services already exist_ , and indeed are used by basically everyone that BTC is accessible to. If using the conventional banking system occasionally seems like mailing floppy disks to people, the hurdles to effortless universal payments are regulatory rather than technological

"Access to news, music and videos in minutes from anywhere in the world with a computer modem" is a much more revolutionary pitch to the consumer than "but see, not only is blockchain technology better than those old mainframes your bank uses... it's _decentralised_... here's a CATO institute article.... yeah, and you can convert it back to dollars too"

<comment><USER3> You're right in the sense that distributed ledgers are effectively an end run around regulations and trusted parties who we pay for centralized ledgers today. I think you're underestimating how important that is.

Transaction fees are going to zero.

Markets are moving to blockchains: securities markets, eBay-style markets for goods, Uber-style markets for services.

Markets that have been regulated out of existence will now thrive. Drug markets get all the press, but prediction markets will change the world. ([http://augur.net/](http://augur.net/))

We currently pay banks to keep our money safe and to make it digital so we can swipe a card or enter some numbers to send money. Distributed ledgers combined with current and future software do that for free. Today, everyone's money has to be in a bank, so they get to keep almost all the profit from your money. In the near future, your money will be safe, digital, and controlled by you. When you decide to lend it to other people, you'll get paid more to lend your money out.

Most countries have currencies that harm their economies and/or decrease in value rapidly. Distributed ledgers and the financial derivatives that can be built on top of them will give the whole world stable currency. This outcome isn't just an end run around regulations or trusted parties: it's a new thing that just wasn't possible before. We have better technology to build currencies now.

It's definitely harder to pitch blockchains to consumers as revolutionary, but if you think about it for a while and still conclude that it's not going to have a huge impact on the world, I think you've missed something.

<comment><USER4> Maybe there will be a successful cryptocurrency at some point but chances are (very close to) zero that it will be Bitcoin. Bitcoin is dying.

EDIT: Read that [1] for my reasoning instead of blindly down voting opinions you don't like or at least point out where I am wrong.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8905475](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8905475)

<comment><USER5> > Bitcoin is dying.

[http://bitcoinobituaries.com/](http://bitcoinobituaries.com/)

<comment><USER4> I am aware that I am not the only one convinced that Bitcoin will fail. Maybe the Bitcoin price will even stop falling and rise again once more, but finally it will fail. See the linked comment for my reasoning.

<comment><USER5> The transaction fee argument is an old one, as the answers to your comments say, it isn't what will make bitcoin fail.

<comment><USER4> They argued about the exact numbers but they did by no means show that the argument is invalid. Bitcoin has no important advantages over credit cards or PayPal, besides the claimed low transaction costs. And this argument is not true, not now and it is not obvious that it will become true in the future.

<comment><USER5> The number one innovation from bitcoin is not its low transaction cost. Its the blockchain, that is to say the possibility for two people to make a transaction without a centralized third party involved.

<comment><USER4> I said advantages, not innovations. Nobody cares about whether there is a centralized authority or not. I never ordered something on Amazon and was secretly concerned that paying with my credit card involves some central authorities. It may be a nice goody but it is nothing average people care about and therefore no reason for them to adopt Bitcoin.

<comment><USER5> Innovations never look like huge advantages or more than "nice goody" until people start using them in practical way. People used to say that the internet was a nice goody but that fax was good enough. Yeah, right.

<comment><USER4> But the Internet really made some things orders of magnitude easier or faster or possible at all. But what could the advantages of having no central authority be? There are some rare scenarios like the economy of a country collapsing where being independent could be useful. Or when banks are socialized. But do these scenarios justify all the hassle? Or am I missing something? Where or when else is it advantageous?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > The core Bitcoin developers are cypherpunks who do what they do because they > don't trust governments or the global banking system and are trying to build > a distributed and autonomous system, one that is impervious to regulation > and meddling by anyone at any time.

I don't think that's an accurate description the the core Bitcoin developers. I know Gavin Andresen, Gregory Maxwell and Mike Hearn aren't like that, at least.

There's really a lot of people in the Bitcoin community who are just interested in the technology.

</comment><comment><USER7> To date, crypto currency remains a technology topic. If you want to change finance, first understand it. Take your corporate finance, capital market, macro economics classes, and understand government's role in currency and economy. Learn about the history of how commercial banking, investment banking, currency and payment worlds have evolved over the last 100 years.

In short, figure out how bank and capital flows work before prescribing any solutions like Bitcoin, otherwise it will just prove the rightful criticism - that crypto may point to the right problem, but it in itself is just a technology looking for a problem to solve, and that even if it eventually finds its purpose, the chance that the problem will be small or a better, simpler solution comes by remains high.

Financial system as it's built today is an equally sophisticated system vis-a- vis the digital world. Most of those system designers (from say Banking Act of 1933) have left this world. Tech-hackers are many, finance-hackers are fewer. Even fewer understands both. This is why if you ask the view on crypto, you will have very conflicting views between the tech and the finance worlds. And rest to be sured, we are dealing with a problem that's more finance (including financial regulatory) than tech.

Almost anyone on hacker news understands how a full stack software system works. But do you understand how a financial "full stack" works? If you're interested in tackling the problem in a new way, we are hiring and welcome your input.

HN sn = Gmail sn

</comment><comment><USER8> Why do people keep repeating this myth that Bitcoin is "efficient"? It's not, even hardcore bitcoiners like Peter Todd admit this. [1] And the most important point is, it _cannot_ be, this is a mathematical fact underlying trustless systems based on the blockchain.

If I give a $100 to you, a centralized entity like my bank just has to subtract 100 from a database which contains my my account balance and 100 to your account balance. And now the transaction is complete. In the case of bitcoin, you still have to do this, but you also need to run a proof-of-work competition among a whole bunch of miners. This proof-of-work competition has to cost significant money in comparison to the amounts being transacted on the network, because if it didn't, a 51% attack would become easy.

Suppose for the sake of argument that the cost of a bitcoin transaction, by which I mean the money invested in mining equipment and cost of electricity of the the mining network, is $1. Assume for simplicity that there's only one transaction per block. Now suppose I'm a malicious actor who just paid you $1000 through the bitcoin network and would now like to execute a double-spend attack. Amassing more hashpower than the rest of the network and "overtaking" the longest chain after 6 confirmations is, on average, only going to cost me 7 * $1.01. In other words, this network with a cost per transaction of $1 is insecure for transacting amounts like $1000. The point is, the mining rewards + transaction fees on the btc network, which in turn are equal or slightly greater than the the cost per transaction block, have to be roughly similar to the amounts being transacted on the network for it to be secure.

The TLDR is this: for a secure btc-like network, transaction cost ~ O(transaction amount). For a centralized ledger (bank): transaction cost ~ O(1). By no means can you call this "efficient."

I'm not saying bitcoin is useless. It is a very clever trustless distributed ledger, but this trustlessness comes at a significant cost.

[https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/513195104023359488](https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/513195104023359488)

<comment><USER9> The organization that administers the centralized ledger could be bribed with a value greater than the transaction amounts. One could say "yes, but regulators..." \- then one has to add the cost of the regulators, courts, jails, etc... It would be interesting if it turned out that the technical cost of a safe bitcoin network was the same as the human cost for a centralized network. I'm going to think about this some more.

<comment><USER8> No, there's a big difference between your bribing experiment and the thought- experiment I described. The value 7 * 1.01 is the amount it costs _me_ to conduct the attack. I don't need anybody to collude with me.

The bribe is an unknown quantity that has to be greater than the revenue the operators of the centralized ledger forgo when they decide to collude with me and attack their other users.

The equivalent to the bribing the centralized ledger would be me trying to bribe the top 5 or so pools to conduct a 51% attack on _my_ behalf. This is obviously going to cost me a _lot_ of money because the pools have little interest in becoming accomplices in my criminal conspiracy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> "It feels a lot to me like when we were arguing over ethernet and token ring -- for the average user, it doesn't really matter which we end up with as long as in the end it's all interoperable. What's different is that there is more at stake"

These big debates seem to be so critically important only from perspective of today. I'm pretty sure that people arguing about technology are always convinced that their discussion and goals are crucial for the future. But from the perspective of time they aren't because the world and technology keep going forward and once strategical debate comes out as just another milestone.

</comment><comment><USER11> Since when does LinkedIn have articles?

<comment><USER12> When they realised the one trick pony was growing into a one trick nag complete with tedious and pompous TED-style tones.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Bitcoin is only like the internet in so far as it is something that can be done on computers.

</comment><comment><USER14> People need to start writing better title.

<comment><USER15> Poeple need to start writing better comments.

<comment><USER12> People need to check their speling.

<comment><USER16> reddit</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Typewriters live on in New York police department - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/07/13/new.york.typewriters/index.html

<comment><USER2> There's one argument in there that's semi-sensible: in case of a power outage, it would seem important for the police to be able to continue processing data. Yes, aggregates help, but keeping everyone's desktop computer running isn't as effective as limiting it to critical systems (and extended power outages shouldn't be crippling either). The good old pen and paper will only take you so far, especially with the atrocious handwriting of people these days (accustomed as we are to mashing buttons of all shapes and sizes for communicating).

To use them in the day-to-day business seems foolish, because most of it could be far better handled electronically. But considering the massive amount of paper and toner bureaucracies waste printing out information because the business processes don't evolve along, switching to such a system isn't necessarily an improvement in the short term. And of course there's a very significant initial cost that will be harder to justify to management than just maintaining the old system. Many and unsubtle are the stories of IT systems that are built to replace an existing "analog" process which end up delayed, inefficient, feature-crippled and way over budget. This is the sort of inglorious government-budgeted project that's especially prone to attract overpaid, unmotivated bunglers (no offense to the underpaid, highly-motivated geniuses out there working on such systems :-)

Whether the $0.5-$1M budget is warranted is another matter. The argument that they have a $4B total budget will sooner make people question whether the $4B is entirely needed than reassure them that the typewriters only take up a minuscule fragment of said budget. This also doesn't factor in the very real but hidden cost in terms of time and frustration for the users -- imagine the police department using no computers or typewriters at all, but requiring that all information exchange go through hand-written forms. The ballpen budget might be very small, but personnel costs would balloon.

Now, let me tell you about this voice recognition software I've been working on...

<comment><USER3> _in case of a power outage, it would seem important for the police to be able to continue processing data._

I'd say "data processing is a very relative term when typewriters and police officers on _hunt & peck shift_ are involved.

If hospitals can survive a power outage then I'm sure someone could find a way to make the police survive through one, too.

<comment><USER4> _If hospitals can survive a power outage then I'm sure someone could find a way to make the police survive through one, too._

I assume, however, that they have some sort of power back-up, right? If that's the solution, that would be very cost-prohibitive for multiple precinct houses.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Doesn't really surprise me. I've worked at banks where typewriters were still in use, for filling out certain infrequently-used forms and preparing titles and deeds.

It costs a significant amount of time and money to construct an electronic form and integrate it into the existing automated workflow; if the users only see a form a few times a year, and it changes every year, you might be talking about several thousand dollars _per use_ to computerize that form. There's no way that's cost effective, and it's cheaper and more efficient just to keep a typewriter around.

It's a basic diminishing-returns proposition. In a forms-heavy environment (which I'd imagine a police department is), you get great ROI automating the most commonly-used forms. Then you can breakeven or get some ROI on most of the rest of them. But in almost every situation there's always going to be one or two forms that just aren't worth automating. In some places that means just hand-filling them, but in others that means a typewriter.

A typewriter is a totally acceptable solution to the problem in some cases. It's a bit silly that some people freak out so badly when they see them; if you see a typewriter in a workplace that also has a modern electronic-forms system with automated workflow and everything else, chances are somebody did the analysis and realized that it just doesn't make sense to get rid of the typewriter _for the sake of getting rid of the typewriter._

<comment><USER6> I see your point as far as getting those forms into a database goes. But how long does it take to make an editable .pdf form for really unusual cases, and just have a database entry for 'special/unusual case y/n|select/view appropriate form'?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Mind boggling. And I thought The Wire might have been exaggerating for dramatic effect.

I wonder how these maintenance costs compare to the costs of a typical IT setup? If it's actually cheaper, then it looks like a classic case of being stuck in a local minimum.

<comment><USER8> I remember when I first saw an episode of The Wire where they were using typewriters. The computer has become so synonymous with the workplace that I thought their office looked really, really barren without one.

<comment><USER9> I never saw The Wire, but was their office completely void of computers? I can see where some offices would still have typewriters for certain forms (for some reason people here still use typewriters to put addresses on envolopes), but a police station without computers has to be insane!

<comment><USER8> Yes. I think by the second season they get A computer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> _"...mainly used for filling out property vouchers..."_

It's a pain in the ass to fill out paper forms with a laser printer.

Yeah, sure, they should probably have a new system that just prints the form filled out, but they don't.

</comment><comment><USER11> Mark of the true policeman: if technology melts down, they'll still be able to do their paperwork.</comment>


Using Wii Fit to cruise around Google Earth - <AUTHOR> http://www.geospatialsemanticweb.com/2008/05/28/using-wii-fit-to-cruise-around-google-earth

<comment><USER2> We just got the Wii Fit yesterday (great job, Amazon, on that whole "pre- order" thing, getting it to us only a week after release), and it's made of awesome.

It suffers a bit from some of the same problems as the Wii-mote--it doesn't quite behave the way it seems like it should, and the further from your feet the body part it tries to measure is the less well it works (the heading soccer balls game is a bit frustrating, because it just doesn't respond very well), but the skiing stuff is great and very responsive. The girlfriend also likes the hula hoop game. Now that I think of it, I like the hula hoop game, too...not so much playing it myself, though.

Anyway, the wide array of controller options makes me want to write software for the Wii. A live music performance system would be wonderful with a Wii- mote, a nunchuk, and the balance board. I'm a little giddy just thinking about it. Might be a good time to learn one of those new-fangled music languages...maybe I'll drink the Lisp Kool-aid and go with CLM.

<comment><USER3> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wii_Music>

<comment><USER2> Looks cool...but not exactly what I had in mind.

I'm thinking actual tools for producing real original music. I'm the kinda guy that loves tinkering with analog synths, odd analog drum machines, acoustic instruments of many types, old amplifiers and effects devices, recording gear. I've owned and played some lovely and bizarre stuff...Chapman Stick, Synsonics Drums, accordion, banjo...as well as normal stuff. I just think there's an amazing amount of fun one could have with entirely novel input devices like the balance board and Wii-mote.

But I'll definitely be buying Wii Music.

<comment><USER3> You should check out the prequels to Guitar Hero, Frequency and Amplitude for PS2. They had gameplay similar to guitar hero only you played on a controller and you switched between tracks of music with the d-pad. They also had a remix mode where you could actually make new remixes of the new music. The gameplay from that remix mode could be greatly enhanced with the Wii controllers... you only get 3 discrete notes/pitches in each track in the Frequency remix mode.

They didn't have a remix mode in Guitar Hero so they could license more music, but it was a really innovative feature that hasn't yet been replicated in gaming.

I played the drums a lot in high school; I'd love to spend a lot of time making music after making it with a startup.

<comment><USER2> "you only get 3 discrete notes/pitches in each track in the Frequency remix mode"

Yeah...see that pretty much breaks the idea for me. If I can't possibly hit a "wrong" note, then I might as well not play any note. (I have a pretty heavily jazz-tinged musical education. There are some things that rub me the wrong way. I'm even a little suspicious of diatonic harmonicas.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Nintendo is really cool in my book, if only for all the great hacker ideas they have spawned with the wii controllers.

</comment><comment><USER5> Would be more cool if leaning rotated instead of just moving left or right.

</comment><comment><USER6> This is awesome, wii fit just dropped and someone has already taken it to the next level. Very cool manipulation of the wii, interested to see whats next.</comment>