NASA advisers say SpaceX rocket technology could put lives at risk - <AUTHOR> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-nasa-spacex-rocket-elon-musk-20180505-story.html <comment><USER2> I think the last paragraph really says it all:

> Before the very first shuttle flight, NASA estimated that the chance of > death was between 1 in 500 and 1 in 5,000. Later, after the agency had > compiled data from shuttle flights, it went back and came up with a very > different number. The chance of death was actually 1 in 12.

The fact is, these numbers are made up because the systems are too complicated to calculate based on individual components. Until they have something like 50+ launches (after the kinks are worked out), we wont really know the actual chances of blowing up a rocket are. Further, how well do the escape capsule(s) work? If they work the majority of the time (saving astronauts from he explosion), that'd also dramatically drive down the risk.

If say, there was a 1 in 30 chance of a rocket exploding using the method described, but the escape capsule failed to save the astronauts 1 out of 10 times. Then the real risk of killing the astronauts is 1 in 300. Unfortunately, we simply don't have either of those numbers, so the actual "risk" level is essentially made up.

<comment><USER3> Since the actual disaster record for the shuttle was 2/135, they must have done some other adjustments to come up with 1/12\. Still, at this point it seems very likely that SpaceX will be safer than the shuttle.

<comment><USER4> 2/135 is failed flights/total flights.

Over the life of the shuttle[0], there were 355 astronauts who flew, 14 died. So for every ~25 astronauts who flew on the shuttle, 1 died..

0) [https://www.space.com/12376-nasa-space-shuttle-program- facts...](https://www.space.com/12376-nasa-space-shuttle-program-facts- statistics.html)

<comment><USER5> Oh my lord you guys that is not how probabilities work. You can't look at what actually happened and then say "Well that was the chance." If I flip a coin 20 times and happen to end up with a 15:5 split that doesn't mean the chance of heads is 3:1.

Also the context of that 1 in 12 in the quote is important. They're saying that was the chance on the first flight in retrospect. The shuttle and it's supporting facilities and processes didn't stay static, they improved over time.

<comment><USER6> >Oh my lord you guys that is not how probabilities work. You can't look at what actually happened and then say "Well that was the chance." If I flip a coin 20 times and happen to end up with a 15:5 split that doesn't mean the chance of heads is 3:1.

Erm, over a large sample size, yes this is exactly how things work. Sure 15/5 may be too small, but 150/50 isn't. That's well after the point where its reasonable to believe that your coin is rigged.

As the other user mentioned, if you don't have the prior that the coin is fair, a 15/5 outcome may (and does) indeed imply that heads are more likely than tails. In fact, 15/5 would imply a less than 1% chance of a fair coin, given uniform priors. (Beta[15, 5] -> 1st percentile is 50.175)

<comment><USER7> But in this case the samples are small. If you flip a coin once and got tails, what is the probability of heads?

<comment><USER6> That's not quite the same question as what I'm answering. I'm saying "given you flip a coin once and it comes up heads, what is the probability that its a fair coin" (or previously, given you flipped a coin 20 times, and it came up 15/5, what is the likelyhood it is a fair coin). And with a single flip, you can't actually answer that question (BetaDist[1, 0] is undefined).

Now, once you've answered that question, you can integrate to get a probability that the next coin is heads, but with a single flip you can't even answer the first question. You need to have gotten heads and tails each at least once.

<comment><USER8> Flip a coin 50 times and get 50 heads, it's almost impossible it's a fair coin. Does your BetaDist function work in that case?

<comment><USER6> No, the beta distribution BetaDist[a, b] is only defined for a, b strictly > 0.

When a or b is very large and the other is zero, you can treat it as 1 and get a decent approximation, but it'll be a an estimate that biases towards the center.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I have a hard time understanding this reasoning.

There are two ways to do it. You can load the fuel first, then have the astronauts board a rocket full of stuff ready to go boom. Or you can load the astronauts first, and load the fuel once they're strapped in and ready to go.

In the first scenario, there's a large window where an exploding rocket results in dead crew. The launch escape system doesn't do them any good if they're still on the walkway or the elevator. In the second scenario, there is no such window. At all times, either the rocket is unloaded or the launch escape system can save the crew.

If I were flying on Dragon, I'd really want to be in the scenario where I can always be saved.

<comment><USER10> There isn't anything wrong with your reasoning, it just isn't the reasoning that NASA came up with.

NASA has the entire history of US Spaceflight in its collective memory. It has many memories of accidents occurring during fueling that resulted in the loss of the spacecraft. It has no memories of a crew being saved by the crew abort systems because it has only happened once[1] and that was with a Russian rocket.

Thus, going by what they "know", NASA knows that rockets can blow up when they are being fueled and they know that SpaceX blew up one of their rockets while fueling it, but they do not know if a launch escape system would save astronauts in that situation. Therefore SpaceX's plan is "risky" because they are exposing the crew to a "known" danger and relying on an "unknown" system to protect them from that danger. It is this kind of thinking that keeps NASA moving slowly and carefully.

SpaceX has essentially said, "Trust us, if anything went wrong the crew escape system would save them." Unfortunately they don't have a launch pad they can blow up on purpose to demonstrate that for NASA (it would help if they could). The last time they blew up a rocket while fueling it, it took months to recondition the pad for launches again.

[1] _In 1983, an escape rocket pulled the three cosmonauts of Soyuz T-10-1 to safety when its booster exploded on the launch pad. As of 2015, this is the only case where an abort system saved a crew from a launchpad accident._ \-- [https://www.space.com/29260-how-spacecraft-launch-aborts- wor...](https://www.space.com/29260-how-spacecraft-launch-aborts-work- infographic.html)

<comment><USER11> > they do not know if a launch escape system would save astronauts in that > situation.

1\. In the video of the Amos 6 explosion[2], you see the payload fairing falling to the ground, with the satellite inside. You see it happened slowly, the payload did not explore, it burned down after falling. The abort system would have saved the crew in that situation. We were also told[3] the Dragon 1 would have been just fine if it was programmed to open its chutes after the second stage disintegrated under it during ascent on CRS-7. NASA participated in analyzing both failures, they know this.

2\. SpaceX have done a pad abort test in 2015[1] that demonstrated the capsule reacting to "something bad happened to the rocket" on the launch pad and saving a test dummy's life.

1 - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_2#Pad_abort_test](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_2#Pad_abort_test)

2 - [https://youtu.be/_BgJEXQkjNQ?t=79](https://youtu.be/_BgJEXQkjNQ?t=79)

3 - [https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/07/saving-spaceship- dra...](https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/07/saving-spaceship-dragon- contingency-chute/)

<comment><USER10> According to this page ([https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-commercial-crew- program-mi...](https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-commercial-crew-program- mission-in-sight-for-2018)) they will also do an in flight abort test. (should be exciting).

<comment><USER11> Yeah, it's also mentioned in the wikipedia article linked.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I see this as SLS (Senate Launch System) backers feeling threatened by their own bad economics and lack of ability to deliver. So it's time to deploy the PR submarine fleet...

<comment><USER13> > SLS (Senate Launch System)

You sound like the kind of person that unironically writes Micro$oft, mistakenly believing it supports their view point. At _best_ , it makes you look juvenile.

<comment><USER11> The SLS is exactly the rare case where he's right and you're wrong. It is a project whose goal is blatantly to spend money, not to fly any payload on any mission.

After spending tens of billions of dollars on development, you get a rocket that will cost a billion to fly, will never achieve the flight numbers to be able to honestly rely on it.

It will likely fly very few times before it is cancelled.

It will be uneconomical to use for any mission it flies, and any mission that uses it will only do that if they are forced to (the mission requirements changed such that only SLS allows the mission to be done, or the project is cancelled) or if the SLS budget pays for the rocket rather than the mission's budget.

<comment><USER14> but name-calling makes you look bad regardless of the merits of your argument

<comment><USER15> >but name-calling makes you look bad regardless of the merits of your argument

You're right. While it can be funny and it can make one feel good doing so, it almost never helps your cause. The people who laugh along are those who already agree with the point. The rest will be more likely to discount anything of merit that is said because of the apparent bias.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> FWIW (and because I didn't know it), [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RP-1#Fractions_and_formulation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RP-1#Fractions_and_formulation) comments:

> For a short period, the Soviets achieved even higher densities by super- > chilling the kerosene in a rocket's fuel tanks, ... The latest version of > Falcon 9, Falcon 9 Full Thrust, also has the capability of sub-cooling the > RP-1 fuel to −7 °C, giving a 2.5–4% density increase.

<comment><USER17> Man I really wish we would get nuclear propulsion going again one of these days. Fine, fine, not as a launch system, just orbit to orbit... but we could move much larger, more dependable payloads so much further and not have to fiddle with little tweaks like these to surf the tiny margins of chemical propulsion.

It could have been a very mature technology by now. I feel like we created all the nightmares and quit the technology before we got to the actually good uses.

<comment> Oren-T Nuclear propulsion is more efficient but doesn't produce enough thrust for surface launch(\ _)

We are stuck with chemical rockets for that. Nuclear could help us get to Mars faster or launch less mass from the surface. It may even be relevant for the upper stage of a launcher. But not for getting off the ground.

(\_) with the notable exception of Orion

<comment><USER17> That's why I specified orbit-to-orbit systems. The advantages there are immense.

When we finally do it, that's probably how it'll happen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> For some historical perspective: on the Ferdinand Magellan expedition about 230 men out of 270, including Magellan himself, died of violence and/or disease (1 in 1.2 chance of death).

As Musk has said in the past, a safety first philosophy and space travel don't mix. Safety third might work.

<comment><USER13> Than it sounds like Musk is disagreeing with SpaceX. From the article:

> SpaceX says it is serious about flying people safely and is going to great > lengths to study every aspect of the vehicle, down to individual valves, so > that it will meet and surpass the 1-in-270 chance-of-death metric, said > Benji Reed, the director of SpaceX's commercial crew program.

> When Reed was down at Cape Canaveral, Florida, on a recent trip, he came > across a room on a special tour where the astronauts' families from the > shuttle program used to wait ahead of the rocket launch.

> They were stunned to see that a whiteboard with drawings made by the > children of the crew lost in the 2003 Columbia disaster was still there, > preserved.

> "That really drives it home," Reed said. "This isn't just the people that > we're flying — these are all of their families. So we take this extremely > seriously, and we understand that our job is to fly people safely and bring > them back safely. To do that you have to humanize it. You have to see them > as your friends and as your colleagues."

<comment><USER19> > SpaceX says it is serious about flying people safely

> So we take this extremely seriously

Musk didn't say they don't take it seriously, he said it's not the highest priority.

But also there's a difference between what Space X says and what it does. I don't think we'll fully know the extent of Space X's safety consideration until some astronauts die in take off.

NASA are cautious because they've had people die and that lives long in the memory. Space X engineers haven't had to go through the process of finding out which one of them missed the bug that killed people.

<comment><USER20> Quite a few SpaceX employees came from NASA.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I have trouble seeing this as anything more than irrational territorialism and/or a disingenuous defense of the pork barrel status quo.

If we are unwilling to try something new because we decided fifty _fucking_ years ago that it was a bad idea, we're done. Time for NASA to hang up its space helmets and watch China (or possibly SpaceX, BO, etc. using private funds) take the next steps.

</comment><comment><USER22> I wonder how you get get a number like "1 in 270" for the acceptable chance of death. It's not a number you'd choose as a starting point in a top-down calculation. It must be a bottom-up calculation from a sum of existing risks. I'd be curious if anyone knows more about it.

<comment><USER23> Maybe:

"The thing that drives the 1 in 270 is really micrometeorites and orbital debris … whatever things that are in space that you can collide with. So that's what drops that number down, because you've got to look at the 210 days, the fact that your heat shield or something might be exposed to whatever that debris is for that period of time. NASA looks at Loss of Vehicle the same as Loss of Crew. If the vehicle is damaged and it may not be detected prior to de-orbit, then you have loss of crew.

[https://www.airspacemag.com/space/certified- safe-281371/](https://www.airspacemag.com/space/certified-safe-281371/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I don't get it. I imagine HN feels there's between 5% to 30% chance that humanity kills itself in the next 300 years.

If we accept those odds, isn't there a point where space travel becomes the best our best plan, regardless of dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of astronaut deaths?

<comment><USER17> Once upon a time, thousands of people died fishing for ambergris. Whale anus wax. People died all the time.

Do we really think people are going to die exploring space? Yeah, they very fucking well are going to be deaths exploring space. We can take precautions as much as practical, but this zero risk tolerance philosophy is not going to work. We haven't done anything of note when it comes to manned space exploration in half a century. Space is so dangerous that the only way to keep risk to a minimum is to not go. And that's basically what we've done.

It's just that now these things are televised and PR is such a disaster when you have somebody die on air. It's not like a plumber is going to be watched by the entire world as he works in some kind of risky situation. People die doing that, too. People die doing anything. But if it's in the limelight like space exploration, it's absolutely unacceptable for anyone to risk death. That's why. Because we're watching and we can bear it only if we don't have to know about it or watch it happen.

We've got to start taking a hell of a lot more risk. We're taking enormous risk by not furthering space exploration. But risk of inaction is a strange thing, psychologically speaking. People don't fret about it, even though it's a real killer. Our climate is about to be the biggest killer of all, and we only feel vaguely uncomfortable about doing absolutely nothing.

And when I talk about taking risk, I'm not talking about go fever by the way-- dumb political risk that leads to ignoring engineers. I mean the kind of risk that got us to the moon in the 60s. People died doing that. Mostly Soviet people, but a few Americans, too. But it was important enough. And it got done. We really shouldn't have stopped there.

It's not really NASA's fault, but they haven't gotten shit done with manned spaceflight since then. Haven't done a damn thing. Yet people have still died doing it. I hope private industry at least gets somebody above the Van Allen belt in the coming years. We need to get back on the horse before we lose our chance for good.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> It seems to me there is a reasonably low cost solution to demonstrate safety: SpaceX should load and unload the fuel multiple times for its human- qualification spaceflights. If SpaceX is correctly confident fuel loading is safe, the extra handling won't result in incidents. This would be a fairly minor expense given nothing is consumed or destroyed -- just handling costs and incidental losses due to evaporation and so on.

<comment><USER15> OMG what a fantastically obvious idea! Now that you've mentioned it of course ;-)

There may be reasons this isn't as simple as it sounds but it's worth considering.

<comment><USER26> Not that it wouldn't increase confidence, but if you don't know what you needed to be worried about, you can't be sure that you really tested it.

Loading and unloading fuel repeatedly doesn't validate that the ground crew will be sober for a 5:00am launch on May 6th.

Validation testing is good for testing a known unknown. Whether it's good for testing an unknown unknown, is unknown.

<comment><USER27> It's a good point that indeed there might be something different at actual- launch-time versus testing time, but I'd imagine that doing the whole procedure a few times (as complete as possible) would reveal any important unknown unknowns if present. (Where I define important as 'reasonably likely to occur': if they are indeed so likely, they'll probably occur with repeated tests.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I'm no scientist, but I'd expect there is a long list of things SpaceX has done that violate the "last 50 years of national and international safety standards".

<comment><USER29> "most fast and break things"

<comment><USER30> "launch frequently, and recover as much of the rocket as you can to inspect the parts so they can be improved"

<comment><USER31> That's a good point. Closing the loop probably did more for the advancement of space travel than anything else because it allows you to find out what _almost_ failed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> This is based on information from _2015_ , but May 2018 seems to be Take Down Elon Musk month, so lets run a negative story.

</comment><comment><USER33> So, what I don't understand is why NASA doesn't make this really simple — allow SpaceX to use the "load-and-go" process on flights that don't involve putting living beings into space, and when they have repeatedly and sufficiently proven how safe the system is, then start talking about whether or not it could be used to launch humans.

Don't even talk about using the potentially more dangerous system until it has enough of a safety record.

<comment><USER34> SpaceX has been using supercooled propellants (and "load-and-go") for every launch since early 2016, including NASA cargo launches. It's been used over thirty times by now. Whatever additional assurance that NASA's advisory board wants, another few launches are unlikely to provide it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> > the safety-obsessed space agency

That's not how I remember Feynmans report going

<comment><USER36> That report came out 32 years ago. The article suggests that the space agency has become more safety-obsessed over time.

<comment><USER37> Given that the Columbia disaster occurred in the middle of those 32 years, I'm not sure that follows....

<comment><USER38> Somewhat true, I'd say that risk-averse is more appropriate than safety- obsessed. For such organizations, being "safety-obsessed" usually means a massive amount of bureaucracy around certain known risks, but such organizations don't tend to be consistently good at finding and addressing unknown risks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> SpaceX has lost 2 F9 so far. The first exploded in flight, but the Dragon capsule could have been retreived, if the parashutes had not been disbled in the starting phase. The second fueling for the static fire test. In both cases, no crew would have been in danger, and of course the causes of the failures has been adressed.

But it will at least take another 12 months till the first planned crew flight. If everything goes well, the Falcon 9 will have about 30 more flights till then. A lot of opportunity to build a safety record.

<comment><USER30> Everyone expects the LAS (launch abort system) to not be very reliable. So you're a bit optimistic about the outcome of the second failure: big danger for the crew.

<comment><USER40> Who is "everyone"? Because it certainly isn't actually everyone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> NASA Challenger and others have proven record of putting lives at risk. It's a dangerous job. As for hypothetical danger, that's more of a clickbait "analysis", timely after recent lash-out by Musk on Tesla conference call, IMHO.

</comment><comment><USER42> I for one who would rather sit on top of a rocket being loaded but have a LAS ready to go than going anywhere near a loaded one with no way to escape within a few seconds.

</comment><comment><USER43> Just goes to show that its way easier to change technology than culture. Even Congresscritters are still thinking they're calling the shots. If NASA doesn't want to use SpaceX, they're free to do so. They can go with Boeing (some of the very people pointing fingers) or the Russians.

The "culture of safety" at NASA had more to do with a "culture of protecting funding lines" by ensuring that parts of the shuttle were done in important congressional districts.

</comment><comment><USER44> I mean the only safe ship is a ship in a harbor and that's not what ships are for....buttttt I am skeptical that a for-profit-company run by elon musk has rigorous safety culture-particularly given he apparently has no concerns with libeling people killed by his firm's autopilot software

</comment><comment><USER45> A few months ago I had a chat to one of the engineers working on the SLS during a NASA outreach presentation. Super defensive about it and dismissive of SpaceX and their accomplishments. The goals of the SLS mission before 2030, build an orbiting moon space station, isn't even that ambitious or scientifically valuable.

2 years ago, I was having a similar chat to someone who was a retired ULA ~30 launch veteran (I forget exactly their title). But they didn't want to entertain the idea that SpaceX even had a business model. 'The market that they're aiming for is only a few launches a year'

<comment><USER46> > The market that they're aiming for is only a few launches a year'

In 1958, the chairman of IBM stated 'I think there is a world market for about five computers'.

He wasn't wrong, because back then computers were extraordinarily expensive and occupied entire buildings. There was maybe a worldwide market of about 5 of _those kinds_ of computers.

What happened though was that due to technological advances, computers became cheaper, smaller, more efficient and more reliable and it drastically changed the entire market, and now almost everyone has a computer in their pocket.

The market for rocket launches will also significantly take off if SpaceX can bring the cost down and the reliability up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> But is the densified fuel actually needed to fly the Dragon 2 to a LEO destination? Can SpaceX do their Falcon 9 HSF missions the old fashioned way, making the safety of load-and-go a moot point?

<comment><USER48> I had this same thought! Presumably, ISS missions do not need total fuel capacity so boosters could be fueled only enough for mission plus landing plus safety margin. Even if they did not wish to change loading procedures they could load densified fuel and then load the astronauts. The delay to load crew would allow the fuel to warm up and expand but so what?

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Sending men into space is a vanity mission, not a science mission.[1] Unmanned mission solve the risk problem for SpaceX type progress and yield more answers for a lot less money.

[1] With the exception of _politically_ valuable missions such as the International space station which employed Russian scientist in a bid to keep them from selling their skills to undesirable state actors.

<comment><USER17> That's just oversimplified and not true. Sending men into space in the sixties and seventies got so much more done than automated missions to the moon because it forced us to work harder and solve more important problems. We're still reaping the rewards gained from technology developed to solve those problems.

Sending probes to learn trivia about the universe is not as important as developing better ways to support and transport human life. At all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> > including Blue Origin, which was founded by Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos

Amazing that he's not "Amazon owner Jeff Bezos".

</comment><comment><USER51> Shouldn't this headline read "could put lives at _unnecessary_ risk" ?

All rocket launches are going to carry some amount of mortal risk. The headline implies this isn't the case except for SpaceX's technology, which is hogwash.

</comment><comment><USER52> to be fair, folks that are knowingly getting into a tube with a bunch of explosives strapped under them are not really thinking about dying that much.

Personally, I would gladly climb into one of these rockets if ever given a chance, regardless of risks.

</comment><comment><USER53> Who knew that space exploration was risky ?

</comment><comment><USER54> I'm alright with that.

</comment><comment><USER55> Challenger, Columbia, and now NASA is concerned about astronaut safety? Hah.

There is always risk; simple rockets are (probably) less risky than the shuttle program. More unmanned launches will help quantify that risk; NASA can then determine whether the risk is acceptable, or not.

</comment><comment><USER56> > Robert Lightfoot, the former acting NASA administrator, lamented in candid > terms how the agency, with society as a whole, has become too risk-averse. > He charged the agency with recapturing some of the youthful swagger that > sent men to the moon during the Apollo era.

> "I worry, to be perfectly honest, if we would have ever launched Apollo in > our environment here today," he said during a speech at the Space Symposium > last month, "if Buzz [Aldrin] and Neil [Armstrong] would have ever been able > to go to the moon in the risk environment we have today."

That is a really underhanded way to say, "Let's kill more astronauts so we can get to space faster."

The folks who risked their lives and, in some cases, gave their lives to get us to where we are today deserve better.

<comment><USER57> Disagree. We make trade offs wrt safety all the time. Driving in a car is pretty dangerous, yet many of us drive our cars every single day. Because the payoff is worth the risk. Those quotes speak to this trade off. They are advocating for a stance that is willing to take more risk, because they assume that there are tremendous benefits to be had by doing so. They are not advocating taking risks for the sake of killing astronauts.

<comment><USER56> I get what you're saying but in this case I have to ask, can we really not get those benefits without risking lives? Would it become impossible? Or would it just take longer?

Can robots do it?

I _hate_ arguing this position because _I want to go to space_ physically in person in my lifetime. But it doesn't make sense to send humans if robots can do the job because space is inimicable to life and life support is very hard and expensive and heavy.

Risk lives to stave off an asteroid but not to mine it.

\- - - -

I don't want to get into a side-thing about driving, but I don't drive in part because I see it as a Faustian bargain: we get transportation that's so convenient at the cost of forcing people to participate in a death-and-mayhem lottery. Traffic is a meat-grinder.

<comment><USER58> We've sent many robots to space and to mars. But they are very limited in their scope and ability. Where a human can have near limitless scope and ability.

Watch some of the mars rover videos and it becomes clear how frustrating it must be for the scientists on earth to do research on mars remotely.

<comment><USER56> More frustrating than being blown up on the launch pad!?

Mark S. Miller had a site with a list of "adages", here's one I really liked:

"A Computer's Perspective on Moore's Law: Humans are getting more expensive at an exponential rate."

This is true, although slower, for robots.

Look, if _you_ want to risk _your_ life to go to space, I'm fine with that. I do too.

But if NASA or Musk or Bezos or whoever want to _unnecessarily_ risk _other peoples '_ lives to make a buck _faster_ , or even just explore Mars, that's irresponsible and kinda fucked up, is my opinion.

For example, I think Mars One is awesome! (Stupid and doomed, but still awesome.) Colonizing Mars to have a "backup" Earth is important enough (in my opinion) that it's noble to risk your life to achieve it ASAP.

Mining an asteroid, although I personally would love to try it, is not quite so noble, eh?

The less "risk-averse" space program was happening in a very different context: the "Space Race" [1] which was in many ways a continuation or extension of the Cold War, which was in many ways a continuation or extension of WWII.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> Space science is cool and useful, but is it so crucial to humanity's progress that we shouldn't be super extra careful with our astronaut's lives? Waiting an extra year or two or ten to learn about how fruit fly DNA mutates in space seems fine when the alternative is maybe killing astronauts with a decent probability.

<comment><USER57> What about letting the astronauts decide what level of risk they are comfortable with?

<comment><USER59> If that kind of thinking worked, we wouldn't need OSHA. This comes to mind: [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/government-paying- billions...](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/government-paying-billions- shipbuilders-histories-safety-lapses)

<comment><USER60> That's not quite the same -- no one becomes an astronaut because it's the only way they can support themselves, taking that job is very much a choice.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Microsoft Azure Sentinel - i-am-cjc https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/introducing-microsoft-azure-sentinel-intelligent-security-analytics-for-your-entire-enterprise/ <comment><AUTHOR> With Splunk buying Phantom, it seems like Microsoft wants to get into the playbooks and security orchestration.

</comment><comment><USER2>
      ...today's Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) products can't keep pace

      That's why we reimagined the SIEM tool as a new cloud-native solution called Microsoft Azure Sentinel

So which one is it?

</comment><comment><USER3> Microsoft has done more to damage computer security than any other single company in history. They quite simply don't belong in this space. I can't believe anyone takes this type of shit seriously.

<comment><USER4> I mean, that's like saying that the number one car manufacturer contributes the most to traffic. Can you elaborate?</comment></comment>


Analytics 101: Choosing the right database - <AUTHOR> https://reflect.io/blog/analytics-101-choosing-the-right-database/ <comment><USER2> Analytics 101: Choosing the right database is the wrong first step.

I was excited when I saw 'choosing the right data model' as one of the rules, but they are talking about the data models the DB uses internally. The important data model is choosing how you model the data you have to analyze. I have my biases, but I'd argue that a dimensional model would be a good starting if we're really at a 101 level and extensions to the model are for future classes/development.

Starting with the end in mind is very important. When I look at this, I think in terms of data culture. Who needs to be able to do what in your organization? What types of question will you need to answer most often? What types of questions will you need to support in an ad-hoc manner?

To many organizations "analytics" means arithmetic, but with complex filtering logic and business logic, traditional BI, essentially. To others, "analytics" means R code monkeys. To others it may mean specifically visualizations and the presentation layer. There are many interpretations of the word. Regardless of the interpretation, process and culture are more important to understand before the technology.

For a rough analogy, it's like saying "Software development 101: Choosing the right programming language". Sure it matters, but knowing what your software needs to support and what the primary use cases are are more important to understand.

Ninja edit: Grammar.

<comment><USER3> Modelling your data dimensionally is becoming less and less popular in the analytics space.

It used to be the standard in data warehouses but now the trend is to leave the data unstructured and use query tools e.g Drill or do multiple ETL into structured versions. But even the structured versions would not be relationally modelled to any great extent. Data scientists typically want access to data right now not in a few months when your database guy has finishing modelling it.

<comment><USER2> Dimensional modeling, though often associated with a traditional waterfall methodology, is not tied to this delivery methodology.

It remains the most understandable model to the largest population of end users. Analytics is a very broad term, as I mentioned in my original post, and the audience is huge. If "analytics" to you implies an audience of primarily data savvy end users, then dimensional modeling may not hold as much value.

I tend to find that the data scientists at our clients still do a lot more data wrangling than data science when they don't have clean models to work with as a baseline.

Additionally, there's a big difference between exploratory analysis of new data sources where access and low latency are key, and well-known domains that have fairly predictable needs. The former have a habit of transforming into the latter. Dimensional models remain one of the most efficient physical structures of data for a read-dominant workload.

Long story short, I think it's worthwhile to both of us to look outside our bubbles. I work for a BI and data science consultancy. My focus specifically is in core BI workloads, and so I'm definitely overexposed to more traditional modeling techniques. I can guarantee you, though, that the cycle time for a usable pilot that includes a fully realized dimensional model is more on the order of a handful of weeks than months in a typical delivery.

What's your bubble?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Surprised that RethinkDB[1] isn't mentioned. It has support for replication and sharding, plus a query language well suited for analytics.

(I'm not affiliated with them, just think they get proportionally little coverage given their interesting product)

[1] [http://rethinkdb.com/](http://rethinkdb.com/)

<comment><USER5> Last I checked, RethinkDB had poor aggregation performance — which is key to doing analytics, unless you want to use it purely as a master data store and do aggregations elsewhere.

Some simple "group by" selects that would take ~3 seconds with Postgres or Elasticsearch would take several minutes with RethinkDB, unless it died of RAM starvage first. It looks to me like RethinkDB is not optimized for sequential read access, nor is its caching algorithm tuned to such workloads.

I believe it also lacks many of the aggregations that you'll want to use, like multi-level bucketing on different dimensions.

This was ~1 year ago, though, so it may have massive improved since then, who knows.

<comment><USER6> Daniel @ RethinkDB here.

We're constantly improving performance and a lot has happened within the past year. I think that at this point RethinkDB is as good a database for analytics as many of the other general-purpose databases when it comes to features and performance.

From what I can tell, there are still two main limitations that apply in some, but not all scenarios:

* Grouping big results without an associated aggregation requires the full result to fit into RAM. I believe this was the limitation that you ran into a year ago, which lead to RAM exhaustion. This limitation is still there ( [https://github.com/rethinkdb/rethinkdb/issues/2719](https://github.com/rethinkdb/rethinkdb/issues/2719) in our issue tracker). However we're shipping a new command `fold` with the upcoming 2.3 release of RethinkDB, which can be used in the vast majority of cases to perform streaming grouped operations (in conjunction with a matching index). See [https://github.com/rethinkdb/rethinkdb/issues/3736](https://github.com/rethinkdb/rethinkdb/issues/3736) for details.

* Scanning data sets that don't fit into memory on _rotational_ disks is still inefficient. Most SQL databases deploy sophisticated optimizations to structure their disk layout in order to minimize the effects of high seek times. RethinkDB's disk layout it built with a stronger focus on SSDs. This limitation hence doesn't apply if the data is stored on SSDs.

<comment><USER4> Focusing on SSDs seems reasonable.

Rotational disks are on their way out. For example, Samsung recently introduced a 15TB SSD[1], able to compete even with the largest rotational disks.

[1] [https://news.samsung.com/global/samsung-now-introducing- worl...](https://news.samsung.com/global/samsung-now-introducing-worlds- largest-capacity-15-36tb-ssd-for-enterprise-storage-systems)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Actually, you might want to not choose any database at all, but instead focus on deciding on the data format, such as Parquet ([http://parquet.io](http://parquet.io)) or Avro ([https://avro.apache.org/](https://avro.apache.org/)), etc. Many of the tools such as Hive, Impala, Spark, etc. support these formats natively.

You will also need to think about the schema, partitioning, compression and other parameters, and those are not trivial decisions.

<comment><USER3> The data format is important. ORC/Parquet being substantially faster then Text or Sequence files.

But the query engines are far more important in terms of performance. Just spend any time with SparkSQL and then Hive and you'll know what I mean.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Surprised [http://druid.io/](http://druid.io/) wasn't mentioned. This db was made specifically for both real time analytics and batch analytics. It even has a nice front end [http://imply.io/](http://imply.io/)

</comment><comment><USER9> NEW: Scalable & Open Source PostgreSQL extension [https://www.citusdata.com](https://www.citusdata.com) ( based on PG9.4 / PG9.5 )

Github: [https://github.com/citusdata/citus](https://github.com/citusdata/citus)

HN: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11353322](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11353322) "Citus Unforks from PostgreSQL, Goes Open Source (citusdata.com)" ( 24th March, 2016 )

 _" What is Citus?

\- Open-source PostgreSQL extension (not a fork)

\- Scalable across multiple hosts through sharding and replication

\- Distributed engine for query parallelization

\- Highly available in the face of host failures "_

 _" Citus provides users real-time responsiveness over large datasets, most commonly seen in rapidly growing event systems or with time series data . Common uses include powering real-time analytic dashboards, exploratory queries on events as they happen, session analytics, and large data set archival and reporting."_ [https://www.citusdata.com/blog/17-ozgun- erdogan/403-citus-un...](https://www.citusdata.com/blog/17-ozgun- erdogan/403-citus-unforks-postgresql-goes-open-source)

</comment><comment><USER10> This is by no means a comprehensive list of databases and that's not the intent of this article. The real intent is that it's a simple read for many companies still running solely on 'general purpose databases' and showing where newer database technologies can fit in based on their data needs. Upvote.

</comment><comment><USER11> What about ElasticSearch. Even though its search engine, its growing in popularity as schemaless JSON data store

<comment><USER5> Surprised Elasticsearch isn't mentioned in the article.

Unlike several of the databases mentioned, it has a data model particularly appropriate for analytics: While only apparently schemaless, its schema is extensible (no need to pre-declare it), and by default every column is indexed. Which means that there's no extra work on the client to assert the existence of indexes for new fields.

More importantly, it does complex, nested, distributed aggregations (top-K, date histograms, etc.) out of the box, and is incredibly fast at it, owing to the columnar-store-like Lucene index model. You can do complicated aggregations across millions of values over several dimensions in milliseconds.

Elasticsearch has consistency issues, though, and even with 2.x and the recent translog support you should probably never use it as a primary data store.

Some of the other databases mentioned (Cassandra, Riak and so on) are useful mostly as primary datastores that get processed into something that can do aggregations. For example, Cassandra -> Elasticsearch is probably a great combo.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I've always wanted a super-compact database for storing integers on smaller setups where I don't have the resources to run a dedicated logging server.

I can represent almost everything as an int. Like time, cpu usage, line number, etc. Even just a single byte is enough for most things like which server number or custom error was thrown.

</comment><comment><USER13> Please, please don't set your text color to #888 or #999 on a white background.

I don't want to have to edit your CSS just so I can read the text.

<comment><USER14> I use the blacken plugin on my browser, which automatically converts all text to black. I know this isn't your point, but it is much better than altering CSS to fix the web.

Otherwise, I'd just assume the designers disrespect all of us with poor vision and take it for granted the writing is done with equal care. Rather than ranting about it, I'd rather not think about it.

With that said, for _some_ reason, blacken doesn't automatically convert this site to black, meaning I have to manually convert the text to black. Even after the author fixed the color, it is still impossible for me to read. Please don't override user-assisted plugins. Being on the fort page of HN, I'm assuming this is a decent article, but I have no desire to read it now. thanks.

<comment><USER15> We're going to darken the text on our next push. Thanks for pointing it out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Turoczy, thank you for sharing! Great insights.</comment>


Changes to U.S. federal authorities relating to production and marketing of hemp - sahin-boydas https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm628988.htm <comment><AUTHOR> This is an extremely misleading headline for people to read and the mods should change it. Hemp has been legal for a long time and the DEA has stated that CBD products produced solely from hemp plants are federally legal.

It is still illegal to produce or own cannabidiol derived from Marijuana. Emphatically, this statement from the FDA does not mean that cannabidiol as a chemical is legal.

(2016, usdoj.gov) [https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/schedules/marijuana/m_ext...](https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/schedules/marijuana/m_extract_7350.html)

Nothing has changed here except that the FDA is claiming authority to regulate the small subset of CBD products that are legally produced from hemp. The above DOJ article goes somewhat into the science of how these products, if they exist and are produced legally, contain such trace amounts of CBD that they're surely ineffective. Point being: either it's produced from real flowers and it's still illegal, or it's produced from hemp and present in such small amounts that it's of absolutely no benefit. The FDA is merely saying that they want to regulate the latter case.

<comment><AUTHOR> (My opinion)

I'm generally against any form of regulation, but as long as we live in a society where drug laws already don't make sense, regulating the headshop CBD industry is going to do good things.

The industry around cannabidiol is disgusting, particularly when it comes to products sold outside of states with medical or recreational marijuana. Outside of your average stoner looking for holistic medicine, a great deal of people interested in CBD are cancer patients or family of cancer patients. At best, these companies are making money selling snake oil to dying people. At worst, they're introducing dangerous toxic chemicals to immunocompromised individuals and actively harming them.

I can't find the article but there was news a few years ago about a head chemist stepping down from one of the largest (at the time) legal producers of CBD. She wrote an exposé about how their leadership was pushing for higher purity at the cost of safety, and how it forced her to resign.

<comment><USER2> Agreed but the government is to blame for a lot of this. People are super thirsty for CBD, it is very effective for many people. Especially elderly people that have been anti-pot most of their lives.

These people don't have any good ways of making good buying decisions, let a lone having a regulatory body to rely on to test this stuff. So they just choose stuff with good marketing and high concentrations.

Not to say your article isn't making a good point -- just that these nasty companies being successful is due to a vacuum created by decades of complete head-up-our-own-ass marijuana policy.

<comment><USER3> There's no regulatory body testing most things, especially chemicals. It's tragic.

<comment><USER4> I find the premise that consumers need ahead-of-time protection insulting and limiting. If wrongs are made, we have a system for remedy: tort. The FDA is an adjacent regulatory body. Through its risk adverse behavior, the FDA causes unseen deaths: [https://www.creators.com/read/walter-williams/12/18/fda- poli...](https://www.creators.com/read/walter-williams/12/18/fda-policies- kill) Also, the FDA performs poor data collection and sharing. When I analyzed one of the FDA'S most important datasets, I was surprised to find such low quality: [https://github.com/statwonk/FDA-adverse-drug- reactions/blob/...](https://github.com/statwonk/FDA-adverse-drug- reactions/blob/master/drug_analysis.R) What's tragic to me is that so often folks feel safety or wealth comes from the government rather than our own minds. Maybe if there's no safety facade they'll demand private labs certify safety?

<comment><USER5> What do you think about Thalidomide then? [http://broughttolife.sciencemuseum.org.uk/broughttolife/them...](http://broughttolife.sciencemuseum.org.uk/broughttolife/themes/controversies/thalidomide)

<comment><USER4> A back pat for a function the market would have provided immediately. Drugs can definitely be poison. I'd much prefer safety analyses have a GitHub sha1 publicly accessible than secretively behind the FDA's closed doors.

<comment><USER5> What? The FDA openly publishes stuff. From long before GitHub was around.

Here's a good overview of how they go about making sure that approved drugs are GRASE (Generally Recognized As Safe and Effective): [https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm14353...](https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm143534.htm)

<comment><USER6> Even more than that, the FDA requires openness in a way that I'm not sure would be accomplishable without.

Publication bias is a real thing, and drug companies do know how to use it to their advantage. Take a look at what drug trial results looked like before and after the FDA started requiring pre-registration. The difference is, to put it mildly, staggering.

I'm pretty hard pressed to come up with a market equivalent to drug trial pre- registration. Given everything I've seen of Adam Smith's writings, I'm pretty sure that, were he alive today, he'd probably say something like, "Duh, of course. Do that. That is some excellent regulation, and obviously in the service of the public good."

Tangentially, I'm guessing that, if CBD had to go through pre-registered drug trials, it wouldn't be such a big deal. The funny thing about things that are widely believed to help with every last ailment is, they tend to all be about equally good at treating pretty much everything.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> So this means that the FDA is now regulating the chemicals as drugs. The implications are:

\- you can't claim to cure/heal anything unless your product undergoes FDA formal approval. Then you can market it as a drug.

\- you can't mix the chemicals into food and call it food. If they are present, it's classified as a drug.

\- THC and CBD are considered "active" therefore you can't slide them into supplements or market supplements with those chemicals. The use of those chemicals as supplements is still being evaluated and they haven't issued a regulation on it.

\- other subtances of the plant are recognized as generally safe so they can be used for other food / cosmetic applications

Finally they put out a FAQ: [https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm421168.h...](https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm421168.htm)

</comment><comment><USER8> It's very interesting how this whole period of cannabis prohibition has played out. First the UN says cannabis is bad on advice from the US. My country, Sweden, bans the THC cannabinoid. And institutes a zero tolerance policy.

So CBD was never banned and people have been selling CBD oils in shops, and even pharmacies, for a while now.

The US leading the way in decriminalization apparently banned CBD on a federal level.

This just shows how little governments knew about cannabis when it was banned.

And finally; I used to be dependent on cannabis. It has been a very hard struggle to stop smoking so much cannabis and focus on working, sober instead. I can't imagine what that struggle would be like if cannabis was being sold for recreational use where I live.

Someone somewhere once said that cannabis makes it fun to be bored, and that's the real danger with it. It's not toxic, it's not terribly addictive but you get addicted to feeling good when doing nothing at all.

Edit: Just to clarify if anyone is curious, CBD was being handled by the Swedish quivalent of the FDA. While THC was being handled as an illegal narcotic. So our FDA could approve the use and sale of CBD based products without affecting the legal ban of THC.

<comment><USER9> > Someone somewhere once said that cannabis makes it fun to be bored, and > that's the real danger with it. It's not toxic, it's not terribly addictive > but you get addicted to feeling good when doing nothing at all.

Well, like social media or watching TV. It is not clear what is your point.

<comment><USER10> Those are also harmful when taken to excess.

<comment><USER11> Is there _anything_ that is not harmful in excess?

<comment><USER12> Moderation?

<comment><USER11> Too much moderation causes atrophy

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Topic modification? CBD is not legalized, apparently. Hemp (<0.3% THC) is, but CBD is not.

 _"It is true that section 12619 of the Farm Bill removes hemp-derived products from its Schedule I status under the Controlled Substances Act, but the legislation does not legalize CBD generally. As I have noted elsewhere on this blog CBD generally remains a Schedule I substance under federal law . . . The Farm Bill ensures that any cannabinoid — a set of chemical compounds found in the cannabis plant — that is derived from hemp will be legal, if and only if that hemp is produced in a manner consistent with the Farm Bill, associated federal regulations, association state regulations, and by a licensed grower. All other cannabinoids, produced in any other setting, remain a Schedule I substance under federal law and are thus illegal. (The one exception is pharmaceutical-grade CBD products that have been approved by FDA, which currently includes one drug: GW Pharmaceutical's Epidiolex.)"_

Source: [https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/marijuana/2018/12/20/hemp-o...](https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/marijuana/2018/12/20/hemp- officially-legalized-with-president-trump-signature-farm- bill/aKmNr3iS2AVJuRUbLPnz6I/story.html)

</comment><comment><USER14> "Additionally, it's unlawful under the FD&C Act to introduce food containing added CBD or THC into interstate commerce, or to market CBD or THC products as, or in, dietary supplements, regardless of whether the substances are hemp- derived. This is because both CBD and THC are active ingredients in FDA- approved drugs and were the subject of substantial clinical investigations before they were marketed as foods or dietary supplements. Under the FD&C Act, it's illegal to introduce drug ingredients like these into the food supply, or to market them as dietary supplements. This is a requirement that we apply across the board to food products that contain substances that are active ingredients in any drug."

<comment><USER15> I've tried reading this release and this page [https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm421168.h...](https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm421168.htm) but still can't figure out if CBD oil is legal or illegal. Are CBD gummies suddenly illegal? Or are they suddenly 100% legal (and no longer in the gray area)?

<comment><USER16> Are CBD gummies a food or a medicine? They might be treated differently depending on how they're classified.

Something else to consider is that there are plenty of products that don't have to prove their safety -- products which the FDA blesses as "GRAS" ("Generally Recognized As Safe"), though it's unlikely that CBD will fall under this classification either.

Both alcohol and some medicines (like quinine[1], which is added to tonic water) the FDA apparently has no problems with, despite some of these ingredients (like alcohol) being very far from safe, much less proven to be safe in "substantial clinical investigations".

[1] - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinine)

<comment><USER17> Alcohol is special. We didn't merely undo prohibition. With that constitutional amendment, we removed most federal authority over alcohol. The commerce clause does not apply anymore ( _State Board of Equalization v. Young 's Market Co._), and thus can't be abused to regulate alcohol. About the only thing the federal government can do about alcohol is arm-twist the states into regulating it via things like highway funding being conditional on the existence of state regulations.

<comment><USER18> > _With that constitutional amendment, we entirely removed federal authority > over alcohol._

Where are you getting that from?

<comment><USER17> OK, _mostly_

Section 2 of the 21st amendment was ruled on in _State Board of Equalization v. Young 's Market Co._ and shown to give states unusual control of alcohol.

<comment><USER18> I think you might be reading _Young 's Market_ a little too broadly. And in any case, it's questionable whether _Young 's Market_ is still good law after Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460 (2005).

"If a State chooses to allow direct shipment of wine, it must do so on evenhanded terms. Without demonstrating the need for discrimination, New York and Michigan have enacted regulations that disadvantage out-of-state wine producers. Under our Commerce Clause jurisprudence, these regulations cannot stand." _Id._ at 493.

So yeah, Amd. 21, §2 gives states Constitutional force behind some of their alcohol laws, but it doesn't usurp the Commerce power entirely.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Hemp farming is a win aside from just the CBD product possibilities.

Hemp can be more lucrative for farmers [1] making feed instead of alfalfa/others.

Hemp also uses less water than other crops [2], it can help with water usage in agriculture heavy states that are tighter on water in the west (CA, AZ, NV, UT).

Hemp for textiles is also more efficient than cotton which uses 50% more water and requires more land [2].

Hemp oil possibilities are also interesting to restart and explore.

Hemp being legal opens up farmers to switching to it more and give them more markets for a crop that us more lucrative and uses less water. It was used like this a hundred years ago, sad it was caught up in the drug wars for so long. Much farther to go on the ending drug wars but this is a welcome market opening back up that has benefits all around in hemp.

[1] [https://psmag.com/environment/hemp-is-the-future-of- agricult...](https://psmag.com/environment/hemp-is-the-future-of-agriculture)

[2] [https://slate.com/technology/2011/04/hemp-versus-cotton- whic...](https://slate.com/technology/2011/04/hemp-versus-cotton-which-is- better-for-the-environment.html)

<comment><USER20> If hemp is widely grown and a part of that is production of widely available low-level painkillers then there is, I imagine, a massive challenge to the pharma-corps -- a good deal of their income is probably low-level pain medications?

FWIW I've had hemp beer (quite good) and used compostable "plastic" cups made from hemp (no different in appearance or use to regular plastic cups).

<comment><USER19> Yeah it was irrational and nonsensical to keep hemp out of markets for so long in the war on plants, but the upside to that is there are many market uses for it and will provide explosive growth in lots of sectors and jobs in the economy. Hemp legalization definitely challenges Pharma a bit but hard to stop market opportunities and benefits, they will be in on it but hopefully not cornering the market via bribes/force.

Production (farmers and eventually more products/companies/uses), consumers, the environment and the market love the product, finally free to innovate. Hemp shall get its revenge after being thrown in the Château d'If and locked up for no reason, it is coming back as the Count of Monte Cristo to exact revenge and take over.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> For those interested in learning more about CBD use: [https://www.projectcbd.org](https://www.projectcbd.org)

(I'm not affiliated)

I suffered with seasonal hayfever for 25 years. Cured it completely with CBD this year. Was inspired to try it after I cured my cats seasonal asthma with a tiny CBD dose. It was so effective on me I thought the season hadn't started till it was over. Weirdly effective.

I've been a huge skeptic of medicinal marijuana. I am now a convert and I think CBD in particular is an exciting area.

Sounds like the headline above may not be entirely accurate. But we will get there.

In Washington state the FDA came after CBD manufacturers for making miracle cure claims. As part of the investigation they tested various products. Turns out many had little or no CBD. The industry is rife with snake oil salesmen. But in states where it is legal you have the benefit of accurate lab testing with results published on the packaging.

Source for CBD related warning letters from FDA. The WA cases were 2015. [https://www.fda.gov/newsevents/publichealthfocus/ucm484109.h...](https://www.fda.gov/newsevents/publichealthfocus/ucm484109.htm)

<comment><USER22> Out of interest what CDB product did you use (e.g oil, crystals) and what strength was it? Did you experiment with dosing to get find what worked best for you?

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> The 2018 Farm Bill made growing hemp legal under federal law. This will allow farmers to grow hemp and participate in USDA programs, get greater accsss to banking, etc.

Hemp, specifically "industrial hemp", is just cannabis that has a THC content under 0.3%.

There are a lot of products that can be made from hemp; a popular one is CBD oil. There are different methods of extracting it, CO2 extraction being popular, but it's also sometimes done with solvents.

The CBD oil industry is currently unregulated and basically the Wild West. People make bold claims, and it's not always clear what you're buying. Though, some companies post 3rd party testing results that correlate with batch numbers on the product label.

What this article is really saying is that now that there will be a lot more hemp in the US, the FDA will be taking an active regulatory role. This will likely have a _big_ impact on the CBD oil industry which currently markets as a cure-all in many health food stores.

This is good for consumer safety in the long run — hemp is an effective soil cleaner and the heavy metals in the soil can end up in th CBD oil you're consuming. But it will likely make it a harder process to legitimately sell CBD oil, and require going through a more expensive process involving FDA approval. We'll see.

</comment><comment><USER24> Hopefully we'll see some studies about the effectiveness about CBD come soon. I've heard a lot of anecdotes about it's usefulness for things such anxiety and minor inflammation, it would be good to learn more.

<comment><USER25> I have a family member that was increasingly crippled with intense joint related pain. He was eating large quantities of NSAIDs just to get through a day (up to 10x the suggested dose). CBD oil removed more than 3/4 of the pain, returned him to normal function with no more pain killers needed. I've heard people talk about it for years, it was something else to see it dramatically improve the life of someone I know.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I have smoked weed since I was 16. Back then, I was just rebelling. Also weed made me feel good. I took a break from weed from 24 - 30, doing it EXTREMELY occasionally.

Recently I moved to Oregon and got a vape pen, and I learned something. I sincerely love how weed makes me feel.

It's not just the taboo of it being illegal. It just feels nice when I want to take the edge off. It helps me relax in the right dosage. It makes me tired at the right time of the night so I do not stay up late.

Is vaping weed good for me? Probably not. Is it worse for me than alcohol, eating too much meat, having a sedentary job, or not doing regular weight training? Absolutely not.

End the prohibition. Let adults do what they want with their bodies.

</comment><comment> sahin-boydas Media News Links:

[https://www.marketwatch.com/story/cbd-and-hemp-are-now- legal...](https://www.marketwatch.com/story/cbd-and-hemp-are-now-legal-in-the- us-so-what-does-that-mean-for-pot-companies-2018-12-20)

[https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/422356-trump- off...](https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/422356-trump-officially- legalizes-industrial-hemp)

[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hemp-legal-farm-bill- st...](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hemp-legal-farm-bill- states_us_5c1c1ac1e4b08aaf7a86ae4f)

</comment><comment><USER27> From the FDA statement:

> This is because both CBD and THC are active ingredients in FDA-approved > drugs and were the subject of substantial clinical investigations before > they were marketed as foods or dietary supplements.

Wow, this is unfortunate history. So if someone had marketed CBD as a food ingredient prior to the FDA's approval of CBD drugs, then putting it in food now would be OK. Does the FDA even have the facts correct? Were there food products before the CBD drugs were approved?

</comment><comment><USER28> So hemp products such as protein powder weren't legal in the U.S. before?

<comment><USER29> My mom in California has been buying hemp seeds for the past couple years at the local health food store, so I'd say no.

<comment><USER30> California doesn't care about what's legal or not, they've legalized selling weed which is still super illegal (federally, which is what we're talking about).

<comment><USER31> Exactly. While someone in CA was probably able to access hemp items (and straight out pot items obviously) it was still illegal to produce. That doesn't mean you couldn't obtain it through mail orders or lax enforcement, but I mean I can go buy heroin from a guy I know, that doesn't make it legal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> _This is because both CBD and THC are active ingredients in FDA-approved drugs and were the subject of substantial clinical investigations before they were marketed as foods or dietary supplements._

I would disagree on the term marketed (yes, I know the FDA has a specific definition). THC and CBD have been used medicinally long before they were approved by the FDA as drugs.

</comment><comment><USER33> My issues with CDB/THC legality is that I think its ridiculous that they are requiring for the cultivation, packaging, sale and consumption of it all to be limited to local state regions.

Meaning; If you have a legal cultivation license in California - and you grow or manufacture flower/oil/edibles - you cannot legally transport them A) THROUGH any federal land (like along HWY 80 between the bay area and Lake Tahoe) -- as that traverses a federal forest. and B) From California to Nevada - in which both states THC products are legal now.

Further, if you obtain a license for your cannabis operation in Nevada in addition to California - you have to fully duplicate your entire operation.

Imagine if every single state required every alcohol manufacturer to have a full operation in every state in which Whiskey was to be sold. Its an absolute joke.

Finally - the BCC regulations state that a delivery truck cannot leave the facility it is licensed at until 6pm, must be tracked by GPS, and must be back at the same facility by 10PM.

So you cannot manufacture goods in northern california, deliver them to southern california and be back in your facility on time.

Instead you have to establish licenses POPs along the route / work with other licensed distributors to hand off between locations.

The local jurisdiction can supercede any BCC state regulation with whatever they want - which is going to be either the county, or the local city council. City councils are all duplicating effort to determine what their local tax requirements will be - spending money on external consultants to help them figure out tax revenue projections, and then selecting which local parcels are allowewd to operate a business.

For example - Truckee california has chosen to only allow delivery operations from a set number of parcels - and rather than the state regulation of 600' between facilities and schools - they have chosen that your property lines cannot be within 600' from eachother && your operation must be on a second story office unit if it is zoned as commercial general.

But in order to get a license from the state you must:

A) Have a sign-off from the property owner that it is OK to have any cannabis operations from the commercial space you're leasing from (and landlords with loans from the big banks will not allow this due to the stipulations from the federal loans that say they cannot operate cannabis businesses if they have a loan from that bank)

B) You have to be able to get the local city cannabis business license (some cities charge many thousands, want freedom to fully audit you at any time, and want $XXX/month or as much as 10% of your revenues whichever is greater.)

There is a bunch more -- but its specifically being regulated to prevent the small cultivators from getting into the business - and Monsanto is already secretly operating under shell company names and coming in in a big way. So are the canadians -- and the canadians are low-balling offers to cannabis growers here, pretending to do due diligence - then walking away with the information from the smaller growers and spending money to execute on the business vision plans they glean from the smaller entities.

<comment><USER34> > Imagine if every single state required every alcohol manufacturer to have a > full operation in every state.

You should try running a startup that hires remote workers. We already have to deal with this when it comes to taxation, filings fees, nexus laws, and health insurance. It makes it extremely difficult to run a "remote only" organization without utilizing a PEO.

<comment><USER35> What is a PEO and have you had this problem with remote workers in other countries?

<comment><USER34> I didn't want to come across as advertising any particular entity but they are organizations [1] that are registered in every state, provide benefits, retirement plans, payroll, etc. They technically hire your employees for you, and then contract them to you while taking a fee on top. It's a good way for remote-only companies to expand within the states, or simply companies that don't want to deal with HR/Payroll/etc.

All of our non-US hires have been as contractors entirely to avoid potential complexities.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> THC is soon to follow, I hope. - From Wisconsin

</comment><comment><USER37> So CBD and THC products are illegal if they cross state lines unless the FDA decides otherwise. Wonderful...

<comment><USER38> The FDA also allows Tylenol to be sold OTC

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Excited to see CBD since it's been shown to be great for treating pain

<comment><USER40> Now that it's legal in Canada I recently used CBD for my back pain... it's been quite helpful. Whereas THC (smoking pot) does nothing for me.

CBD really needs to be available to anyone with chronic pain (cancer treatment, epilepsy, etc, etc).

<comment><USER38> Are you using it topically or orally?

<comment><USER41> Not the original poster, but have used CBD - it works both topically and orally. Shop around, the vast majority of outlets for the paste are rip-off merchants, so do a deep dive and find one that is "honest"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> at the very least the title should say "legal in January" instead of "now", but the CBD part is also a hazardous exaggeration.

</comment><comment><USER43> Fast facts:

\- Hemp is defined as Cannabis sativa L., inc. parts and derivatives, with no more than 0.3% THC on dry weight basis.

\- Hemp is excluded from the definitions of "marihuana" and "tetrohydrocannabinol" under the CSA. Therefore, it is no longer a violation of federal _drug (controlled substances)_ laws to produce, distribute, or use hemp.

\- The THC threshold appears to apply at all times--ie. it is unlawful to extract and concentrate THC from previously legal low-THC sativa. Conversely, CBD oil derived from sativa strains would appear to become unscheduled once concentrated such that the THC content falls below the limit--however, the interim production and possession would remain unlawful without a DEA license.

\- This Farm Bill will in one year phase out the 2014 FB research hemp program, and replace it with a full blown legal hemp production program. Under agriculture laws, the only penalties at hand for negligent violations are CAPs and program suspension. The law provides that intentional violations are to be reported by Ag to State/Federal LE.

\- The intentional production of cannabis sativa >0.3% THC would be readily punishable under state, federal CSA. However, because the definition of hemp, which is excluded from the CSA, only takes into account the THC content and _not_ the registration status of the grower, it isn't readily apparent how one could be punished for commerce in unregistered, but THC-threshold compliant, Cannabis sativa. However, an unregistered grower has no shield against accidental/negligent over-THC drug charges.

\- As the linked press release notes, food and drug law will apply to the interstate commerce in hemp. Thus, it will not be lawful to distribute CBD oil as a "supplement," for example. While FD&C Act violations can result in serious charges, they won't be charged as "drug crimes" ie. controlled substances offenses, and will not have the same impact on federal employment, student loans, etc.

\- I'm no expert in this, but it seems to me that it would not be possible to tell legal hemp from >0.3% THC sativa. Thus, it would appear that visual identification of marijuana may no longer be a valid basis for a search/detention by law enforcement.

TL;DR: All Cannabis sativa L. is no longer a controlled substance, provided that it contains no greater than 0.3% THC. States may authorize a legal, tested method of production, for which no one may be penalized for accidental/negligent violations. The FDA will regulate the interstate commerce in hemp products, including CBD oil, because they are considered drug products. The FDA will not be involved in industrial hemp (ex. hemp ropes) because they are not marketed as food, drugs, or cosmetics.

edits: formatting. nb, the law text is at [https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Agriculture...](https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Agriculture%20Improvement%20Act%20of%202018.pdf), do a ^F for "hemp"

</comment><comment><USER44> Legalizing CBD, pulling troops from Syria & and it looks like we're leaving Afghanistan soon too. It's a good week for America.

<comment><USER40> With Mattis resigning and Kelly also leaving... I'd argue it's very bad week for America.

<comment><USER25> They're war hawks, pillars of the military industrial complex, hell bent on keeping us at perpetual war in places like Syria and Afghanistan. Mattis resigned because he's at odds with Trump's push toward ending disastrous foreign military entanglements. In his resignation he openly admitted he was not aligned with Trump's views on such matters. Mattis was one of the top representatives for the system of global military deployment that has nearly bankrupted the US Government after ~50 years of it. If Trump is going to continue to pull us back from the policy of military involvement everywhere, then both Mattis and Kelly leaving is a great start. That outrageous $750 billion military spending proposal should go too, we plainly can't afford anything near that, which also means Syria and Afghanistan should naturally go, which means Mattis should go.

<comment><USER45> > the system of global military deployment that has nearly bankrupted the US > Government after ~50 years of it.

Huh?

<comment><USER25> First there was Vietnam, which broke the US Government's finances so badly it had to abandon the weakened gold peg entirely and shift to fiat only. Immediately after that, inflation skyrocketed, the price of all commodities skyrocketed, oil went vertical, the dollar tanked, and the median American standard of living has never recovered back to where it was before that erosion began. The US fiscal position has never been sound since then either.

The gold peg stood in the way of the war machine. If you have to actually pay for your perpetual war with taxes, it's not going to work. You'll never get the support of the people to fund the insanity. Instead you pay for it all by not asking permission, you abuse the currency to fund the wars (artificially low interest rates, so you can afford the debt, which destroys the purchasing power of Americans by pushing the dollar down over time, so everything they buy costs them more; all without anywhere near enough of an export increase to offset it).

The huge pile of debt Reagan ran up - which back then was the largest accumulation of debt in US history outside of a major war time - is still sitting on the books effectively, perpetually costing us interest forever. That spending explosion was partially focused on unnecessary military spending. Reagan's military spending debt will never be paid off, the true cost of that over time (it'll still be sitting there costing interest 50+ years after it was first accumulated) will be dramatically beyond what occurred during his Presidency years.

Then there was the second Iraq war and the spending explosion during the Bush years. That debased the dollar and spurred an immense commodity bubble. Pick 20 random countries and google "xcountry GDP" and then look at the chart of each (then match it with gold and oil charts). What you will see is syncronous soaring of GDP figures and commodities, far beyond anything that is ever seen in normal terms. Most of that isn't actual GDP growth, what that is, is the dollar plunging (vs the other currencies) due to idiotic spending policies during the Bush years, specifically the trillion plus in unnecessary spending during those eight years. That debasing of the dollar mauled US standards of living for the middle class, which was then compounded by the housing collapse and recession.

The $750 billion we're about to spend on the military - while not being at war with anybody - is a continuation of roughly five decades of failed policy around our global deployment of military forces and routine foreign adventurism re military action in places like Syria or Libya.

That $750 billion should be a lot closer to $450 billion instead. We could just about balance the budget right now, if you combined that with letting the tax cuts reset, slightly raise taxes on the top 10%, and have the Fed push interest costs very slightly down. Instead they're going to keep burying us in mistakes.

So now here we are, looking to spend $8 trillion plus over the next ten years just on the military budget (again, while not at war). Meanwhile, we've got about $600 billion per year in debt interest to pay. Soon we'll be paying interest on $30 trillion in public debt. That's the global military machine being partially responsible for bankrupting the US Government. We're not spending $750 billion because we're at war with Nazi Germany or the USSR or some immense foe, it's because we're deployed globally and that's wildly expensive to maintain.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> n00b question: Does this make Marijuana legal as well or just hemp?

<comment><USER25> Marijuana remains illegal according to the US Government (even though it's not being actively enforced against states that have legalized). I'd expect we'll need to see at least a dozen more states legalize before they're essentially forced into official national legalization. Every state that legalizes gets us closer, like dominos falling. Sometime in the next decade, the sooner the better obviously.</comment></comment>


A Movie About The Travelling Salesman Algorithm. Not sure if serious... - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ybd5rbQ5rU

<comment><AUTHOR> This is the site. The story is about solving the PvNP problem. <http://www.travellingsalesmanmovie.com/></comment>


How do you make a computer improvise with a human? - <AUTHOR> http://player.vimeo.com/video/58329510?width=640&height=480&iframe=true His YouTube channel is here: http://www.youtube.com/user/digitalraja <comment><AUTHOR> His YouTube channel is here: [http://www.youtube.com/user/digitalraja](http://www.youtube.com/user/digitalraja). Some of his music without all the talking can be found here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8UsRkWhNa4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8UsRkWhNa4)</comment>


Looking Back on the Largest DDoS in History - <AUTHOR> http://blog.statuspage.io/looking-back-on-the-largest-ddos-in-history <comment><USER2> It wasn't the largest DDOS in history by a good margin.

<comment><USER3> What was the largest one then?

"Dyn estimated that the attack had involved "100,000 malicious endpoints", and the company, which is still investigating the attack, said there had been reports of an extraordinary attack strength of 1.2Tbps."

[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/26/ddos- atta...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/26/ddos-attack-dyn- mirai-botnet)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> OVH walked back their claims of a 1tb/sec DDoS attack.

Dyn walked back their claim of 'millions' of sources.

It seems many organizations forget to subtract their baseline traffic from their peak numbers. And some may exaggerate volume for other reasons.

The Dyn attack wasn't that large. Not insubstantial, but not massive, either.</comment>


Top new business ideas for 2009 - <AUTHOR> http://springwise.com/top10/09/ <comment><AUTHOR> some amazing ideas on here, notably:

[http://springwise.com/style_design/stylish_helmets_for_urban...](http://springwise.com/style_design/stylish_helmets_for_urban_cycl/)

[http://www.springwise.com/life_hacks/professional_feedback_i...](http://www.springwise.com/life_hacks/professional_feedback_instant/)

[http://www.springwise.com/telecom_mobile/modular_mobile_phon...](http://www.springwise.com/telecom_mobile/modular_mobile_phone_can_slip/)

[http://www.springwise.com/telecom_mobile/100_device_is_just_...](http://www.springwise.com/telecom_mobile/100_device_is_just_for_email/)</comment>


A small DIY air purifier - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Kels316/DIY-Air-Purifier <comment><USER2> Greetings from Canberra! Thanks for sharing this--it's an excellent and much needed project. Also appreciate the use of the drone sensors for measuring air speed :)

</comment><comment><USER3> I noticed that cost is in aud. Necessity is truly a mother of invention. Very nice</comment>


Apple's Goal to stop mining, use only recycled materials - <AUTHOR> https://www.apple.com/environment/ <comment><AUTHOR> via [https://www.macrumors.com/2017/04/19/apple-recycled- material...](https://www.macrumors.com/2017/04/19/apple-recycled-materials- end-mining/)

Is this economically possible? You'd have to somehow separate the old phones into component parts</comment>


Show HN: Powow – Mobile app to communicate, discover and connect with locality - <AUTHOR> http://powow.info <comment><AUTHOR> Hey folks,

Glad to announce Powow in Public Beta. We have been working on this for past 1.5 months and looking forward to what you guys think of it!

Powow is Android / iOS application that helps everyone to discover, share and connect with people, places and activities in their vicinity in natural way of conversations. We intend to make it a decentralised, implicit, geo-located communication channel for localities.

Why Powow? Ever since starting college, we have been moving between cities, states or, even countries. But, till this date, moving is way too hard. Every time you decide to move, you have to prepare for days and weeks worth of browsing online communities like Meetups, Facebook groups etal to find interesting groups and people. Yet, there is no way to communicate with entire existing physical communities around us all the time. Powow intends to do just that. As you move, you become part of the existing society around you. No need to create and join a gazillion groups in different locations.

Now, belong everywhere!</comment>


Microsoft Germany says Windows 7 already unfit for business users - happy-go-lucky http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/01/17/microsoft_germany_says_windows_7_already_unfit_for_business_users/ <comment><AUTHOR> I know they want to sell windows 10. Sadly Windows 10 sucks. Maybe Microsoft hasn't earned a percentage of every new laptops sale price in perpetuity.

GWX control panel to prevent windows 10 installing over your windows 7: [http://ultimateoutsider.com/downloads/](http://ultimateoutsider.com/downloads/) O&O ShutUp10 to try and regain privacy in win 10: [https://www.oo- software.com/en/shutup10](https://www.oo-software.com/en/shutup10)

Win 10 reports to Microsoft corp what programs you run, when and for how long by default. Reports other data on what you do with your computer (they call spying telemetry) Nearly impossible to turn off, and they keep turning it back on with updates. And your computer is going to need rebooted often with updates, so hope you weren't working on anything too important that you needed to save before reboot.

This man says it better: [https://itvision.altervista.org/why- windows-10-sucks.html](https://itvision.altervista.org/why- windows-10-sucks.html)

<comment><USER2> I wonder how much different Windows 10 for enterprises is. Many annoying things (reporting to MSFT, automatic restarts you cannot disable in obvious ways, ad tiles by default, one drive integration showing up constantly) are features where I'm sure enterprises can deactivate them.

For large companies, I think Windows 10 could actually be really nice and efficient to use. It's faster and has some important new features (the new task manager is way better, especially for developers). It's just the retail version which includes a lot of garbage to compensate for the lower revenue.

<comment><USER3> >automatic restarts you cannot disable in obvious ways, one drive integration showing up constantly

You can turn off in atleast Pro (never tested them in Home, but if GPE is disabled in home, these changes be done in the registry But you are going to have to make a note of what changes you make.)

Auto Restart: GPE -> Computer Config -> Admin Templates -> Windows Components -> Windows Update -> "No Auto-restart with logged on users for scheduled auto updates...". You might want to look at the other options in there as there might be other things you might wish to turn on/off.

One Drive: GPE -> Computer Config -> Admin Templates -> Windows Components -> OneDrive -> prevent the use of OneDrive for file storage.

<comment><USER4> Ad tiles aren't hard to get rid of in enterprise environments either.

You can remove all of the Windows apps with a powershell script, and then you just have to shove a modified start menu layout in the default profile before capping the wim file to roll out your installs from.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Quitting Job in a month. Whats next? - <AUTHOR>

Friends - I have been trying things on and off in part-time for long. One way or another way things didn't work. But I am not tired. I am quitting my job next month but i don't have good idea ( Was leaning towards personal expense tracking site where u can enter expense via email, SMS, online, mobile or just send your receipt or receipt picture ). But market survey indicated that people not that kin on spending time to do that daily budget work. Majority of things are already covered with Mint so...<p>Anyone want to give hint on where I should start? Some of your pain point can help me start ball rolling <comment><USER2> If you have the money saved to support yourself, take a few weeks off. You'll get so bored that your mind will start coming up with lots of ideas about things you can work on. Then pick the best one and start work on it.

</comment><comment><USER3> Just curious, how did you conduct a market survey and what made you conclude that there's no demand for a personal expense tracking site?

<comment><AUTHOR> I used Survey Monkey and some one on one session with people in store like Borders.

What I found is - people who are really running with tight budget are seeing that as useful service but same time they don't want to spend time everyday to enter the data. Easiest is to allow them to just send receipt pictures but technically it is not feasible to parse image with bend paper ( people will keep receipt in pocket so it won't be straight when they take picture ).

Whats your thought?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Hey - what are you skills? We are looking for a CTO!

<comment><AUTHOR> Java-J2EE Architect & Developer and Ruby Developer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'd spend a month making an iPhone app... :/

<comment><USER5> maybe port an old adventure-esq style game like zork (call it bork).

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Why are you quitting without a (good) idea?

<comment><AUTHOR> It seems like no time is good time to start startup. And it just getting delayed. Thats why leaning towards just quitting and starting something and overtime idea will get refined to make it something useful out of it.

<comment><USER6> I'd say a smoother transition would make for a better time.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Effect of SDNs on internet network topology and freedom - <AUTHOR> Hi there, I am a little bit concerned by the trend the big corporations and internet media are enforcing us to follow (coders / developers). And I am speaking about what is happening in general in the last few years to programming tools, think about Ruby on Rails, what happened to my loved poor Javascript, and so Node, React, the massification of SDNs, Docker, AWS! I see more and more people detached by knowledge of the tools they are using, and more interested in the new fashionable corporate imposed paradigm that closes enormous complexity made of dubious solutions inside a box bringing the programmer at a state I would define as a "stupid consumer".
More in particular speaking about the evolution of the internet and service providers: Its like 40 years we are adding complexity over outdated solutions, when our network is continuosly changing topology and performance, day by day. And now over all complexity we already produced, the trend to higher efficiency is to virtualize all this complexity inside huge server farms, and so privatize and centralize most of the network and its services, running it in few enourmous farms. To me this sounds totally nonsense, politically biased and also dangerous choice in the time we are now living..
What do you think about it? Are you satisfied by the tools you use every day? <comment><USER2> Would you go out and hunt your food? Or buy processed food at the nearest grocery? Same concept.

You get your stuff done by letting somebody else worry about the other stuff, but that doesn't come for free. To gain more out of something, you must lose more of something else. It's balance, nothing is free.

</comment><comment><USER3> Here's a quote from Bruce Lee, "It's not the daily increase but the daily decrease. Hack away at the unessential."</comment>