Oil-and-gas wells produce radioactive waste - <AUTHOR> https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/oil-gas-fracking-radioactive-investigation-937389/ <comment><USER2> I used to do the soil lab testing for a guy that dealt with this waste in my state. They did permitting and paid farmers to be able to spread it on their fields and tell them it is good for them and will make the soil more fertile. It can be either the salt brine or the more hydrocarbon based stuff that was basically like tar being spread on the farmer's pasture. He himself wrote the laws that the state government just rubber-stamped. I felt like I was working for evil, polluting my own state, and quit as soon as I could. Some real Grapes of Wrath type stuff. The old farmers don't have any money, so the money the oil company will pay to spread that garbage on their land seems like a good deal to them and they weren't informed about the real dangers of what was being spread.

Side note, the owner of that company was a very rich man and also one of the unhappiest people I've ever met in my life. It was a good lesson to learn at my young age then.

<comment><USER3> > they weren't informed about the real dangers of what was being spread.

I wonder how many of them would even care. This week the EPA dismantled the Clean Water Rule.

The primary backers for this were farmers and developers.

<comment><USER4> > I wonder how many of them would even care. This week the EPA dismantled the > Clean Water Rule.

This week, the EPA rolled back an Obama-era executive order interpreting the Clean Water Act. Hard to see how rescinding a three year old executive order could "dismantle" a 47-year old statute.

The Obama-era interpretation was ridiculous on top of everything else. The Wikipedia article is actually pretty good:

> The Clean Water Act is the primary federal law regulating water pollution in > the United States. The language of the Clean Water Act describes itself as > pertaining to 'Waters of the United States'. These the act defines as > 'navigable waterways', which connects the act to constitutional authority to > regulate interstate commerce. Two U.S. Supreme Court decisions, in 2001 and > 2006, interpreted the law to include waters not presently navigable that > were formerly navigable that might be readily dredged to be restored to > navigation or be made available for navigation. The scope of these decisions > cast into doubt lower court decisions interpreting the act's authority to > extend regulatory authority to streams, wetlands, and small bodies of water > not navigable in the sense of the interstate commerce clause.

So the Clean Water Act says the EPA can regulate "the waters of the United States," which is defined consistent with "navigable waters," contemporaneous with Congress's Commerce Clause authority over navigable waterways. The Obama EO extended it to include even small bodies of waters like ponds, such that farmers would have to get EPA permits to make modifications on their own land that was nowhere near navigable waters.

Maybe we need a law that requires permitting of everything that could affect any body of water no matter how small, because it's true that pollution can flow from such waters into navigable waters. Maybe there is a way to even make such a law constitutional (e.g. setting up state regulation of water bodies that fall outside the commerce clause). But the Clean Water Act is not that law, and the permitting framework under the CWA is not appropriate for farmers doing work on land far from rivers and lakes.

So just because farmers supported rolling back this rule, why would you assume they'd be okay with radioactive materials polluting their land? Is there any room in our politics to acknowledge that agencies sometimes overreach, and just because you want to push back on that overreach doesn't mean you want get rid of the agency or long-standing laws entirely?

<comment><USER5> > So the Clean Water Act says the EPA can regulate "the waters of the United > States," which is defined consistent with "navigable waters," > contemporaneous with Congress's Commerce Clause authority over navigable > waterways. The Obama EO extended it to include even small bodies of waters > like ponds, such that farmers would have to get EPA permits to make > modifications on their own land that was nowhere near navigable waters.

That is a rather distorted view of the water. Note that the definition of "navigable waters" is explicitly laid out in the law (33 USC §1362 (7), for exact reference) as:

> The term "navigable waters" means the waters of the United States, including > the territorial seas.

This has been generally interpreted to include at least pretty much all non- ephemeral streams in the US, and ephemeral waterways are rather more questionable. See, e.g., Rapanos v US, decided in 2006 (i.e., before Obama took office).

<comment><USER4> That's not a correct reading of Rapanos. Rapanos says that "the meaning of 'navigable waters' in the Act is broader than the traditional understanding of that term, SWANCC, 531 U. S., at 167; Riverside Bayview, 474 U. S., at 133.3 _We have also emphasized, however, that the qualifier 'navigable' is not devoid of significance, SWANCC, supra, at 172._ "

Rapanos doesn't define exactly what navigable waters are, but casts sharp doubt on two types of waters: ephemeral streams, and wetlands without a surface water connection to navigable water.

The key changes to the 2020 rule are to exclude those things: [https://www.eenews.net/stories/1062159101](https://www.eenews.net/stories/1062159101)

> Specifically, the new rule will erase protections for so-called ephemeral > streams, which flow only after rain or during snowmelt.

> The rule also erases protections for wetlands that do not have surface water > connections to intermittent or perennial streams, which account for more > than 51% of the nation's wetlands.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "Radium, typically the most abundant radionuclide in brine, is often measured in picocuries per liter of substance and is so dangerous it's subject to tight restrictions even at hazardous-waste sites. The most common isotopes are radium-226 and radium-228, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires industrial discharges to remain below 60 for each. Four of Peter's samples registered combined radium levels above 3,500, and one was more than 8,500."

I wonder how many of these trucks full of radium have driven beside me on the freeway.

<comment><USER7> Nice to see some numbers. Lot's of articles leave out numbers, which really matter in thing like radiation where the detectable level is sometimes many orders of magnitude below the hazardous level.

Ra-226 is mostly an alpha emitter and can't reach you through a piece of paper. Don't drink it though. Ra-228 is primarily a beta emitter which can't go through a metal tank. Also don't drink it.

<comment><USER8> > Ra-226 is mostly an alpha emitter and can't reach you through a piece of > paper. Don't drink it though. Ra-228 is primarily a beta emitter which can't > go through a metal tank. Also don't drink it.

What about being in constant contact with the skin via let's say you have a bit of it your shoes?

> the rest of the uniform hardly offers protection from brine. "It's all over > your hands, and inside your boots, and on the cuticles of your toes, and any > cuts you have — you're soaked," he says.

<comment><USER7> Alpha particles generally cannot penetrate the skin, much less clothing or shoes. Betas can get through skin but probably not shoes. There is some energy dependence. Secondary decays and energy transitions often emit gamma rays as well which can go through everything, but the majority of the energy with these nuclides are alphas and betas.

These are primarily dangerous because they're water soluble and present an ingestion and inhalation hazard. Once a large amount of a strong alpha-emitter is in your intestines it can really cause damage.

<comment><USER8> > These are primarily dangerous because they're water soluble and present an > ingestion and inhalation hazard. Once a large amount of a strong alpha- > emitter is in your intestines it can really cause damage.

So since the workers are getting it all over their hands and feet, which probably has sweat on it, would it pose a danger? Also, would getting it on wounds like cuts be dangerous as well?

<comment><USER9> Yes. If you are appropriately protected you can work with it. If you're paying people $16/hr to haul hazmat (that you are concealing), you're not providing appropriate protection or procedure.

Don't listen to the apologists here. If you've worked in a place that handles toxic materials, you wouldn't read about worried truck drivers keeping samples in mayonnaise jars. The driver would contact the industrial hygienist or safety officer at work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Uranium precipitates out of igneous hydrothermal waters when it encounters organic carbon. So it is probably concentrated in some oil deposits. Then some radiative isotopes of uranium will decay into radium, alpha particles (ionized helium) and other elements.

Most of the worlds commercial helium is mined from natural gas, which may have fractions as much as 5%. This helium is thought to be from uranium decay emitting alpha particles and not primordial helium.

</comment><comment><USER11> We're drowning in headlines these days that I feel like this story really fell through the cracks. People who live near fracking really need to know this.

<comment><USER12> It's amazing what that monthly check can make people look over when the wells are placed on private property.

<comment><USER13> That monthly check might not even be very large. Unfortunately, in many places (like North Dakota), mineral rights are severed from surface rights. So as a surface owner you might get a pittance for allowing a pad on your property, all the royalties are going to someone else who bought up mineral rights decades ago.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> > There are over 1 million active oil-and-gas wells across 33 states

This is insane. One well per 300 inhabitants of the USA. How is that even economically viable?

<comment><USER15> > How is that even economically viable?

Are you kidding? It's like drilling up geysers of money.

The ten most profitable companies in the world are nine oil companies and Apple.

Count the cars and trucks and planes and generators and leaf-blowers and chainsaws and _every piece of plastic ever_ and thousands of chemical byproducts... oil is _everywhere_.

<comment><USER14> I was thinking of the overhead of equipment, personnel and so on. Saudi Arabia produces as much oil with 100x less wells. All I can imagine is that US oil is massively subsidized, to the point of market forces or efficiency not mattering at all.

<comment><USER15> Ah, yeah, I don't know, I'm not that knowledgeable about it. Maybe Texas is less efficient than the Saudis, maybe the tech is older or something, but they're not losing money on those fields.

Oil is _black gold_.

FWIW, oil is massively subsidized: war isn't cheap, eh?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It reminds me of the Radium Girls.

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

</comment><comment><USER17> Now measure coal waste.

<comment><USER18> There's a lot. A lot more than I imagined according to a DOE seminar I sat through.

It's interesting because an incredibly small fraction of coal (coal varies a reasonable amount in composition across geological regions) contains various radioactive isotopes with long high-lifes.

When you burn/combust coal, especially without care and consideration in the process, a lot of these small components are released in the air as particulates.

Now at first thought, it doesn't seem like much (were talking 1ppm/1ppb or less levels in some cases depending on the coal type/geological area), but when you consider the entire volume of coal combusted worldwide, that small fraction turns out to be more radioactive waste than is produced by all controlled nuclear energy in the world at the time (about 8-10 years ago).

I wish I still had the slide set with all the reference material and derivations.

<comment><USER17> Coal ash is a thorium and uranium concentrate, and as you say the Department of Energy publishes the release statistics. They aren't too difficult to find. Each year in the US, we release more than _a thousand tons_ of thorium and uranium into the environment via coal ash dumping, with limited controls.

There have also been population health studies in communities that live adjacent to where coal ash is dumped in the US. As I recall, it is correlated with a small but detectable (around 1% IIRC) increase in cancer incidence rates relative to local control populations, and largely attributed to the thorium component of the waste.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Technically speaking they released concentrated naturally-occurring radioactive materials (NORMs). I only emphasize this because most people don't know how much radioactive stuff is natural.

Doesn't mean it's not a hazard in concentration, of course.

<comment><USER8> Sounds like you're trying to correct something that is already correct in the article, as soon as in paragraph 4.

> The Earth's crust is in fact peppered with radioactive elements that > concentrate deep underground in oil-and-gas-bearing layers. This > radioactivity is often pulled to the surface when oil and gas is extracted — > carried largely in the brine.

<comment><USER7> The article does a good job. I'm referring to the headline. For example, nuclear reactors _produce_ radioactive material by fissioning barely- radioactive uranium into highly-radioactive fission products but take great care to not _release_ it. Fracking _releases_ naturally-occurring radioactive materials.

Also: "is peppered with" does not imply naturally-occurring. Someone biased to think all radiation is man-made could easily assume it's from us dumping waste.

<comment><USER19> I'm sure your terminology is right in the context of nuclear engineering, but I think the headline is right in terms of how most people will read it: oil wells produce radioactive waste in the same sense as they produce oil

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> They do and unfortunately this knowledge has been available for some time.

Here is a simple observation I derived from witnessing much of this over the years. In my experience the bigger your wallet. The more you get away with and the easier it is to change "laws" to further your business interests. I think it is important to understand the lengths people will go to secure a financial interest.

</comment><comment><USER21> For what it's worth this brine is potentially a monster source of lithium.

<comment><USER8> How is that relevant to the story about workers being exposed to brine, not being told it's radioactive and everyone is acting casually around waste management around brine?

<comment><USER22> I found it interesting. Maybe there's an avenue to better remediation via using the waste as feeder to another chemical process, which ends in more value?

<comment><USER8> Me too, but it's hardy relevant to the subject of the article, which is about contamination and people being affected by it, and the industry not taking the necessary precautions when dealing with waste.

<comment><USER23> but it is relevant - if the waste could be made economically viable to process and extract (and as a side effect, the harmful parts removed/utilized), then there would be less pollution and contamination.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> "A Balrog awoke in Moria when the Dwarves had mined too deep for Mithril. It drove the Dwarves out of their home and slew King Durin VI, and the Balrog was thereafter called Durin's Bane"

[https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Balrogs](https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Balrogs)

</comment><comment><USER25> That is a novel not an article

</comment><comment><USER26> I'm glad they wrote about this, but it's certainly not breaking news or anything. Back in 2016, EPA released a report [1] that was years in the making, which covered the history, science, and effects of hydraulic fracturing in the U.S. The executive summary [2] says that produced water can contain "naturally-occurring organic compounds, including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes (BTEX); and oil and grease; radioactive materials, including radium; and hydraulic fracturing chemicals and their chemical transformation products." It also discusses spills from evaporation ponds (e.g., a 2.9 million gallon spill in North Dakota in 2015 that flowed into Blacktail Creek), as well as exacerbation of local droughts due to groundwater withdrawal for fracking.

Unfortunately, as happens these days, when the draft report was released in 2015, conservative news outlets [3][4][5][6][7] grabbed hold of a single statement in the executive summary reflecting the usual statements of uncertainty in any scientific report, and they used that to imply there was no evidence of any consequences of hydrofracking on the environment or human health. The draft report's statement that they took hold of was: "We did not find evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States". However, the very next paragraph explains "This finding could reflect a rarity of effects on drinking water resources, but may also be due to other limiting factors. These factors include: insufficient pre- and post-fracturing data on the quality of drinking water resources; the paucity of long-term systematic studies; the presence of other sources of contamination precluding a definitive link between hydraulic fracturing activities and an impact; and the inaccessibility of some information on hydraulic fracturing activities and potential impacts."

Even in 2016, when the final report was released, a WSJ article [8] insisted EPA had "political scientists" who rewrote the report to cast doubt on the safety of hydraulic fracturing. (The rewritten statement was: "However, significant data gaps and uncertainties in the available data prevented us from calculating or estimating the national frequency of impacts on drinking water resources from activities in the hydraulic fracturing water cycle. The data gaps and uncertainties described in this report also precluded a full characterization of the severity of impacts.").

[1] [https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/hfstudy/recordisplay.cfm?deid=332...](https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/hfstudy/recordisplay.cfm?deid=332990)

[2] [http://ofmpub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm.getfile?p_download_id=53...](http://ofmpub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm.getfile?p_download_id=530285)

[3] [https://www.wsj.com/articles/fracking-has-had-no- widespread-...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/fracking-has-had-no-widespread- impact-on-drinking-water-epa-finds-1433433850)

[4] [https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/report-epa- finds-...](https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/report-epa-finds-no- widespread-water-pollution-fracking-18748)

[5] [https://www.txoga.org/eid-long-awaited-epa-study-finds- frack...](https://www.txoga.org/eid-long-awaited-epa-study-finds-fracking-has- not-led-to-widespread-water-contamination/)

[6] [https://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/washingtonbureau/201...](https://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/washingtonbureau/2015/06/epa- theres-no-evidence-fracking-has-led-to.html)

[7] [https://www.texastribune.org/2015/06/04/epa-fracking-no- wide...](https://www.texastribune.org/2015/06/04/epa-fracking-no-widespread- affects-water/)

[8] [https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-epas-science- deniers-148209...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-epas-science- deniers-1482099327)

</comment><comment><USER27> Wait until they hear about neodymium processing for wind turbines.

<comment><USER28> [https://min-eng.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-real-cost-of-using-...](https://min- eng.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-real-cost-of-using-neodymium-in.html)

 _" Neodymium is found most often in monazite and bastnasite. Due to the fact that these minerals also contain lanthanides and other rare earth elements, it is difficult to isolate neodymium. The first isolation process involves extracting the lanthanides and metals out of the ores in their salt form. This step is carried out using sulphuric acid, hydrochloric acid, and sodium hydroxide. To further isolate the neodymium from other lanthanides and metals, procedures such as solvent extraction and ion exchange are used. Once neodymium has been reduced to its fluoride form using these processes, it can be reacted with pure calcium metal in a heated chamber to form pure neodymium and calcium fluoride. Some calcium contaminants remain in the neodymium, and vacuum processes are used to remove any of these contaminants. It is an expensive and potentially environmentally harmful process.

In a recent posting (February 1st), it was noted that China produces over 90% of the world's rare earths, and that Beijing's export reductions in recent years have forced high-tech firms to relocate to China. An article in a UK newspaper claims to have uncovered the distinctly dirty truth about the process used to extract neodymium: it has an appalling environmental impact that raises serious questions over the credibility of so-called green technology.

According to the report, hidden out of sight behind smoke-shrouded factory complexes lie vast, hissing cauldrons of chemicals in tailing lakes that are often very poorly constructed and maintained; throughout the extraction process large amounts of highly toxic acids, heavy metals and other chemicals are emitted into the air that people breathe, and leak into surface and ground water.

The report concludes that whenever we purchase products that contain rare earth metals, we are unknowingly taking part in massive environmental degradation and the destruction of communities. It is a real dilemma for environmentalists who want to see the growth of the renewables industry but we should recognise the environmental destruction that is being caused while making these wind turbines."_

<comment><USER29> Regarding the last paragraph:

From that same article:

 _A direct-drive permanent-magnet generator for a top capacity wind turbine would use around 2 tonnes of neodymium-based permanent magnet material._

[https://roskill.com/news/rare-earths-changing-magnet- composi...](https://roskill.com/news/rare-earths-changing-magnet-compositions- to-manage-supply-availability/)

 _The rare earth content in neodymium-iron-boron (NdFeB) magnets is 29-33% and the main rare earths used are neodymium and praseodymium (NdPr), typically at a ratio of 3:1._

Given this data your typical wind turbine contains ~650kg of rare-earths.

[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277639048_An_Assess...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277639048_An_Assessment_of_the_Rare_Earth_Element_Content_of_Conventional_and_Electric_Vehicles)

 _We estimate that approximately 0.44 kg of rare earths are used in a typical conventional sedan, with approximately80% of the rare earth content in magnets. As such, neodymium is the most extensively used rare earth, followed by cerium,which is used mainly in catalytic converters. The mass of rare earths in a full hybrid electric vehicle with a nickel metal hydride battery is approximately 4.5 kg. A full hybrid electric vehicle with a lithium-ion battery contains approximately 1kg of rare earth elements._

Basically one turbine is equivalent to ~1500 cars in terms of rare earths, which may seem high, but if you compare the production scale, wind turbines are unlikely to be the main consumers of neodymium, or rare earths in general.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Review my app – Find Properly, an intelligent property search engine - <AUTHOR>

Hi all, I launched the beta of Find Properly last week, and would really value any feedback you might have.
Enter the places you work or visit regularly, and Find Properly will find properties with the shortest commute (by public transport). Share your shortlist of properties with your friends, and then arrange all your viewings with one click.
Target audience: people new to London, or looking for a place as a group
http://www.findproperly.co.uk
Thanks!
Peter <comment><AUTHOR> Clickable [http://www.findproperly.co.uk](http://www.findproperly.co.uk)</comment>


Ask HN: Should I incorporate v2 (more details) - <AUTHOR>

My original question is here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4754248 but I left out a lot of details. There were many good details.
Here is the situation:
I work full time and pursuing this at nights and weekends. I have apps on the side that I sell at the App Store. It is only generating small revenue so I never bothered, but now I am pursuing something that if there is a market demand for it, can take off and become a startup.
I am outsourcing the development to US coders via guru and elance. I'm a developer but not in this expertise. I figured someone else can do it faster and better. With regards to freelancers, I want them to build the components and I integrate them.
I am looking for a technical cofounder(s) right now. I'm living in my parents house but they are out of the country (1 year) so I can offer free rooms and  we can share food/etc. I can offer some money for fun and allowances. I intend to keep working because I have a great job that allows me to keep doing this at night and pay for expenses. When there is potential, I intend to move to it full time. I'm not doing this to limit risks to myself and put all the risk to cofounders/employees. I get paid quite a bit and have a very flexible schedule. We can minimize cost by working out of the house and I can keep the venture running with my salary. I'm flexible. Let me know your thoughts on this.
In the future, I want to pursue patents even though they are evil. In the future, I want funding and move to wherever makes the venture most conducive to success.
Thanks for all the help and advices! I hope this can help others as well. <comment><AUTHOR> Test

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> test</comment>


Could software be a list of business process mistakes? - <AUTHOR> http://weblog.raganwald.com/2008/03/process-is-to-software-as-software-is.html <comment><USER2> "The utility of the maxim is remembering that the complexity of the user manual is an imperfect but helpful proxy for complexity of the [interface]."

I think you can have incredibly complex software with an intuitive interface. I don't doubt the author agrees, but I wanted to make that point first.

The clearest visceral experience of that valuable lesson came from playing through the 'commentary' track of Valve's _Portal_. The designers really understood how to teach the user the rules of the game without saying, "Here are the rules of the game in 28 pages of color photos and tiny text." Listening to their commentary made me start asking questions as I design, too.

But shortly thereafter, I came to a more profound realization: Valve's so successful in their design mechanism because _they never change the rules of the game_. So often, whether in games or in applications, the 'rules' change from one iteration of the software to the next. This creates bad code, bad maintainability, and a bad end-user experience.

(Oh, and: I sometimes wonder if our company began it's $10 million ERP "as an indirect way to force this review [of business processes].")

</comment><comment><USER3> Another typical Raganwald post where he nails it so precisely that there's nothing else to say!

<comment><USER4> Shall I pour the 15 year-old Glenfiddich "Solara" or the MacAllan "Cask Strength" for you?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> "Business processes are often these gnarly heaps of rules with massive omissions, contradictions, and bits where what people say they do has no relation to what actually happens."

Exactly!

Which is what makes analysis so important even though it's (usually) so overlooked. Put the right people in a room together with all of their paperwork (actual, not samples) and keep asking questions until everyone agrees THAT's how it works. Feed them if you must, but nobody leaves the room until we all agree. Then go to the office, warehouse, showroom, factory floor, or whereever and verify it.

It doesn't matter how well you can code or how fast you can code if you're not writing the right program.</comment>


Is writing a book the new College Degree? - <AUTHOR> https://www.knowrick.com/blog/is-writing-a-book-the-new-college-degree <comment><USER2> Nutshell transcript: in a world where 35%+ of the workforce has a college degree, many from diploma mills, a book is a stronger signal of credibility than a baccalaureate.</comment>


Not If You Hurry - some musing on logic, language and programming. - <AUTHOR> http://www.solipsys.co.uk/new/NotIfYouHurry.html?HN2

<comment><USER2> > As an aside, I was once in a group when the host asked "Does everyone want > coffee?" One by one we all answered "Don't know" until the final person > answered "Yes." We all thought that was hilarious.

And given all the inputs, even the final "Yes" was just an assumption.

<comment><AUTHOR> I believe that if everyone was answering honestly, then you are mistaken. If someone did not want coffee then they could/would answer "no", since it would not be the case that everyone wanted coffee. Therefore if no one answered "no", then everyone who has answered so far must want coffee. Assuming the last person also wants coffee, they can answer "Yes" with confidence.

Assuming you disagree, can you explain why?

<comment><USER2> That is a great way to look at it, but also, the person who asked never answered, hence it's an assumption.

I don't mean to be nit-picky but it further supports the point of your article. Thanks for posting it.

<comment><AUTHOR> My thinking is that if the person who asked didn't want coffee then the question wouldn't have to be asked, because they would have known the answer should be "No". Hence I think it's safe to assume that the person asking, also wanted coffee.

Perhaps they should've asked "Does everyone _else_ want coffee?"

Even so, yes, it helps to make the point.

      > Thanks for posting it.

You're welcome. I wish more people liked and up-voted it, as it's about to sink without trace, as so many of my submissions do. <fx: shrug> Never mind.

<comment><USER2> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning#Hume.27s_sk...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning#Hume.27s_skepticism) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning#Is_inductio...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning#Is_induction_reliable.3F) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction>

As mentioned, you have a great way of looking at it, but if the goal is strictly valid, sound, and dare I say, "clear" logic, your interpretation runs too close to "Hume's Skepticism," the "Problem of Induction." When we venture into the philosophical, my usual response is to eventually go running off into the weeds, screaming. ;)

In asking the question, "Are all swans white?" can we infer the asker has seen a white swan?

In asking the question, "Are all swans blue?" can we infer the asker has seen a blue swan?

Though I'd prefer to leave race out of this (due to the "Chinese Mother" nonsense filling HN), replace 'swan' with 'people' and you'll see how the inferred premise can be false and can result in weak induction. Similar could be said for, "Does everyone want coffee?"

With this said, it's really a philosophical debate at this point, so it's not a matter of one or the other of us being right or wrong, and I hear the field of weeds next to my house calling my name. ;)

For what it's worth, your induction _does_ seem reasonable.

Lastly, I have enjoy both your submissions and your posts for quite a long time. They are consistently good.

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting debate - simple starting point, deep waters. I'll leave those for another time - thanks for the pointers.

And thanks for the compliment - appreciated.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Invidious: what YouTube should be - <AUTHOR> https://invidio.us/ <comment><USER2> Just looking at the first page, seems like a dedicated alt-right sight.</comment>


Customer Service Conundrum. How Far To Go When Things Go Awry? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.packlate.com/customer-service-conundrum-how-far-to-go-when-things-go-awry

<comment><USER2> Spend the $400. Not because it's right but because it's the right thing to do, and for not enough money to matter.

Then figure out what the process failure was that caused these people to get a different room than they expected. Using that information, either fix customer expectations for the future or fix the process that is failing those expectations.

Is it strictly reasonable for people to expect compensation for being in a "holding pattern" you put them in? Probably not. But you have nothing to gain from sticking up for yourself when the circumstances are this fuzzy. They're "right enough" to win the argument, or make it not worth winning for you.

At the point at which you have to spend money to keep them happy, you should be looking at the whole situation as an opportunity to turn them into evangelists. Counterintuitively, it is the people who have experienced things going just a little bit wrong who you are best positioned to impress, since they've stumbled into a high-touch relationship with you.

<comment><USER3> There are people who make a professional game out of extracting as much money from CSRs as possible. You go broke if you try to appease these people. The dirty little secret of every "we provide exceptional customer service" companies is they all have exception clauses for these types of people.

From the scant information provided in the article, this seems like it could be one of those people.

<comment><USER2> There are those people indeed. So, pay these specific people their trivial $400, and then (a) figure out what your site did to create an 'exploitable' gap in expectations, or (b) figure out what your process is doing to create an 'exploitable' failure to meet those expectations.

The answer to this problem could be as simple as a banner stating something like "in the event your room cannot be booked, you will be notified and a [comparable room] will be provided if you'd like to continue with your trip".

Or, it could be that the reliability of property managers becomes a business metric, and managers who are overly casual with reservations are either (a) paid less to offset refunds that will be generated, or (b) excluded from the service.

In the meantime, there's one (1) of these parties here; why not do what you can to make them evangelists?</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Routes for your home climbing wall - <AUTHOR> https://www.routesite.co <comment><AUTHOR> Home climbing walls are awesome, but they can become stale, having a library of routes to choose helps you train more effectively, set better, and make the home climbing experience more fun.</comment>


Ask HN: Why Slack over IRC? - <AUTHOR> Why do people (developers especially) use Slack over IRC?<p>There's a very healthy IRC ecosystem at Freenode and some other IRC networks for opensource development.  But now I'm hearing some developers casually mention that they can be reached on Slack (instead of on IRC) as if that was the default means of communication now.  What advantages does Slack offer over IRC? <comment><USER2> We recently had a Slack vs HipChat vs IRC debate.

IRC, the traditional method used in the shop lost.

After switching, for the first few months, the membership was largely the same. Now the community has grown. I think this is because HipChat and Slack offer:

1\. Easier for people to use. The best IRC interfaces still aren't as nice as Slack and HipChat 2\. With the interface, are the integration out of the box. For example, pasting a funny GIF from imgur is embedded right in the chat. This builds the community, as people feel more relaxed and willing to share. For developers merge requests, etc appear in chat.

</comment><comment><USER3> just look at any HN discussion about Slack, which will have a Slack vs IRC segment. This is a particularly long one [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10486541](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10486541)

</comment><comment><USER4> None.</comment>


Palin e-mail snoop sentenced to year in prison - <AUTHOR> http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/palin-e-mail-snoop-sentenced-year-prison

<comment><USER2> I always wonder what the crime is in these scenarios. Is it that they invaded someone's privacy? Or that they invaded Palin's privacy?

Is this punishment for the act or the target of the act?

<comment><USER3> It's a bit more serious than "invasion of privacy", e.g. he changed the password on her site.

The big crime, thought, the felony that will put him away for "a year and one day" was obstruction of justice. I don't know the details, but I suspect the old "it's not the crime but the coverup" came into play there.

As far as "the crime", I suspect not so much the attack on the Palins as an attack on someone running in a presidential race. If he'd done this to Biden, what you expect the outcome to be?

We have to draw lines as to what is and isn't acceptable behavior in politics, and breakins like this or Watergate are considered to be beyond the pale, as mentioned in the article.</comment></comment>


Entrepreneur sells bottled New York City tap water - <AUTHOR> http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-tapwater25-2009feb25,0,6720560,full.story

<comment><USER2> _At 16, Zucker started a business enticing people to pay $1 to take a swing at a golf ball. The prize for a hole in one from 150 yards: $1 million. He rented space from a driving range and persuaded an insurance company to allow him to pay a premium for a million-dollar policy. No one made it, but Zucker made some extra cash._

This is one of the best ideas i've ever heard.

<comment><USER3> Clearly it hedged on finding a stupid-enough insurance company.

[I then go to google up some statistics...]

<http://www.golftournamenthio.com/>

Yep. AIG.

<comment><USER2> US Hole In One, too. [http://www.prlog.org/10092942-hole-in-one-insurance- odds-gol...](http://www.prlog.org/10092942-hole-in-one-insurance-odds-golfs- rare-feat.html) :The "average" golfer's chances of making a hole in one from 165 yards out are 1:12500. Heres a question for probability geeks: are the chances of anyone out of 12,500 people, each trying once, higher than for 1 person trying 12,500 times?

<comment><USER4> Well, if you assume all 12,500 people are of the same ability as the one person (perhaps it is sufficient for their abilities to be randomly drawn from the same population distribution, but I'm not sure of this), then you're taking independent observations from the same distribution, and both situations are essentially identical. However, you'd probably learn something after a couple thousand shots, so I'd give the 1 person a better chance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm gonna start selling sealed, empty plastic bottles!

I'll call it: "Make your own bottled water"

<comment><USER6> "Bonus: Comes with FREE fresh air inside!"

<comment><USER7> You clearly fail at marketing bottled water:

"Bottled Air: Pure, fresh air from only organic sources."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> _It is, after all, one of the nation's healthiest water supplies -- so fresh that in 2007 the Environmental Protection Agency said it did not need filtration._

Shouldn't _all_ tap water not need filtration? Have I been assuming too much?

<comment><USER9> Go to Phoenix. It may or may not be safe, but it tastes quite foul.

<comment><USER10> Like ibsulon said it's all a matter of taste. When I was very young, we lived on a farm and had well water. I would go to school in the city and I hated the taste of the water there. Later we moved to the city and I remember how I then hated the taste of the water at my relatives' farm house.

If given the choice between a bottle of "spring" water and filtered water, I always go with the filtered one, because I think it generally tastes better (and more like the water I drink at home). I always find the "bottled water is just tap water" meme annoying, because it generally isn't "just tap water". It's usually water that's been through reverse osmosis filtration and had added salts. That's like saying that spring water is just rain water found in your local puddle.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Aquafina and Dasani, bottled water from the Coke and Pepsi companies, are made with municipal source water that is filtered to improve the taste. Dasani here in the Toronto area comes from Brampton, Ontario tap water, and there is nothing special about Brampton tap water.

</comment><comment><USER12> Then there is Fiji water... Probably the most egregious bottled water (in terms of energy costs to transport)

<http://www.triplepundit.com/pages/askpablo-exotic-1.php>

<comment><USER13> Try this one, from even further afield (not to mention the hype around how it is collected!): <http://tasmanianrain.com/>

(I'm from Tasmania, and I've never seen it -- I suspect you can only buy it in L.A.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Someone should start doing this in San Francisco.

People shouldn't be surprised by the bottled water phenomenon. You are buying the bottle, not the water, and a bottle is often worth $1.

<comment><USER15> You're buying easy access to the water.

<comment><USER16> You could just buy a Nalgene and fill it up with tap water. Or if you're really cheap, buy _one_ bottle of bottled water, save it, and fill it up again with tap water later. I do that all the time.

<comment><USER17> Isn't nalgene that kind of plastic they're talking about? BPA? Cancer...?

<comment><USER18> Nalgene doesn't use BPA's. They've been focused on a few times specifically because of this. See <http://www.nalgene-outdoor.com/technical/bpaInfo.html>

<comment><USER17> <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24200402/>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I thought the reason Chez Panisse, Seattle, and SF stopped buying bottled water was not because of the quality of the water, but rather the wastefulness of the bottles themselves...

</comment><comment><USER20> This really bothers me. California banned bottles for a reason, and now he's introducing more in NYC. If people want tap water on the go, buy a reusable bottle!

<comment><USER21> > California banned bottles for a reason

When did CA ban bottles?

<comment><USER22> Don't know about the state of CA, but the city of SF banned water bottles and water coolers (favoring tap water) within city government buildings. Makes sense plus SF water is great.

<comment><USER21> "banned" in what sense? If I walk into city hall carrying a bottle of water, can I be arrested?

Or, did they just take water out of the vending machines and cancel water cooler contracts for the peons?

<comment><USER22> The latter. The gov't will no longer provide water coolers or bottled water as tap water is acceptable and available.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I remember when I was very young, I was able to drink off of tap water in CA.

</comment><comment><USER24> It's bottled water!

</comment><comment><USER25> He'd make a killing in LA selling NY water.

<comment><USER26> But since he won't a competitor could make that killing.

</comment></comment><comment> stuntgoat</comment>


Professor claims Square took his credit card reading technology - <AUTHOR> http://mobile.venturebeat.com/2009/12/15/professor-claims-square-took-his-credit-card-reading-technology/ <comment><USER2> Having seen this sort of story play out many times in the Valley, here is an explanation for the naive:

1\. A guy comes up with something brilliant and shows his friends.

2\. One of his friends runs off and pitches the idea to another guy, who co- opts it and decides to build a business around it. They figure the original guy had a neat idea, but since "they are the ones doing the hard work of building a business," they don't have to include the original guy in their team; plus, they are concerned he would ask for too much equity/cash.

3\. The company is formed, launched, announces the product. The original guy has a "WTF" moment and can't believe his friend would screw him over that way. He reaches out to the company. Meanwhile, the third guy (meaning, the flashy CEO who co-opted the technology from the guy who stole the idea) passes off the idea as his own, brilliant invention. The press is more than happy to comply.

4\. The company drags its heels on settling with the original guy. Some of the company's hotshot VCs decide that this is a situation where the guy can be easily paid off, especially since the hotshot CEO will create such a wildly successful venture (with their help, of course -- they too have joined in the creation myth of the company). Meanwhile, the original guy is getting pissed that this idiot CEO is getting all of this press as the "inventor." This bothers him far more than the money.

Now once you reach this point, one of two things happens. Either the company raises money / dilutes shareholders to pay the guy off, or a large savvy competitor buys out the inventor and royally fucks the company's chances of executing. The company will of course scream "patent troll" and people on forums such as this will agree; sometimes the larger competitor will extract a satisfyingly large settlement, but sometimes the ensuing litigation will literally cripple/kill the company.

Personally, I find this whole situation very disappointing. I doubt the press will speak much of this, as they are so desperate for an inside scoop from Jack.

<comment><USER3> It's not clear to me what the value is in the idea.

<comment><USER4> Seriously, are you supposed to use this thing to scan your own credit card? What problem does that solve? It's not getting the number that's hard, it's all the beurocracy and middle-men that you have to deal with afterward.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I liked his final quote. It's so rare to read stories about legal action that don't include hyperventilating from both sides.

"There's no animosity," he says. "They've got a company that they're moving along, and I hope it does well. I've my cards to play: I've got my patent application in, and I'm going to see what I can get for it."

<comment><USER6> This guy has clearly read Dale Carnegie's _How to Win Friends & Influence People_. He's handling a pretty difficult situation (assuming he does have IP) pretty well I'd argue.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Also, the reader pictured on their front page seems to be attached to the wrong end of the phone ;)

See: <https://squareup.com/>

<comment><USER8> Looks like an iPod touch, it has the audio in jack on the bottom right.</comment></comment>


UK's oldest hand-written document 'at Roman London dig' - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36415563 <comment><USER2> What strikes me most about these documents is the mundanity of life back then. Like an agreement to pay someone back is one of them (a basic IOU), the other is a telling off for some financial reason. It's strange to think back then people were having equivalent disagreements and deals as they have now.

Ancient times always tend to feel very untouchable because of the massive span of time separating us and them, but I see that the basic tenets of human life still existed back then from this limited material. It makes me wonder how far back we would have to go back to find proto-civilisations that make no sense, human sacrifice not withstanding.

<comment><USER3> You can get this same sort of feeling from the various graffiti found preserved in places like Pompeii. I am extremely interested in this very thing. If two thousand years doesn't separate everyday people from "the normal problems" that we experience, I wonder equally if I could go back ten thousand or fifteen thousand years and have the same kinds of thoughts ("Arkurush has refused to pay for the chickens I gave him").

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This reminded me of an article I read ages ago (National Geographic? In the 80s?) of Roman writing found on "wood shavings" during the excavation of a Roman fort in the UK. This article was most likely about the "Vindolanda tablets" [1].

The thing that stuck with me was that the Romans were using wood shavings instead of paper. And they were doing this because they didn't have paper! How can you run an empire without paper? The Wikipedia article mentions that papyrus was used in other parts of the Roman empire, but presumably it wasn't available everywhere, and I'm under the impression that it's quite a bit more fragile than other forms of paper. It would certainly be more fragile than wood shavings! Parchment would also have been available as well, but it's always been expensive.

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

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> "The documents were written on wooden tablets which would have been covered in blackened beeswax. Although the wax has not survived, the words were etched into the wood below using styluses." The etching was an accidental by product of writing on the wax.

</comment><comment><USER5> Whenever I see these big construction projects I see a bunch of big tools and people moving lots of dirt fast. So I'm always surprised when discoveries like this happen. Is it by accident? Or do the excavators have a team on hand looking for "treasure"?

<comment><USER6> It's partly because they're so big. The actual surface area separating what will be in the bucket from what won't be is fairly small, and the bucket itself doesn't agitate what's in it as much as you'd think.

Also, at dig sites where there's likely to be historic remains in the UK, there's work done to ensure the conservation of the archeology likely to be uncovered.

It's called archeological excavation, if you want to do some Googling. Also, have a look at the Museum of London Archaeology. They do a lot of stuff with this.

Source: I work just down the road from three current construction projects going on at major archeological sites and asked them the same question.

<comment><USER7> There is now some controversy[1] over how much work should be done in the name of archeological conservation. This work and the project delays it introduces comes at the expense of construction. There is therefore some amount of tradeoff with affordable housing.

[1] [http://new.archaeologyuk.org/news/cba-response-to-new- neighb...](http://new.archaeologyuk.org/news/cba-response-to-new- neighbourhood-planning-and-infrastructure-bill-announcement)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> There is probably an immense volume of interesting artefacts buried under buildings which are themselves historic (and as such will never be excavated).

</comment><comment><USER9> Hand-written as opposed to what?

<comment><USER10> Hand chiselled into stone tablets

<comment><USER9> I thought that counted as handwriting.</comment></comment></comment>


Where did my consciousness come from? - <AUTHOR> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128221.400-existence-where-did-my-consciousness-come-from.html

<comment><USER2> Consciousness is like a task scheduler, lurking in the kernel of the brain and routing resources according to criticality, timeliness, and projected aversion and reward outcomes.</comment>