Bitcoin backlash as 'miners' stress power grids in Central Washington - <AUTHOR> https://www.seattletimes.com/business/bitcoin-backlash-as-miners-suck-up-electricity-stress-power-grids-in-central-washington/ <comment><USER2> It's hard to explain the levels of stupidity in this.

\- people trading 'coins' in the same way Pokemon / WWF kids trade cards.

\- thinking this is actually a long-term 'investment' strategy (well its idiots trading with each other ...)

\- to top it off, siphoning off electricity and giving a load of shitty excuses 'it could be like Seattle's.

I don't know where to begin with this Bitcoin crap; it's gotten crazy that so many naive people are into this plopping their hard-earned money into a well- functioning sinkhole.

<comment><USER3> This comment applies to any revolutionary technology. Let's substitute cryptocurrencies with "the internet" in 1999:

\- people trading 'stocks' in the same way Pokemon / WWF kids trade cards.

\- thinking this is actually a long-term 'investment' strategy (well its idiots trading with each other ...)

\- to top it off, siphoning off capital and giving a load of shitty excuses 'it could be like Detroit at the beginning of the 20th century.

Many people were left holding pets.com stocks, but others were left holding Amazon stocks.

Most of the things that you point out are truisms that the people that have been in the bitcoin space for a few years also see. I would suggest you make an effort, and try to see through all the bullshit projects or outright scams, and you will see that there is real value in what bitcoin and a handful of other projects are trying to build. If you want to avoid the current noise, read what cypherpunks were writing about in 1998: [http://cypherpunks.venona.com/date/1998/12/msg00203.html](http://cypherpunks.venona.com/date/1998/12/msg00203.html)

<comment><USER4> The difference is that the Internet had clear useful applications at that point and billions of dollars in real business (not just speculation) was happening annually. Yes, there were plenty VC misfires with no plausible path to profitability — my favorite was cement.com, with free shipping! — but there were tons of existing businesses finding significant value from it and new companies like Amazon, eBay, Travelocity, etc. who were making money on each sale. The daytraders were indeed chasing bad deals but anyone who paid attention to basic market fundamentals wasn't buying those stocks[1].

10 years into Bitcoin there's still no reason for someone to buy in other than speculation. It's not competitive as a currency and the current "store of value" pivot is undercut by the lack of fundamentals. One particular reason why that comparison doesn't work is that if you had, say, bought AMZN in 1997 even if the stock didn't do great you owned part of a profitable book seller which could carry on just fine even if it never saw rapid growth. Bitcoin doesn't have any value other than its current popularity so there's no floor on the losses if people switch to something else.

1\. I actually sat in on some calls with Pets.com around the time one of our clients was thinking about buying them and it was quickly evident that they had no strategy beyond cashing out at the IPO.

<comment><USER5> Bitcoin, at this point in time (and for the last two years or so, though not really for the preceding eight) is digital gold. It's a version of gold that, with proper preparation, can be carried inside your head when you move from place to place, or transferred by voice or text message.

Most people in the west have about the same use for gold[0] and bitcoin - speculation, gamble, "investment". However, people of Venezuela, Turkey, Libya, Iran and even Russia have a lot of use for gold (and bitcoin): A store of value they can take with them if they leave. And unlike gold, bitcoin can be made confiscation proof. The official currencies of these places have more volatility and less stability than BTC.

[0] Gold does have ornamental and industrial use, but that's NOT why people buy it, and not why it is valued the way it is. The "investment" claims on gold outnumbers the industrial/ornamental claims by some 3 or 4 orders of magnitude.

<comment><USER6> Everything you say about bitcoin is equally true of a bank account in pounds in London. There's zero reason in principle that it is any harder or easier for an oppressive government to prevent capital outflows to bitcoin than to British bank accounts. At very best there's a temporary advantage in bitcoin's favor as oppressive governments take time to understand and lock down the newer avenues for evading their controls.

<comment><USER5> I started with "at this point in time". At this point in time, it is easy for a person not suspected of crime (or otherwise being on the wrong side of the government) to move their british pounds from their London account to e.g. one in New York or Switzerland, convert them to USD or CHF either before or after the transfer, and generally hedge against government by betting on other things.

At this point in time, the same is certainly not true for the people of Iran or Venezuela, where there are capital controls, and the only way to get a different currency is on the black market. Effectively, compared to the west, everyone there is "on the wrong side of the government".

> There's zero reason in principle that it is any harder or easier for an > oppressive government to prevent capital outflows to bitcoin than to British > bank accounts.

In principle that's true, but that just makes bitcoin's raison d'etre more evident. _At this point in time_ it does not seem to be needed, but it _may_ become needed with less than a day's notice. This has happened to the people of Cyprus (a "western" European country). Even the US confiscated gold in the 1930's.

History does not repeat, but it rhymes. Bitcoin is a hedge; it's far from perfect, it has a lot of drawbacks, but _at this point in time_ , it is more useful than gold for people who might have to flee.

<comment><USER6> You seemed to have missed the point. There's nothing to stop an oppressive government from preventing its people from buying bitcoin the same as they prevent them from buying pounds and wiring them to British banks.

The dark hints about how any government may become oppressive is a red herring. The issue isn't that bitcoin isn't needed because my government isn't currently oppressive, it's that bitcoin's utility in the face of an oppressive government is wildly exaggerated.

You are attributing magic powers to bitcoins that they do not have. Black markets are not invulnerable to government crackdowns because they are digital. On the contrary, digital networks are in many ways easier to control centrally than distributed underground physical networks.

<comment><USER4> That area of magical thinking just amazes me: look at the Chinese Great Firewall or Erdogan's Turkey to see how this would actually work. People get arrested for visiting websites or having the wrong app on their phone and there's no reason to believe that capacity wouldn't be used the same way.

This especially bad for Bitcoin since unlike cash they'd get your full history and quickly deanonymize everyone you know.

<comment><USER5> This area of magical thinking just amazes me: Look at the recent two years! The big run up in bitcoin value has happened _because_ people were moving money out of China despite capital controls put in place.

Is it still as easy? Probably not, I'm not up to date. Could people who have done that get in trouble for that in the future (thanks to bitcoins long memory)? possibly, if their opsec wasn't top notch and even if it was top- notch but they were unlucky enough to use a mixer that cooperates with the chinese government.

And Erdogan's turkey is also a great example; While the "coup" was happening, it was possible, even easy, to move money out of the country using bitcoin (not so fiat money). Quite a few people left the country afterwards, and many were arrested regardless of phone app. I don't know how many of them took their wealth with them in bitcoin, but they had much easier time doing that than any other way. _at the time_

<comment><USER4> That's just telling us that it's easier to get away with something before the authorities take it seriously. Once something grows big enough that window closes, which means it's not much of a selling point for mainstream adoption.

<comment><USER5> You can keep moving the goal posts if you enjoy that. Yes, everything becomes harder once the authorities take note.

But if you have managed to acquire bitcoin, e.g. before a government crackdown, or some other way through help from people in other countries, it still provides the "cross border value store" function that gold cannot by virtue of being hard to move.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I like how it is done by the utility in San Francisco. Depending on the size of your place, and your main method of heating (electric or not), there are tiers setup (based on average weather in each month) where the first X kWh are the cheapest and correspond to what they think a dwelling of that size should need. Then the next Y kWh are about 30% more expensive, then after that there is a final tier which is 60% more expensive. In this way by saving energy you save doubly - you pay for less kWh, and what you do pay for is on a cheaper tier. I think this seems like an easy way to handle these miners, while allowing non "electricity-based" to continue unimpeded.

<comment><USER8> The majority of the demand is almost certainly from industrial sized operations in warehouses and not rouge miners overloading residential electrical circuits.

<comment><USER9> I'd say that's baseless speculation, considering the amount of people who treat bitcoin mining as a grow-op.

Sure, the industrial operations are the ones getting articles and showcases and blog posts, but at the same time I've seen plenty of news articles of police busting some kid for scamming/drug charges and catching him with 100 gpus in his room.

<comment><USER8> More like basic math and direct experience. My business sells power supplies to this industry. Say the average home or apartment has 200 Amp electrical service (24 Kilowatts). A typical miner takes about 12 Amps meaning you can run about 16 units maximum on home electric service. 16 units isn't really enough to reach the scale you would need to be long term profitable in the industry. That isn't to say there aren't a few fools who don't realize that and are running a small scale operation out of an apartment but this article is citing requests for _Megawatts_ of demand from single customers. That is unquestionably industrial scale.

Anecdotally i've shipped a ton of equipment to Wenatchee and every operation I've done business with has been in an industrial warehouse.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Subsidising energy prices for local consumers based on export revenues is widely practiced but is bad policy. The utilities should charge market rates for consumption and cut local rate-payers a cheque annually using a scheme that encourages energy saving practices.

<comment><USER11> It's not necessarily bad policy it's just policy. The local residents are also the ones that generally live with the consequences and externalities of the local power generation industry.

<comment><USER10> Low-cosumption residents are then forced to live with the externalities of the generation infrastructure as well as the externalities of the behaviour induced by the electricity subsidy while benefiting the least from the subsidy - it seems like a pretty bad policy.

<comment><USER12> If it's a public municipal utility, any dividend in lieu of price reductions, should go to the local government, not the individual residents.

The local government could then issue out checks to everyone if they want, but more likely it would go towards general budget and benefit everyone.

<comment><USER10> I wouldn't be fussy about the rebate mechanism but funding a government based on energy prices can also be a tricky business - but even a poorly managed local government subsidised by energy exports is far better than local energy consumption subsidised by energy exports.

<comment><USER12> Yes, nonzero chance they'd sell off the revenue stream for pennies on the dollar to some private financiers to stopgap irresponsible deficit spending.

See Chicago for an incredible example of this:

[https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/parking-meters-garages- too...](https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/parking-meters-garages-took- in-156m-but-city-wont-see-a-cent/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I don't quite understand something: why are the terms "unpermitted", "unauthorized", and "bootleg" used in the article? When I signed up with Seattle Public Utilities, I didn't sign an agreement saying I wouldn't mine or run servers out of my apartment.

<comment><USER14> Running industrial equipment off your local residential power grid is both against the terms and conditions of every power company under the sun and also incredibly stupid to do.

<comment><USER15> A few asics is not industrial equipment. Oh please.

<comment><USER16> How many is "a few"? What if you were running 300 of them?

The term "industrial" usually applies to scale.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> _Hanging over May's hearing was the fate of the Basin's last big electrical customer: the Alcoa aluminum smelter, which employed more than 400 workers before it was idled several years ago thanks to competition from cheaper Chinese imports. Cryptocurrency mining won't replace all those jobs — the process is heavily automated. But backers insist that a local mining sector, if allowed to grow, will attract other ancillary services, such as software development, and ultimately provide the Basin with some of the tech-fueled prosperity that Seattle has enjoyed._

There's a lot to chew on here. The Alcoa plant story is practically a cliche. Yet another instance of what a world overflowing with cheap stuff looks like.

The loss of the Alcoa plant means an ever bigger oversupply of electricity. Chelan County seems to have nothing to fill the gap. Why not sell the surplus to a buyer who will use the power locally?

Who decides that an aluminum manufacturer is any more or less a legitimate business than an Bitcoin miner?

<comment><USER18> It's just a part of our culture that speculators are looked down upon. They appear to be "predatory" and not produce anything of value. A manufacturer on the other hand, it is clear that it produces things that are valued by society at large. Similar reasons wall-street gets all the hate-er-aide.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Easy...increase rates and set off profits directly against municipal levies.

That way the average person on the street doesn't lose, yet the miners are encouraged to get lost.

<comment><USER20> This. Your first 1,000kWh in a month are at a reduced rate. Each kWh thereafter is at a premium rate. Easy.

<comment><USER21> This solves the rogue operator problem, but doesn't solve the bit where an operator comes in expecting to build a large mining installation. Even if they paid something close to the export premium (perhaps lower due to diminished transmission losses), the asks are larger than the utility currently provides.

This leaves the utility with a dilemma. Bitcoin miners can up and move pretty easily, but the hydro dams are stuck for life. If somewhere cheaper pops up, or if a double spend attack causes a bitocalpyse, the utility has little recourse but to pass on the costs to remaining consumers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Commentators talking about solutions.

There are already solutions in the article:

> The three PUDs have been experimenting with policies that force miners to > shoulder these extra costs and risks, while insulating ratepayers and the > utilities themselves.

>1 .Chelan County, for example, created a special rate for miners and other so-called "high density loads," or HDLs, back in 2015, that was effectively twice the residential rate.

> 2\. Douglas County, meanwhile, began requiring miners to pay up front for > any new infrastructure.

> 3\. Grant County PUD is establishing special rates applied to companies > "whose primary revenue stream is evolving and unproven" and whose product is > "vulnerable to extreme value fluctuations."

</comment><comment><USER23> The problem is simple, power is too cheap in too many places. Fix that.

<comment><USER24> Your solution to bitcoin mining is to raise power rates for everyone? Wow.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I've seen THREE cities in my state (cheap hydro power) invest money and land into "tech jobs" around cypto-commodities...

Which is a roundabout way of saying my state is giving away money to people intentionally wasting power for personal gain under the false impression this is good for the economy.

</comment><comment><USER26> Miners could organize and generate some goodwill by offering to pay more for their power use.

So that'll never happen.

<comment><USER15> Warren Buffet and other billionaires love to complain that they pay too little in taxes. They could band together and give the IRS more revenue yet they don't. If billionaires won't do the right thing, why the hell do you think small town Joe Schmoe should?

<comment><USER27> Because donating tax money doesn't fix the core problem, and will barely make a dent anyway.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Some more info on kwh price.

"Beginning Jan. 1, 2012, Chelan County PUD moved to a flat residential rate for electricity of just 2.7 cents per kilowatt hour."[1]

"energy costs can run as low as 2.88¢ per kWh and average 4.13¢ per kWh statewide for industrial customers." [2]

[1] [https://www.chelanpud.org/my-pud-services/rates-and- policies](https://www.chelanpud.org/my-pud-services/rates-and-policies)

[2] [http://choosewashingtonstate.com/why-washington/our- strength...](http://choosewashingtonstate.com/why-washington/our- strengths/low-cost-energy/)

[edit] The parent article does state a price of 3cents/kwh.

</comment><comment><USER29> Wouldn't a sliding scale that get's more more expensive beyond typical medium household levels prevent penalizing normal household/commercial usage? For example, a simple rule like 90th percentile usage and above is charged 25% more.

</comment><comment><USER30> > But backers insist that a local mining sector, if allowed to grow, will > attract other ancillary services, such as software development, and > ultimately provide the Basin with some of the tech-fueled prosperity that > Seattle has enjoyed.

Wow. Any municipality who falls for this crock of shit would be crazy.

<comment><USER31> It sounds good to people who don't understand how mining works.

Since this argument has been made however, they could make local prices contingent on number of jobs. If you consume x power employing less than y local employees, pay the export rate.

<comment><USER32> In my limited understanding, that sounds like a highly unusual type of regulation by US standards. Are there any other practices/industries regulated in similar ways?

<comment><USER31> I'm not sure, though not allowing "crypto mining" specifically is also pretty unusual.

In this way, they can protect their power industry and still remain attractive to other businesses who might bring other benefits to the area without having to redefine who is and isn't allowed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> When it comes to public utilities, commonwealth, and natural resources, the more you use, the more you should pay per unit.

</comment><comment><USER34> At what point will miners just start building there own power plants? And I wonder if environmental concerns will start forcing good and/or bad regulations of crypto mining.

<comment><USER35> They sort of are:

[https://www.trustnodes.com/2018/04/28/australias-dirtiest- co...](https://www.trustnodes.com/2018/04/28/australias-dirtiest-coal-plant- reopened-bitcoin-mining)

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> three cents per kWh. nice.

</comment><comment><USER37> The problem boils down to: What is a fair electricity price to charge a company that adds very little benefit to the local economy? Two approaches would be: 1) charge the going local rate and treat them like any other business. 2) Charge the export rate to recover the lost revenue from outside electricity sales.

1) This is unfair, because it drives up local costs for everyone without providing local economic benefit.

2) I argue this is still unfair, because the export rate alone does not capture the value and revenue of the ability to provide backup power services (i.e. load shaping+ and firming generation++).

Across the northern border, BC Hydro has also been flooded with miners asking to purchase power. The province is powered ~98 % by hydro and residential electricity rates are ~0.07 – 0.09 $US/kWh. Power export services subsidize local rates. Revenue from export services (~15 %) & revenue from local rate payers are set to recover utility costs, while maximizing economic benefit to the province. The export rate (i.e. the price of electricity that physically flows across the border) represents only a fraction of the revenue from export services. Hydro exports have the ability to shape load+ and firm contracts for power++. The key is that power doesn't necessarily flow across the border when load shaping and firming contracts are in place. But customers pay good money for the ability to call upon that power when it is needed. That ability is diminished by the additional electricity demand of miners. The value of that ability is not captured in the raw export rate.

+load shaping service: Import/export power so that the net-load a customer sees matches that customer's contracted or self-generation.

++firming generation: Provide backup power to a customer who has agreed to provide power to a third party at a certain time. Should the generators of the customer fail, the exporter will quickly ramp up production to fill the gap.

\---

To those calling for "free markets":

Determining a fair rate to charge miners is difficult, because the economics of hydro power systems work differently than most other liberalized electricity markets. In liberalized markets, all generators bid how much electricity they are willing to supply at which cost, for the next hour or so. Then you stack all the cheapest generators until your demand is satisfied and, voila, that last dispatched generator dictates your market price for that hour. Large consumers can buy electricity at that fluctuating market rate, or choose to shut down. Here, miners would pay the marginal cost, fair enough. Markets with large hydro power stations can't work like that. Withholding a large dam from generating electricity gives the operator enough "market power" to be the price-setting generator every hour year round, which gives that operator the ability to dictate prices.

(edits: formatting)

</comment><comment><USER38> FWIU next gen DLT moving out of proof of work will probably change the electricity consumption profiles anyway. it would be really stupid to spend just a dime trying to meet that demand.

</comment><comment><USER39> Another strain crypto currency creates is on GPU resources. Resources that could be going to AI projects. It's why prices haven't fallen as fast as they should.

</comment><comment><USER40> _Those bargain rates are possible largely because the Basin's five dams generate around six times what the region can use locally. Much of the surplus is exported, at premium prices, to outside buyers such as Puget Sound Energy, and those outside sales subsidize local rates.

But if the utilities are selling more of their power to local Bitcoin miners, they're exporting less power at those premium prices, which makes it harder to keep local rates low. Further, because much of the surplus is currently committed in long-term contracts, supplying miners with all the megawatts they want might require the utilities do something virtually unprecedented: buy power on the open market, at prices far above what locals have come to expect._

Solution: pass a law to charge miners export prices. It's not as though Bitcoin mining helps the local economy, so you either return revenues to pre- mining levels, or drive the leeches out. Either outcome is equivalent.

<comment><USER41> Why is the solution to everything "pass a law"? there is an ocean of possible solutions to this problem yet people somehow always jump to "pass more laws" before other options are considered. I find that rather weird.

<comment><USER42> This is like asking why the solution to bad software is to commit more code.

It's because the way to fix a bad law is to pass another law. Otherwise you're saying we should keep the bad laws we have and work around it some other way.

Sometimes fixing the symptoms actually is better, but it's not surprising when people suggest changing the code.

<comment><USER43> Patches on top of patches are not the only way to maintain software.

<comment><USER42> Some commits are much better than others, but they're all commits.

<comment><USER44> Sounds like something out of a motivational poster. I say this positively.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


What's being called 'skeuomorphic' is not at all skeuomorphic - <AUTHOR> http://www.themachinestarts.com/read/2012-11-how-we-started-calling-visual-metaphors-skeuomorphs-why-apple-design-debate-mess

<comment><AUTHOR> "What's being called 'skeuomorphic' is not at all skeuomorphic," he contends. "They're kitsch visual metaphors, but they're not the unintentional side- effects of technological evolution. In every case in the Apple UI debate, a designer is consciously responsible for the metaphor. Might be bad taste, but that's all."</comment>


Hey HN, Will you give my VSCode theme a try? - <AUTHOR> https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=karyfoundation.theme-karyfoundation-themes <comment><USER2> Looks nice. I still prefer using Monokai Night theme.

[https://github.com/fabiospampinato/vscode-monokai- night](https://github.com/fabiospampinato/vscode-monokai-night)

It has less noise and I love the colors so much that I ported it to all the other apps I use for the one unified look.

[https://wiki.nikitavoloboev.xyz/design/monokai-night- themes](https://wiki.nikitavoloboev.xyz/design/monokai-night-themes)</comment>


Google boots music blogs, claiming copyright fouls - <AUTHOR> http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-10451740-261.html

<comment><USER2> From a strict interpretation of the law, these blogs are violating copyright. They are distributing copyrighted material without permission. So, really Google in this case are doing the right thing.

However, I consider music blogs like these to be a bit of a grey area. As a music lover I find them to be an incredible resource for discovering new music. Indeed, I wouldn't have spent as much money on music if not for all the fantastic stuff I'd been introduced to by downloading single mp3s from blogs.

So on one had, yes it's a violation of copyrights, but on the other; what are the benefits? Is there some way for labels and artists to take advantage?</comment>


Get Satisfaction: Help us review a new page design - <AUTHOR> http://blog.getsatisfaction.com/2009/04/08/help-us-review-a-new-page-design/

<comment><USER3> If you really want to do the right thing, change "X is not yet participating" to "Get Satisfaction has no affiliation with X". The second one is the truth. The first one might have truth to it, but makes it sound like X is avoiding the forum - like they have something to hide.

I know that your business plan is based on getting companies to pay you to become their support system, but it would be nice if you didn't try to shape your words to pressure them in that direction. You have no connection to the company. You are unofficial. That's the truth. It's a small change, but a very meaningful one. No one likes the implication that they're avoiding something.

Get Satisfaction is not yet responding to this criticism. ;-) Yeah, it feels pretty crappy. For all I know, you haven't even read this or know it exists! Yet, I'm implying that you're just ignoring it because you don't want to be open. It might not sound like a big deal, but it's a huge change in how people see the companies represented on your site. If you really want to be a good steward, don't be playful with your words - be honest. I'm not saying you're intentionally doing this, just that if you want companies to take you seriously and trust you as a support mechanism, saying that you're unofficial will get them on your side more than saying they aren't participating.

<comment><USER4> "If you really want to do the right thing"

Minor point: _they're not here_. Tell them that in their comments. :)

<comment><USER5> I would be surprised to hear about any SF-based, consumer-facing web start-up who didn't follow comments about them HN. Not to mention a company that is in the customer satisfaction industry.

<comment><USER4> 1) They're supposedly rather busy at the moment.

2) I can imagine their reluctance to visit here after the tone of the prior discussions on this topic.

3) There is no centralized comment section for the web. Not Slashdot, not Reddit, not here. They asked for comments on their site, not "please talk about this somewhere on the web".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think you need to step back and figure out who your customer is first.

From my outside view, it seems like you are trying to be everything to two very distinct entities - organizations and their customers. It seems you are trying to insert yourselves in between this relationship, even if one party isn't interested. I think this is the failure point.

It seems in my mind that the real customer here is the organization, since they are the ones paying for the service. You act - intentionally or not - <USER2> an advocate for the customer. Everything you do seems to be aligned with goading the organization into giving you money. It is very off putting from their perspective, which in the long run will probably end up hurting you.

If you want to be a voice for consumers, be that. If you want to provide a service to organizations, do that. Don't attempt to insert yourself into an already existing relationship - regardless of how functional it is.

</comment><comment><USER7> Under "all press is good press", I note that whatever their sins, getsatisfaction.com has achieved name recognition. I doubt that any other startup posting "Help us design a web page" post would rise to the top of the front page in 20 minutes...

<comment><USER8> Well, in contrast to other startups, I think we can all agree that the current page design has some serious flaws which needs to be fixed ASAP. By voting up we show that we actually care about this issue and that Get Satisfaction is doing the right thing.

<comment><USER9> Why should people help a company with an unethical/shady business model. It's not a "bad design" you had a problem with, it was a design that too-accurately reflected your business model.

<comment><USER4> Even as a sharp critic of GS, I have to say rehabilitation is a good thing. If they've been scared into straightening up, I'm happy to throw some suggestions their way.

<comment><USER9> You can't straighten an act that was, by design, crooked. Their whole business model was problematic.

<comment><USER4> Not their entire business model, just their treatment of non-client businesses and their customers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm not a native English speaker but the wording of "Ask a Question of Cyberdyne Customers" seems odd. Did they mean "to Cyberdyne Customers"?

Also, "People-Powered Customer Support" doesn't really convey what they say it conveys. All customer support is people-powered. 'Community-Powered Customer Support' or 'Customer-Powered Support' would be more accurate.

And as others have suggested, "Get Satisfaction has no affiliation with X" is much better that 'X is not yet participating'

<comment><USER7> > I'm not a native English speaker but the wording of "Ask a Question of > Cyberdyne Customers" seems odd. Did they mean "to Cyberdyne Customers"?

Your phrasing might be more logical, but the phrasing that the page currently has is the phrasing that sounds best to native speakers' ears.

The simples English words sometimes have the trickiest definitions.

I recall that "be" takes multiple pages of the Oxford English Dictionary.

With regard to "of", I think that definition #8 here

<http://www.yourdictionary.com/of>

"concerning; about; with reference to - 'think well of me'"

is the way it's being used.

<comment><USER11> > Your phrasing might be more logical, but the phrasing that the page > currently has is the phrasing that sounds best to native speakers' ears.

I disagree. I ask a favor OF someone. I ask a question TO someone.

<comment><USER12> I think "Ask a question of" and "Ask a question to" are both wrong. Why not just "Ask Cyberdyne Customers a Question"?

<comment><USER13> Calambrac's correct, nobody uses the first two forms, as google will tell you. But why not?

This is actually a very interesting question. You'd say "Cyberdyne Customers" is an indirect object.

I give Cyberdyne Customers a cookie. I give a cookie to Cyberdyne Customers. I ask Cyberdyne Customers a question. *I ask a question to Cyberdyne Customers.

Why is the last form incorrect? What rules apply here? If you're interested in questions like this, I can recommend Steven Pinker's "The Stuff of Thought" ( [http://www.amazon.com/Stuff-Thought-Language-Window- Nature/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Stuff-Thought-Language-Window- Nature/dp/0143114247) )

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I like what they've done to improve the page. The only thing that sticks out a bit is the "yet" in "... is not yet participating". It sounds a bit pushy, like they are trying to pressure the company into participating.

<comment><USER15> It sounds better than "...is not participating" as that sounds like the company discredits the site. I think they should put "...is not officially participating" as that sounds like the company may or may not be part of the site.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Your solicitation for feedback says:

"Most customer support communities on Get Satisfaction have some level of employee involvement (about three-quarters), but the rest are added and cultivated by customers."

OK. Just one point. This is kind of a meta-comment about how you are doing this.

The above, quoted from your solicitation for feedback, ambiguously mentions "employees" without clarifying whose employees they are. Employees of Get Satisfaction? Or employees of the company in question? I _think_ I know the answer, but really it is ambiguous. To someone who hasn't read more about the back story, it is VERY ambiguous.

Ambiguity in the writing on your site seems to be a recurring theme. In fact, if I understand the back story correctly, a problem with ambiguity is one of the main reasons you did this new page design. Maybe you should try shuffling the writing team around a bit; they seem to be having trouble stepping outside of themselves to see the prose as others would see it.

</comment><comment><USER9> They should hire 37signals to design the page.

</comment><comment><USER17> Sorry, I still think it sounds like extortion.

</comment><comment><USER18> The page does make it clearer when a company has endorsed the page or not. A couple observations

* I don't think the "X has Opted Out of this Community" and "X is not yet participating" states are both needed. Just labeling it as unofficial in both cases should be enough.

* The wording in the post a topic to the forum (#6) is strange sounding to me. Maybe "Ask X customers a question"

<comment><USER4> Well, showing "Opted Out" might save someone at the company having to answer eighteen hundred emails from people suggesting this cool service they should use. ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Call me crazy, but as an uninvolved third party it seems to me that this should fix the main problems identified and I'm impressed with Get Satisfaction for fixing it.

</comment><comment><USER20> Fantastic followup! Classy.</comment>


A Few Suggestions To Bring GitHub More Users And Money - <AUTHOR> http://www.themarkphillips.com/2011/03/31/A-Few-Suggestions-For-GitHub.html

<comment><USER2> I was hoping this article was going to make the "stop separating account sizes by number of repos instead of, you know, actual usage" point.

Github will get my company's money when they stop doing just that. We have many small, low-traffic repos. We self-host them on a minuscule little box and yet, according to Github, we would be a "Platinum" business account. Say what? $200/mo? The box we have serving them now isn't even worth $200 in total. Back in the Subversion days, of course, it was one repo split into projects to take advantage of SVN's partial checkout ability, but that's not how Git rolls. So instead, it's many small per-project repos.

Bitbucket figured it out: split accounts by number of users, a meaningful "usage" metric. That's sensible. So would be actual resource usage (disk space, bandwidth, etc). It makes no sense to me that we could have a hundred people working on 5 repositories, using tons of space and bandwidth, and that's $25/mo. But a handful of us with a bunch of tiny repos, that's biggest- account-size $200/mo territory.

(It's too bad we're so attached to Git, or else we'd be on Bitbucket and stop waiting for Github to come to their senses).

<comment><USER3> Similar story here. We're trying to cut down the number of servers at work. I looked into suggesting a company-wide move to Git followed by moving our repositories to Github. Right now, I'm the only one on Git.

Then I realized that I'm using 40 repositories. One of those is for reports. Each report should really be in its own repository. Splitting reports would add another 40 repositories.

So we're looking at $200/month just for my repositories. Throw in what the rest of the company would need, and it is cheaper just to keep doing it ourselves.

There certainly are companies for whom paid Github hosting makes sense--the Github guys are not idiots and if no one was buying they surely would have adjusted things already. I just am having trouble figuring out who those companies might be.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> We've been tossing some ideas around about more statistics in general at GitHub, but I'd like to point out a lot of these things — number of forks, followers, issues, commits, and so on — are available through the API today. It sounds like it'd be an awesome hack day project for someone to work on, if one were so inclined. :)

<comment><USER5> Yeah. I forgot to mention in the post that the GH API does make it possible to pull all of these out. But having to write your own service, while fun, is time consuming. I would prefer to have you build in the feature and then pay you for it. Looking forward to where you take the stats :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I totally agree with the need for more visibility and condensed stats on Github! Once you start trying to follow a larger number of projects, it becomes increasingly difficult to follow what is going on with each project.

This has been a minor related rant of mine across Github projects: a need for project guidelines, similar to <http://semver.org/>, in terms of having versioned projects, properly tagging those versions, and having a dated changelog summarizing those changes. Projects have different levels of organizational needs at different lifetimes, but having a suggested format/guidelines would help I think, similar to the Readme that Github suggests you make for a project.

</comment><comment><USER7> I'd like to see a way for people to flag commits as interesting, so that I could look only at the interesting commits for the projects I follow...

<comment><USER8> ...where is the API for stars?</comment></comment>


Show HN: 1.5kb Microkernel for Ben Eater's 6502 Computer - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/janroesner/sixty5o2 <comment><USER2> I'm actually more excited to see a new Ben Eater video on youtube than anything else.

His stuff is just fantastic. Even though it's lower level than I've ever worked, it's extremely entertaining and educational.

His 6502 series is just great, but I want to highlight another couple of videos he did:

"Let's build a circuit that displays an image on a VGA monitor! In this video, I talk about how VGA signals work and build a circuit that provides the correct timing of sync signals so that a monitor recognizes the signal."

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7rce6IQDWs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7rce6IQDWs)

<comment><USER3> His video series was very enlightening. Seeing absolute lowest level how that stuff is done is a wonderful insight into why stuff is the way it is today.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Skimming through this, this is the first piece of code that my eyes drilled into more deeply:

      LCD__clear_video_ram:
        pha                                         ; preserve A via stack
        tya                                         ; same for Y
        pha
        ldy #$20                                    ; set index to 32
      .loop:
        lda #$20                                    ; set character to 'space'
        sta VIDEO_RAM,Y                             ; clean video ram
        dey                                         ; decrease index
        bne .loop                                   ; are we   done? no, repea
        sta VIDEO_RAM                               ; yes, write zero'th location manually
        pla                                         ; restore Y
        tay
        pla                                         ; restore A
        rts

Surely we don't need to keep loading the space character into A on every iteration?

Since Y starts at a hard-coded value that is (well) below $80, this could use "bpl .loop" and drop the "sta VIDEO_RAM" special case.

In .select_option, I'd looking into doing a jump table. Ideas here: [https://wiki.nesdev.com/w/index.php/Jump_table](https://wiki.nesdev.com/w/index.php/Jump_table)

<comment><AUTHOR> You are more than right. This is just my first assembly project in 20 years, put together from scratch in a couple of days. Therefor I am more than greatful for every constructive hint, that helps me improve. Thanks!

<comment><USER5> You probably know, but it also would help readability and portability if you created separate constants _SPACE_ and _SCREENSIZE_ (or similar)

Also, if you want to go for idiomatic 6502 code, rather than readability:

\- you want to optimize for size and speed by looping down from C to zero (rather than looping up from zero to C) where possible (because you don't need to do a _CMP_ to compare with zero)

\- _LCD__print_ wastes memory and CPU cycles. It can fall-through to _LCD__print_with_offset_ , and that _could_ fall-through to _LCD_render_ ,

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Semi-related, I've been enjoying Robert Baruch's videos[1] on creating a FPGA implementation of the 6800, using nMigen and formal verification. First videos are almost like live coding, then he skips to a more compact format.

As a regular programmer, it's quite interesting to get into how the bits actually end up getting the work done.

[1]: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85ZCTuekjGA&list=PLEeZWGE3Pw...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85ZCTuekjGA&list=PLEeZWGE3PwbbjxV7_XnPSR7ouLR2zjktw)

</comment><comment><USER7> Watching Ben Eater's videos renewed my interest in making some simple computers out of old hardware, mainly because the older hardware is simple enough that you can work with it on a breadboard.

The interest eventually morphed into doing something with all of the old parts I've hoarded. Going through the bins of parts, I've found things like 8051 microcontrollers (P80C550) and UARTs (AM85C30) and some old RTC units (MC146818). I ended up picking up a few 68010's (among other things) off of eBay with the hope of building a breadboard Linux computer, as slow as that may be. I believe the 68010 may be the _only_ CPU in a DIP package still supported in some capacity by Linux (as long as you provide an MMU).

Hopefully this will actually get me back into writing/making videos about my projects.

</comment><comment><USER8> I love, love, love Ben's videos, and this is an awesome project.

But to be as painfully pedantic as possible: can we please use the word 'monitor', here? Calling it a 'microkernel' really gives one the wrong initial impression.

Still, very neat. Now write a BASIC!

<comment><USER9> What does "monitor" mean in this context? Makes me think of either a display or [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monitor_(synchronization)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monitor_\(synchronization\)) .

<comment><USER10> I learnt assembly language programming on a Vic20 in 1983, using this Vicmon machine code monitor:

[http://commodore.software/downloads/download/211-application...](http://commodore.software/downloads/download/211-application- manuals/12177-vicmon-machine-code-monitor-manual)

I like this explanation of "monitor", from [https://www.atarimagazines.com/creative/v9n12/272_A_monitor_...](https://www.atarimagazines.com/creative/v9n12/272_A_monitor_program_for_Vic.php)

"The novice machine language programmer often does not have an assembler. Without an assembler, the programmer must assemble the program by hand, and then enter it by hand. Even a small program could require hundreds of POKEs followed by hundreds of PEEKs to verify that everything has been entered correctly.

A good monitor gets around these problems. It allows the programmer to examine memory locations sequentially. As each location is examined, the operator has the option of changing it or looking at the next one. A good monitor program also allows the operator to list a range of memory all at once. A third monitor feature allows the operator to move a range of memory to a new location in the computer. A final feature in a good monitor is the ability to execute and return from a machine language program."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Learning about multiple wonderful things at once here. This is pretty much catnip for 6502 fans.

</comment><comment><USER12> Are there any good resources for learning electronics for someone with a strong programming background and understand digital logic? Ben Eater videos assume knowledge of electronics and would like to know more

<comment><AUTHOR> I found "Digital Computer Electronics" by Malvino and Brown really helpful. It starts from scratch. Was also a recommendation from Ben Eater, but you will only find used copies, since the book is not in print no more.

<comment><USER13> Don Lancaster's TTL Cookbook and CMOS Cookbook would be good companions for the Ben Eater series.

[https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0672210355/ref=dbs_a_def_r...](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0672210355/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i0)

[https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0750699434/ref=dbs_a_def_r...](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0750699434/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i1)

Actually both books are available from Lancaster's website as a free PDF:

[https://www.tinaja.com/ebksamp1.shtml](https://www.tinaja.com/ebksamp1.shtml)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This reminds me of C64 tape loaders or "turboa" that need to load the program to RAM.

[https://www.atarimagazines.com/compute/issue57/turbotape.htm...](https://www.atarimagazines.com/compute/issue57/turbotape.html)

Also let's not forget Bill Gates's 17 bytes loader

[https://hackaday.com/2017/03/24/doing-it-with-fewer-bytes- th...](https://hackaday.com/2017/03/24/doing-it-with-fewer-bytes-than-bill- gates/)

<comment><USER15> Anyone else remember the PET Rabbit [1]?

"Load, Save, Verify, Execute 8 K in 38 seconds versus PETs 2 Minute 45 seconds, plus more!"

There was a newer version that I had which was called the ROM Rabbit vs. this version that you had to load and save each time.

[1] [http://archive.6502.org/publications/pet_paper/pet_paper_v3_...](http://archive.6502.org/publications/pet_paper/pet_paper_v3_i8_i9_i10.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Nice! my 6502 kit arrived today! And there is snow in the forecast this weekend- Really looking forward to building this.

<comment><USER17> Post pics, if you make a bending unit[0]

[0] [https://futurama.fandom.com/wiki/Bender_Bending_Rodríguez](https://futurama.fandom.com/wiki/Bender_Bending_Rodríguez)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I just read your source code a bit, and there are a lot of things wrong. First, you should ALWAYS clear the carry when using ADC or set the carry when using SBC

For example: .increase: adc #1 sta POSITION_MENU

I have no idea if you increment or add two, since the carry is not cleared.

        clc
         lda CURRENT_RAM_ADDRESS_L
        adc #$01
        sta CURRENT_RAM_ADDRESS_L
        lda CURRENT_RAM_ADDRESS_H
        adc #$00
        sta CURRENT_RAM_ADDRESS_H

this is done by the usual INC CURRENT_RAM_ADDRESS_L BNE *+2 INC CURRENT_RAM_ADDRESS_H

        ldy POSITION_CURSOR
        cpy #0

cpy #0 is useless.

lda POSITION_CURSOR cmp #0 cmp #0 is useless

jsr / rts can be replaced by jmp

clear_ram is super slow

<comment><USER19> There's a kinder way to share this. Ben's teaching a number of things here (basic electronics, computer architecture, assembly..) in an incredibly inviting and rewarding way. I'm confident he's reaching people at varying skill levels. Let's keep that energy going.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> great job.</comment>


Introducing Neocities Site Tipping - <AUTHOR> https://blog.neocities.org/blog/2017/02/13/site-tipping.html <comment><USER2> The most interesting part to me is that you can enable and track paypal donations between third-parties with just the e-mail. I thought you needed to go through their APIs.

</comment><comment><USER3> Why not leverage an existing tool like Flattr?

<comment><USER4> I don't know the answer to that, though there are some differences in approach, such as "Neocities will not deduct any fees for donations".

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> With this plus their support for IPFS could something like Filecoin be next?

</comment><comment><USER5> With Neocities also supporting IPFS could something like Filecoin be next?

</comment><comment><USER6> That's nice, but my jurisdiction doesn't permit me to engage in "unreciprocated money collection" without representing a licensed charitable non-profit organization.

Actually, not even wikipedia is allowed to collect funds in my country.

<comment><USER7> What country is that? Strange that Wikipedia doesn't count as a licensed charitable non-profit organization.</comment></comment>


A Typical Day for PFC Bradley Manning - <AUTHOR> http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2010/12/typical-day-for-pfc-bradley-manning.html <comment><USER2> I can't help but feel that while the treatment is severe and terrible that this isn't an appropriate post for Hacker News. This type of thing is a shining example of something that belongs on Reddit, where there's greater exposure and it's more on-topic. Is it interesting, yes (to some, although I'm sure there's plenty that could say not on hacker news as it's tied to wikileaks).

I would say that while the treatment of him is terrible, it meets the off- topic criteria (crime, politics, TV news). I'm posting this separately to my engagement in the discussion.

<comment><USER3> I'm so so so tired of people complaining about what is and what isn't HN relevant. Yes maybe the topic is not technology but isn't this something that effects us (Americans mostly) regardless of whether or not it's HN news?

I welcome the news because how else would I have the time to find all these articles on my own? I wouldn't, so I actually appreciate that someone posted it here.

If you really don't have interest in the article then just don't click it, move along. It seems like you're putting in more effort complaining than it would take to just skip to the next HN news article.

<comment><USER4> The problem is that when a forum like Hacker News loses its focus, it loses its value.

I've observed this as Reddit has expanded. /r/programming used to be a good source for learning about neat new technologies and programming techniques. Now, in part because it's one of the default front-page subreddits for an expanding user base on Reddit that mostly aren't programmers, the programming content gets buried beneath jokes, general technology or computer related articles that aren't about programming specifically, and the like.

If Hacker News loses its focus on programming and startups, it risks this happening as well. The detention conditions of PFC Bradley Manning may be interesting, but they are not on topic for a site like Hacker News. There are many other places you can read about and discuss that topic. There aren't many places where I can read about and discuss a broad range of programming and startup related information like I find on Hacker News.

<comment><USER3> Let's have that discussion when it's actually a significant problem, but it's not right now. Every time I load HN I find 10-15 relevant tech articles and maybe 1-2 articles like this. I'm fine with that ratio. Everyone seems to be making a bigger deal out of this than is justified.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Most of this is fairly standard solitary confinement/suicide watch procedures, frankly. There are thousands of prisoners receiving comparable treatment who are not part of some politically trendy Wikileaks controversy. If you find any of this outrageous, don't think Bradley Manning is a special case in the slightest.

<comment><USER6> Exactly. How many people cared about the plight of people in solitary confinement and suicide watch _last_ week?

There are people in prison having a far worse time than Manning. Come to think of it, if I were in prison I'd much rather be in solitary confinement like Manning than in with the general prison population (where my options would presumably be either to join the Aryan Brotherhood or get beaten up every day).

<comment><USER7> _where my options would presumably be either to join the Aryan Brotherhood or get beaten up every day_

He's in a military prison , not Riker's Island.

<comment><USER5> That's exactly the point. There are 14,000 prisoners at Riker's Island, and many of them live in similar or worse conditions than PFC Manning.

How do prisons become HN-worthy content just because someone involved with internet drama just happens to be in the prison?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> All this feels like 1984... While reading it I got anxious,stressed and wanting to exercise. It has to be horrible that the only hour a day that you can really move the only thing to do is walking.

FREE Manning, innocent until proved guilty

<comment><USER9> The point most people want to make is not that he may be treated in this way if he has been proven to be guilty, but this is exactly what you are doing in the eyes of people that consider the treatment acceptable. The constant calls upon the 'innocent until proven guilty' mantra are a huge red herring. If you want to argue the treatment is wrong, you should argue exactly that and not argue against the treatment based on the current circumstances.

Effectively, this argument achieves the exact opposite of what you want: it strengthens the other side in their belief that Manning may be treated in this way. This is because of two things:

\- he's in the military

\- he's pretty much confessed

People feel that 'innocent until proved guilty' is not really an issue because of those two things and arguing against that feeling is a colossal waste of time, when what you actually want is to convince people that Manning shouldn't be treated like he currently is, period.

<comment><USER10> While I can't comment on the details of this case, it is perhaps worth noting that lots of people confess to crimes they didn't commit for a variety of reasons including coercion and/or mental illness.

<comment><USER11> The grandparent doesn't express any personal belief about the veracity of Manning's confession.

Her or his last sentence is the important one: " _People_ feel that 'innocent until proved guilty' is not really an issue because of those two things (i.e. because Manning confessed and is in the military) and arguing against that feeling (i.e. the feeling of people that Manning is guilty) is a colossal waste of time, when what you actually want is to convince people that Manning shouldn't be treated like he currently is, period." (Emphasis and annotations in brackets mine.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> "The guards are required to check on PFC Manning every five minutes by asking him if he is okay. PFC Manning is required to respond in some affirmative manner."

If true, this is terrible.

<comment><USER9> My initial reaction was the same, but on second thought I think it may not be that bad. I agree that it would initially prevent the subject from concentrating, but he might get used to it in such a way that he can acknowledge the question with a 'yes' without breaking concentration.

Some people can work with the radio on, others only when it doesn't contain commercials, others can't work with any music. I can sleep virtually anywhere, while others, in the same room, can't stand a certain buzz, regularly recurring electromechanical noises or other sounds. However, with prolonged exposure, I think anyone would start to be able to work and sleep in environments with intruding noises.

<comment><USER13> Isn't interrupted sleep (arguably sleep deprivation) a questionable a form of torture?

<comment><USER9> They are not waking him every 5 minutes: that only happens during the day. At night he is awakened under some circumstances, but whether that constitutes sleep deprivation depends on how often it happens and there is no report on that.

<comment><USER14> "The guards are required to check on PFC Manning every five minutes by asking him if he is okay. PFC Manning is required to respond in some affirmative manner. At night, if the guards cannot see PFC Manning clearly, because he has a blanket over his head or is curled up towards the wall, they will wake him in order to ensure he is okay."

<comment><USER6> Right, so he's not woken at night _unless_ they can't see him. Kinda like how the flight attendants will wake you if there's turbulence and they can't see whether you've got your seat belt buckled or not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> An awful lot of that does sound like psychological torture dressed up to just about make it possible to present some kind of legal argument that it's for other purposes, and the damaging effects on the detainee are an unfortunate by-product.

</comment><comment><USER16> I don't understand the use of the word "force" and "require", as in "required to respond every five minutes". What if he doesn't? They'll send him to prison where he'll be required to respond to their questions every five minutes? Oh wait.

(I understand that in "regular" prisons, there are privileges, like socialization, that can be taken away to coerce you into following the rules. But in this case, it seems like there's nothing left to take away, so what's the incentive to follow the rules?)

<comment><USER17> >But in this case, it seems like there's nothing left to take away, so what's the incentive to follow the rules?

Minor beatings from angry guys with guns.

<comment><USER18> At extreme risk of sanctimony, but worth it to me because I follow your comments:

Maybe consider whether you want to be this glib about military prison guards. MCB Quantico is presumably staffed by the USMC. As I understand it:

(1) People don't join the USMC and then get to choose to work as a brig guard stateside; these are people who volunteered to serve at an extremely difficult time.

(2) The people who land in stateside posts tend to have first done a tour overseas; the "angry guys with guns" administering "minor beatings" are likely to be people who have already served their country in ways I can't possibly imagine doing myself.

I might consider giving these people the benefit of the doubt. (I'm anti-war, a liberal dem, but I have a healthy dose of respect for people who volunteer for the armed services.)

If you disagree, that's fine, I won't have a temper tantrum, but I thought it was worth saying.

Incidentally, there's a Reddit AmA with an MCB Quantico brig guard running right now.

<comment><USER19> _The people who land in stateside posts tend to have first done a tour overseas_

Actually, that's less likely than one might think. Deployments to Iraq/Afghanistan are distributed in a very non-uniform manner throughout the military. See [1].

 _the "angry guys with guns" administering "minor beatings" are likely to be people who have already served their country in ways I can't possibly imagine doing myself._

I don't think the implication was that the guards would abuse him because they were in the military -- but rather because they were in a position of power that tended to turn people into violent crazy people. Power corrupts and all, to say nothing of the Stanford prison experiment.

[1] [http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/18/puzzlements_...](http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/18/puzzlements_why_have_so_few_soldiers_and_marines_deployed)

<comment><USER18> If you look at the crosstabs for those numbers, you find that the number of Marines in the "Corrections Specialist" MOS that haven't deployed at all are absolutely dwarfed by people with MOS like "Personnel Clerk" and "Finance Technician" and "Administrative Clerk" (and, "Combat Illustrator"? Really?).

One gets the sense that "Corrections Specialists" do in fact deploy.

The Stanford Prison Experiment is probably not a license to assume that anyone working as a prison guard is breaking the law and their own honor code. But, who knows.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Glen Greenwald's salon.com piece on this is also a worthy read; it discusses the irreversible physical harm to the brain these conditions have probably already caused Manning. They also have him on a steady dose of antidepressants... All this makes me sick to hear about.

<comment><USER21> Link: [http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14...](http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/manning/index.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> That must be hellish. It seems a lot of these restrictions were intended to be for his own good to prevent him from causing himself physical harm. What good are they if they are causing him psychological damage?

<comment><USER23> "What good are they if they are causing him psychological damage?"

Their goal isn't to just cause psychological damage, it's to cause physical brain damage through controlled sensory deprivation.

<comment><USER22> I am disappointed your comment is being upvoted. Just because the conditions are terrible, outright and false hyperbole should not be used on the site like HN. We don't need propaganda here.

Being in regular contact with people (every 5 minutes), being able to watch TV for hours each day, corresponding via mail and being able to read books means he is not even remotely in the same league as people being tourtoured with _real_ sensory deprivation [2]

While the military can do and has done [1] sensory deprivation , this is not it.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." [0]

It sounds to me like they are trying to prevent him from committing suicide. But the prevention is probably doing him a lot of damage.

\---

[0] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor>

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jose_Padilla_at_the_Navy_C...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jose_Padilla_at_the_Navy_Consolidated_Brig.jpg)

[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensory_deprivation>

Edit: formatting.

<comment><USER23> That's why I said controlled sensory deprivation. It's a spectrum. Just because it doesn't involve ketamine and float tanks doesn't mean they aren't trying to destroy his brain. First of all there are no indications that he is or has ever been suicidal, so that explanation is laughable. And how exactly is preventing him from doing any exercise supposed to keep him from committing suicide anyway?

Even relatively mild sensory deprivation can cause fairly severe depression, as I make the case for here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=948637>

And what they are doing to him is way more extreme than what most people with depression are accidentally doing to themselves.

<comment><USER6> What makes you think there's no indication that he's been is or has ever been suicidal? Why would we know about it, if there had been? Is it not plausible that a kid who was pretty screwed up in the first place, who committed treason on a lark, and who is now facing life in prison for betraying his country, might turn suicidal?

The only indication we have one way or the other is that he's on Prevention of Injury watch, which is a pretty good sign that somebody thinks he is.

<comment><USER23> From MSNBC:

"When he was first arrested, Manning was put on suicide watch, but his status was quickly changed to "Prevention of Injury" watch (POI), and under this lesser pretense he has been forced into his life of mind-numbing tedium. His treatment is harsh, punitive and taking its toll, says Coombs.

'There is no evidence he's a threat to himself, and shouldn't be held in such severe conditions under the artifice of his own protection.'

"The command is basing this treatment of him solely on the nature of the pending charges, and on an unrelated incident where a service member in the facility took his own life," Coombs said, referencing the February suicide of a marine captain in the Quantico brig. Coombs says he believes Quantico officials are keeping Manning under close watch with strict limitations on his activity out of an overabundance of caution. Both Coombs and Manning's psychologist, Coombs says, are sure Manning is mentally healthy, that there is no evidence he's a threat to himself, and shouldn't be held in such severe conditions under the artifice of his own protection."

[http://bltwy.msnbc.msn.com/politics/bradley-mannings- prison-...](http://bltwy.msnbc.msn.com/politics/bradley-mannings-prison- hell-1669811.story)

C.f. also Glenn Greenwald's column from the other day, where he says:

"From the beginning of his detention, Manning has been held in intensive solitary confinement. For 23 out of 24 hours every day -- for seven straight months and counting -- he sits completely alone in his cell. Even inside his cell, his activities are heavily restricted; he's barred even from exercising and is under constant surveillance to enforce those restrictions. For reasons that appear completely punitive, he's being denied many of the most basic attributes of civilized imprisonment, including even a pillow or sheets for his bed (he is not and never has been on suicide watch). For the one hour per day when he is freed from this isolation, he is barred from accessing any news or current events programs."

[http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14...](http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/manning/)

Greenwald is currently addressing the perceived discrepancies between what he wrote and what Coombs said on his twitter account:

"@jon_persky Quantico is emphatic that he's not on suicide watch. And what would that have to do with 23hr/day solitary?" <http://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/16417820896141312>

"@sivavaid "His treatment is harsh, punitive and taking its toll, says Coombs. <http://is.gd/iYYbv> " <http://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/16297100627156992>

"@jsb (1) He's not on suicide watch & Coombs didn't say he was; (2) Combs: "he is not allowed to have a pillow"; (3) 23/hr/day solitary" <http://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/16249290229809153>

So possibly he was on suicide watch for a couple days, but they quickly determined he was not suicidal and have since been taking punitive action against him.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> "He is prevented from exercising in his cell. If he attempts to do push-ups, sit-ups, or any other form of exercise he will be forced to stop"

I think this would be the worst for me, along with the checks every 5 minutes.

</comment><comment><USER13> Land of the free.

<comment><USER25> Home of the brave.

<comment><USER3> I'd vote for Manning for President if he ever gets out of jail. The guy obviously has morals, integrity and a spine. I really think he's a hero. The government should be accountable to the people.

Think about Iraq/Afghanistan if there were WikiLeaks in 2001 would Bush have been able to get away with all the lies he told to push us into two wars? I really doubt it.

The world is safer with WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks ripped off the clock of secrecy and now they have to operate in public as it should be.

<comment><USER13> It's worth remembering (I think this has been forgotten) that the original leak Manning is suspected for is the "Collateral Murder" video.

That is very much of public interest and a prime example of what whistle blowing is for.

<comment><USER3> Also, if Julian Assange were say a Chinese citizen and this were happening to the Chinese government he'd be cheered on, called a dissident, and given a Nobel Prize.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> There's one thing I don't understand -- why he isn't allowed to exercise. I thought that would actually be required from a soldier.

</comment><comment><USER2> Is this terrible treatment? Yes. Is it inhumane? Possibly. It's important to bear in mind several factors:

* PFC Bradley Manning signed up to all of this. He will have been aware of the treatment he should expect in this situation if he was exposed.

* He confessed. Innocent until guilty in a military scenario is different to a civilian scenario. Given that he's confessed guilt, there's little to defend.

* This is a military case, not a civilian one. Things are different. You might not agree with the way he's treated but there are specific rules and those rules are in place for a reason.

<comment><USER27> So to restate, he's being held without charges and psychologically tortured, but it's okay because he's in the military and the rules of the military say that's okay.

Would you support a military rule that required officers to eat ten newborn babes apiece to be eligible for promotion? Let's say it's a specific rule and it's in place for a reason.

<comment><USER2> > So to restate, he's being held without charges and psychologically tortured, > but it's okay because he's in the military and the rules of the military say > that's okay.

That's not what I'm saying. It's not psychological torture against someone who's completely unprepared for it and never signed up for it. It's imprisonment under the terms of a contract he willingly signed up for. He is being charged with breaking that contract in a manner where the rules and consequences are clear. That's the call he had to make, that's the trade-off he had to make and that's something he must've known before he did what he did, otherwise he's taken a massive uncalculated risk without thinking about the potential consequences.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> What's the rationale for prohibiting exercise in his cell? Manning hasn't been convicted, so now isn't the time for punitive measures.

<comment><USER2> He's on Prevention of Injury watch in a Supermax prison. I'm not familiar with US rules, but on suicide watch in a high security UK prison you're not usually allowed to exercise. This is partly because there's a risk you may be able to overpower guards, but also because you can injure yourself if you over- exercise.

Whatever the reason in Manning's case, it'll be more to do with bureaucratic rules than any particular desire to torture. If they wanted to torture him they'd submit him to the treatment signed off by the Bush administration.

<comment><USER6> There's no need to torture him. He doesn't have any information that's of any use.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I am sorry, but having been in the military myself, I cannot feel sympathy for a serviceman who intentionally leaked classified material. And if found guity, he should spend the rest of his life in prison for doing so.

</comment><comment><USER30> While I am in general rather critical of most methods employed by the US in recent years, in this case the situation is quite different.

If you sign up for the US military and then as a soldier commit what may very well be seen as an act of treason, you can't really expect great treatment.

Mind you, this is very, very different from what goes on in Guantanamo, for which there is no justification.

</comment><comment><USER31> Why isn't this "prevention of injury watch" considered cruel and unusual punishment?

</comment><comment><USER32> If Manning had given the data to Al-Qaeda would we feel the same way?

</comment><comment><USER33> Id love to be able to hack a solution to injustices like these.

</comment><comment><USER34> Is long-term solitary confinement torture?

[http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/03/30/090330fa_fact_...](http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/03/30/090330fa_fact_gawande)

The answer: Yes, it is.</comment>


Mystery Unmanned Craft Seen Off Florida May Be Secret Sharc Spy Vessel - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2020/06/29/mystery-unmanned-craft-seen-off-florida-may-be-sharc-spy-vessel/#247902cb4872 <comment><USER2> Followup article: [https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2020/06/30/update...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2020/06/30/update- on-florida-mystery-unmanned-spy-craft/)

TLDR; it appears to be monitoring for illicit shipping activity as the sensor package was identified as one that logs radio traffic.</comment>


Health Insurance Shouldn't Be Tied to Employers - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/29/opinion/sunday/coronavirus-medicare-for-all.html <comment><USER2> I'm European, and I think that healthcare should be considered a human right. Not giving someone in need a potentially life-saving medical treatment is completely unfair, and a big red flag honestly. Life doesn't give the same opportunities to everyone, some people have been born in better environments or have simply been less fortunate then others, and I think it's the state's responsibility to create a system where these things are taken into account. Denying this is plain greed from the richest who don't want to subsidize healthcare for the poorest, without realizing that a society where people are less worried about their future would benefit them too; it puzzles me that so many people on the other side of the pond think of this almost as if it was some form of bolshevism while it is instead just plain and simple basic human decency.

<comment><USER3> > plain greed from the richest

Health care is cheaper when it is single payer due to the overhead/collusion of the insurance industry. This overhead is bigger than the inefficiencies of public run hospitals.

So paying only for yourself ends up being more expensive than paying for other people too.

<comment><USER4> Single payer is literally just health insurance, but it's provided by one entity (the government) which has a monopoly. The way they reduce costs is by rationing care.

<comment><USER5> That's not the full story. Insurance companies today already ration care : they won't pay for expensive brand-name medicines and they often won't approve surgeries without requiring extensive pre-qualifications and alternate treatments. Which is mostly for the best.

Single-payer would have other effects. One, by ensuring that everyone has access to preventive and non-emergency care, it would reduce the overall cost of care. Today, the uninsured wait until they are horribly ill to show up at the ER where they are treated as public charges. Those people are also not effective at their jobs, and die earlier, which is an added cost. Net-net, a healthier population will be less expensive to care for and will be more productive.

Second, a single-payer system will replace hundreds of independent insurance companies that compete with each other with a single system, increasing efficiency,

Third, a single-payer monopoly can negotiate with providers to reduce cost. When you represent all of the patients in the country, you can demand the lowest rates. The government already does this today with Medicare, which is why many people call this plan "Medicare for All."

There will undoubtedly be some care rationing, but I expect that as in the UK there will be the option to buy private insurance on the retail market, or to pay cash for procedures that you want but which aren't covered - as it is today for cosmetic surgery. Insurers dont cover plastic surgery, but that business seems to be booming.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> In Australia, health insurance isn't related to employment at all.

It seems a strange idea that it should somehow be connected to your employer. I can't see any reason why it would, only reasons why that would make things problematic and complex for no gain.

<comment><USER7> IIRC, It was a tax benefit introduced to the employer back during WW2, those who were offering health benefits to their employees.

<comment><USER8> It was in response to a national wage freeze. Due to WW2 too few workers existed for the jobs available as such any one worker had incredible bargaining power. Wages were frozen by law[0] and firms found other benefits to offer in order to attempt to compete with each over for workers.

[0][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabilization_Act_of_1942](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabilization_Act_of_1942)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The impact to labor mobility is significant: people who rely on employer- provided health care would be more reluctant to change jobs if there is any risk of discontinuity of health care for chronic conditions, or a higher cost for any conditions pre-existing before the new job starts. The US has not had indenture by name for decades, but we still have it via health care.

</comment><comment><USER10> This biggest problem with employer paid health insurance is that the people who receive it are sheltered from a lot of the problems with the current system. It's easy to say everything's fine when you are happy with your current situation.

Imagine if senators and congress had to buy their own individual plans.

<comment><USER11> this is the answer to why so many things are the way they are. Those with enough money to make something not be a problem, don't tend to even think about it again after writing the check/swiping the card.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> > But employer-based insurance is heavily subsidized by the federal > government.

I don't know enough about how the health insurance beast works, but it would seem that if the federal government stopped giving an unfair advantage to organizations, then the unfair advantage would stop existing for these organizations that were given the unfair advantage and fairness would somewhat return for individual persons.

</comment><comment><USER13> When the current health insurance system was created in the 1950's, there was a very specific family structure in the United States where the man would work for a wage, and the woman would stay at home with the children. So if the health insurance was attached to the man's job, then she was dependent on him for healthcare. So you have to understand that on the American right wing, the current health care system is seen as a lynchpin of the "American way of life".

Not only that but as many black people work the kinds of low wage jobs that don't offer health care. If we created a public system for everyone, then taxes on white income and property would be used to pay for black people to have health care, something which in the United States is a hard sell. That's why you will often see people holding signs saying something to the effect of "racial equality is communism".

</comment><comment><USER14> Please do something useful and fund a movement to dissociate the two. People are imprisoned to their employers that provides decent health care, especially those with family and children.

Health care costs should be completely 100% tax deductible.

When I go to the dentist, I have no clue what he is going to charge me. He could price a procedure at $1000 or $5000. I, as an individual, have no ability to negotiate with him about his price. I just know that I have a damn root canal, and I'm dying in pain, so fix it! And then, you're slapped with the expensive bill.

<comment><USER15> Rather than health care costs being completely 100% tax deductible, you just need the health insurance premiums to be covered, and you can index the deduction against taxable income if you want.

The kicker, and this is where the US mindset gets hung-up is that you need to incentivise the insurers to cover everyone (including preexisting conditions) by making it mandatory for everyone to have health insurance so there are enough healthy people (who don't make claims) in the system to make it profitable.

<comment><USER16> > _you need to incentivise the insurers to cover everyone (including > preexisting conditions) by making it mandatory for everyone to have health > insurance_

There's a stupid simple workaround. Everyone gets taxed equal to the lowest- tier health insurance. When a health insurer signs someone up, they can claim from this kitty. Insurers can't deny signing someone up for the lowest tier. When insurers breach certain actuarial limits, for example, if their pool of insured proves unusually old or sick, they can claim from this kitty.

If the limits are properly set, healthy people foregoing insurance becomes a non-issue. They're pre-paying for a benefit they fail to claim.

<comment><USER17> Isn't this basically what Obamacare tried to do? Except with a lower tax?

<comment><USER15> I believe they tried but couldn't get it to pass.

This is the Australian model. If you don't have insurance there's a Medicare surcharge based on your taxable income. The Gov gives you a tax rebate if you do have insurance.

[https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Medicare-levy/Private- hea...](https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Medicare-levy/Private-health- insurance-rebate/)

Premiums go up each April within an allowable increase and are published on a Gov site.

I worked on integrating this for a comparison site years back - the market is pretty competitive, but has been broken to an extent in recent years by providers signing up as preferred partners with various insurers and insurers just buying up providers.

An interesting side is the APRA regulations regarding how many policies an insurer is allowed to issue based on the capital they hold. They needed monthly caps on how many policies they wanted (we got feeds back on leads that signed up) and some of the smaller ones occasionally asked to be removed from the panel when they were hitting their limit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I think employer based healthcare works fine in more corporatist countries. Here in Germany we have a multi-payer system that includes the option for employer-based plans, but it's embedded in a culture that isn't going to throw you on the street in a pandemic, and there is of course the rest of the public healthcare system to catch people. In federal states purely national systems are hard to realise.

The US has the same issue I think, not to mention that the federal government doesn't always seem to be in good shape. Maybe better to go deeper than just healthcare and ponder whether the liberal capitalism needs to taken down a notch in favour of putting other stakeholders first instead of centralising healthcare further.

<comment><USER19> That's incorrect. German health insurance is not tied to your employer. Losing your job has no impact on your coverage, and your employer has no say on how you are insured.

If you are curious about how German health insurance works, I wrote a long, detailed, thoroughly verified guide about it for expats. It's a good intro to the system.

[https://allaboutberlin.com/guides/german-health- insurance](https://allaboutberlin.com/guides/german-health-insurance)

<comment><USER18> I am German and you're not correct. There are several types of public insurance. If you've chosen to be a member of a _Betriebskrankenkasse_ or _Innungskrankenkasse_ , your insurance status is tied to your job, because that insurance is provided by your employer.

Should you lose your job you are entitled to a month or so of additional coverage called _nachgehender leistungsanspruch_ and you can obtain public health insurance through a non jon-related public insurer.

That's why the German system is universal (you're never going to be uninsured), but the option for employer-based insurance exists and is quite popular.

<comment><USER19> Fair point. This is a blind spot in my research, and I will amend the article when I find the time. They at least deserve a mention. There are no notable differences: same price, same coverage, and no particular gotchas.

That being said, I can't think of a scenario where you'd want to keep a specific job for health insurance reasons. In that sense, your health insurance is not tied to your job. If you were with a BKK, you'd fall back into the public system, which should provide equivalent coverage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's not really tied to employers. There's no law stopping you from purchasing it yourself. The government just gives a tax break to companies who give it as a benefit. So they hugely incentivize it.

<comment><USER20> As someone who buys their own insurance, I have to say there are so many problems with the process. You make it sound like it's as simple as ordering a pizza...

Firstly, the major insurance companies don't want to talk to you, so you need to buy through a broker. The broker is suppose to help you pick the plan that's right for you, but realistically they will email you a few PDFs with 5-7 plans that are all extremely similar, full of jargon, and difficult to understand.

Find a better broker? Hah, good luck...

So after you become an expert on insurance jargon, and ask your broker lots of question, you're now ready to start paying. For small plans with fewer than 5 people, get ready to pay anywhere from $700-1k per month for the most basic high deductible plan.

Then after about a year, you'll get an email and phone call from your broker because your plan is no longer available. So you need to pick a new one, that has slightly different features and costs $20-100 additional per-year.

The American health insurance is a parasite.

<comment><USER21> > You make it sound like it's as simple as ordering a pizza...

It is as simple as going to healthcare.gov

You don't need a broker and it takes 15 minutes at most. It's just as expensive as any employer sponsored insurance, except for a handful of self funded plans from white collar companies which might be able to offer cheaper insurance since the employees skew young and higher socioeconomic class.

<comment><USER22> This is completely false. Insurance is far cheaper for large companies since the risk is being spread amongst a very large pool of individuals.

<comment><USER21> The pool of lives of a whole state is large enough. Where some large companies benefit is having younger workers who are in a higher socioeconomic class, which usually means healthier and therefore less expensive.

Checkout code DD of box 12 on your W-2 and compare to the same metal level plan for your state here:

[https://www.kff.org/health-reform/state-indicator/average- ma...](https://www.kff.org/health-reform/state-indicator/average-marketplace- premiums-by-metal-tier/)

I've compared it with a few different people working in Fortune 100 companies and it's almost the same.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Richard Branson set to open Virgin Spaceport today.  - <AUTHOR> http://www.virgin.com/travel/news/virgin-galactic-spaceport-america-runway-dedication <comment><USER2> Space exploration has always been a phallic endeavor. Now I see that Virgin has taken a very very...yonic style to it's spaceport architecture.

<comment><USER3> It doesn't look quite so bad in the second picture where it blends into the background.

Architecturally I think this style is called "How to spend as much money as possible on something that is still just a big shed in the desert".

Seriously though, was there any real need to build a "spaceport"? Wouldn't White Knight/Spaceship 2.0 equally capable of operating out of any decent- sized airport, if you make sure you arrange priority landing for the spaceship? (Does Spaceship Two land on a runway?)

<comment><USER4> Ups the cachet considerably, no? If you're paying that kind of money for a flight, isn't it more fitting to fly out of a Spaceport then Albuquerque International Airport?

Plus, given time, we may see a vicious hive of scum and villainy grow in the surrounding area.

<comment><USER3> Indeed, I was just wondering whether there was any practical reason for it. But since "sounds cool" is a more-than-sufficient justification for any Virgin activity at this stage, and since "building a spaceport" was really just "buying an old airport in the middle of the desert and putting up a new sign" I guess I'm not too surprised.

 _Plus, given time, we may see a vicious hive of scum and villainy grow in the surrounding area._

Albuquerque?

<comment><USER5> It's much closer to Roswell...

<comment><USER6> He meant Mos Eisley.

<comment><USER5> I got the Star Wars reference.

I used to live in Albuquerue and I was implying that Roswell was more like Mos Eisley than Albuquerque. Though that's just a personal opinion.

<comment><USER7> Makes sense. Albuquerque's west side is full of a bunch of whiney Luke types "I wish we were cool like the main city" :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I wonder if they'll manage to go to the moon within 20 years.

</comment><comment><USER9> from the looks of it [http://www.virgingalactic.com/assets/img/overview/spaceport/...](http://www.virgingalactic.com/assets/img/overview/spaceport/footer.jpg) you'll actually need a regular plane (or private jet for that matter) to get there in the first place.

<comment><USER10> Considering the fact that the asking price is $200,000 per person. Shouldn't be a problem for most of its customers.

<comment><USER11> Based on its target market, I'd say this certainly shouldn't be a problem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'd love to hear Richard Branson at next year's startup school. Vote up if you would too...

<comment><USER3> I'd love to hear Richard Branson at next year's startup school, but I _so_ do not want to see comments with "vote up if you..."

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> You mean the "top of earth's atmosphere" or maybe "high flying planes" port.

SpaceShipOne/Two does NOT go into space!

It barely exits the mesosphere. Space starts 73-76 miles up.

Virgin doesn't have any craft that goes above 68 miles.

The USA set a far lower standard for political reasons at 50 miles to make- believe and call people "astronauts".

<comment><USER14> It goes above the Kármán line (100km/62 miles), which is the international standard for the boundary:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A1rm%C3%A1n_line>

<comment><USER13> Again, 62 miles is a made-up POLITICAL standard.

"Space" has been measured to start at 73 or 76 miles depending on which science experiment you want to accept.

So are people taking this flight because it's the wonder of science or for bragging rights? Because if it's for the wonder of science, well science says you aren't in space.

 _(and really, if there is even doubt that the height you are going to is actually "space" then what the hell is this nonsense about? Let me know when you can do at least one orbit of the planet and then I'll say you did something extra special for spending all that money)_</comment></comment></comment>