Graph-Powered Machine Learning at Google - <AUTHOR> https://research.googleblog.com/2016/10/graph-powered-machine-learning-at-google.html <comment><USER2> While there is a lot to get excited about with ML both as a consumer and as a software developer I can't help feeling a pang of sadness.

Big data and in this case the relationship (graph) between big data points are whats needed to make great ML/AI products. By nature the only companies that will ever have access to this data in a meaningful way are going to be larger companies: Google, Amazon, Apple, ect. Because of this I worry that small upstarts may never be able to compete on these type of products in a viable way as the requirements to build these features are so easily defensible by the larger incumbents.

I hope this is not the case but I'm getting less and less optimistic when I see articles like this.

<comment><USER3> The graph algorithm they're describing is basically Manaal Faruqui's "retrofitting", although they don't cite him. I will make the charitable assumption that they came up with it independently (and managed to miss the excitement about it at NAACL 2015).

Here's why not to be sad: Retrofitting and its variants are quite effective, and surprisingly, they're not really that computationally intensive. I use an extension of retrofitting to build ConceptNet Numberbatch [1], which is built from open data and is the best-performing semantic model on many word- relatedness benchmarks.

The entirety of ConceptNet, including Numberbatch, builds in 5 hours on a desktop computer.

Big companies have resources, but they also have inertia. Some problems are solved by throwing all the resources of Google at the problem, but that doesn't mean it's the _only_ way to solve the problem.

[1] [https://github.com/commonsense/conceptnet- numberbatch](https://github.com/commonsense/conceptnet-numberbatch)

<comment><USER4> I can't find a single comment thread on HN where ConceptNet is discussed. Bummer. See here: [https://hn.algolia.com/?query=conceptnet&sort=byPopularity&p...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=conceptnet&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story)

Short of signing up to the mailing list on Google Groups is there any info out there on the net that tells me:

a) How ConceptNet relates to efforts like Cyc's OpenCyc and the big G's Knowledge Graph?

b) How to add domain specific concepts, attributes, and relations to ConceptNet

Both these things are the first that pop into my mind but the website: [http://conceptnet5.media.mit.edu/](http://conceptnet5.media.mit.edu/) doesn't seem to cover them.

<comment><USER3> Hm, I know I've brought it up before.

In relation to OpenCyc: ConceptNet doesn't have CycL or any sort of logical predicates -- the assumption is that you are just doing fuzzy machine learning over ConceptNet. I'm pretty sure you need the rest of Cyc to do anything interesting with CycL, though.

ConceptNet takes advantage of linked open data when it can, so it _does_ contain attempted translations of the facts in OpenCyc.

Compared to the Google Knowledge Graph: well, you can't really use the Knowledge Graph without being at Google, or making a research agreement with them, right? But from what I've seen of it, and of its predecessor Freebase, I think it focuses a lot on named entities: particularly things you can look up on Wikipedia or things you can buy. Which is fine information. I'd say it's a different segment of linked data than "what words mean", which is ConceptNet's focus. So maybe think of it as more like a bigger WordNet than a smaller Knowledge Graph.

How to add domain-specific concepts to ConceptNet: the unsatisfying answer is that you can get the code for ConceptNet and alter the build process to include new data sources (try it on the 5.5 branch if you attempt this). And the startuppy sellout answer is that doing this automatically is one of the things my company Luminoso is for ([http://www.luminoso.com](http://www.luminoso.com)).

Thanks for asking, and I'll try to clarify this kind of stuff when I deploy the new site.

<comment><USER4> Thanks for the response. I'll keep an eye on your progress, dig deeper into what you already do, and have a play with your tools.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm a big fan of the smart replies in Allo and Inbox so this was a fun read. I did something similar in grad school where I and some other students manually labeled a handful of sentences and then used graph-based semi-supervised learning to label the rest for the purposes of using it as a training dataset. It would be neat to hear what technology they used for the graph-based learning; perhaps Cayley? We used Python's igraph at the time but it was pretty slow. It would also be interesting to try this in Neo4j.

</comment><comment><USER6> The algorithm is well known. The main contribution is that they were able to scale up the algorithm to a huge graph. Google doesn't go into much detail about that because it's proprietary. So whats the point of this blog post? Oh yea, free Allo/Inbox advertisement.

</comment><comment><USER7> This is really cool. The underlying graph optimization algorithm seems similar to how graphical models are trained. Is that correct? Can someone please help me understand the difference?

<comment><USER8> Yes, label propagation is very similar to belief propagation on a Gaussian Markov random field (a particularly simple type of graphical model). To be precise this is 'inference' on the graphical model, rather than 'training' or 'learning'. See the author's 2016 JMLR paper for more details: [http://www.jmlr.org/proceedings/papers/v51/ravi16.pdf](http://www.jmlr.org/proceedings/papers/v51/ravi16.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Great stuff. I have been using machine learning since the late 1980s. Semi supervised learning is new to me, and it is exciting to be able to mix labeled and unlabeled data.

</comment><comment><USER10> Anyone know if they are going to release code in Tensorflow that works with public data? I have been using the inbox reply feature in inbox and its very useful.

<comment><USER11> These algorithms can't really make much use of Tensorflow.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I see this as a knn approach in which the distance is a function of the strength of the edge between the vertices.

In the retrofitting paper cited in the comments there is a process of smoothing, that is feeding back the message or information to update the states of the graph (example in the modern ai book). It doesn't seem anything new.

</comment><comment><USER13> is there something in Expander that makes this happen... or can something like Apache Spark be used as well ?

</comment><comment><USER14> As a software engineer who knows nothing about ML, where's the best place to learn?

</comment><comment><USER15> Is there implementation released maybe? Similar like they did with TensorFlow.

</comment><comment><USER16> Unrelated but none of the google blog links open up on safari in iOS. The link opens but text doesn't show.

<comment><USER17> This is probably due to your ad blocker. Same here. The page doesn't work if you disable the tracking. After disabling Focus it's working.

<comment><USER18> That this is the case and explanation is unacceptable (not that I blame the parent, but I would like to add the statement, as we might otherwise forget, that information could be available without the tracking-mafia).</comment></comment></comment>


Snow shovelling can kill - <AUTHOR> http://www.cbc.ca/radio/whitecoat/blog/snow-shovelling-can-kill-1.3975830 <comment><USER2> _The context is that many people pick up a shovel and do maximum effort despite living a sedentary life._

The alternative argument would be that this kind of exercise is simply bad for a person, especially a men over 50 - that it should be avoided even by those otherwise in "good shape".

And yet a third possibility is that this kind of exercise is that this sort of exercise merely moves forward the occurrence of a heart disease event that would have otherwise occurred reasonably soon otherwise.

Anyone know any studies puzzling these possibilities out.

<comment><USER3> I know so many men over 50 through the crossfit community that are in killer shape. Age has absolutely nothing to do with it. The fact of the matter is that most individuals are completely out of shape. Maximum effort should not be a seasonal chore around the house.

<comment><USER4> Age has quite a bit to do with it. You rarely see acute myocardial infarction in 15 year olds, and you often see it in 80 year olds. There is a continuum of risk, and age plays a role.

Because there are risk factors that are uncorrelated or imperfectly correlated with physical fitness and its outward manifestations, even physically fit individuals cannot escape this.

<comment><USER3> For those reading, acute myocardial infarction is the scientific word for heart attack. Not sure why that needed to be used in this context.

Second... if take a 15 year old who is out of shape and an 80 year old who is out of shape and have them shovel equal length driveways ... sure my money is on the 15 year old.

But... you can't say that this problem is due to people being older. 30 year old folks can still have heart attacks shoveling snow. There are loads of folks out there who are in their 40s and 50s who won't experience any medical issues with the exertion required to shovel a driveway.

So the point I was trying to illustrate is that it's not fair to blame age. Age is one variable in a very complex equation that influences your level of fitness.

<comment><USER5> Earlier comment:

 _> Age has absolutely nothing to do with it._

This comment:

 _> Age is one variable in a very complex equation that influences your level of fitness._

I appreciate your conceding that age is a major factor in health.

<comment><USER6> > _...age is a major factor in health_

Tangential, but: I read a fascinating book about ageing and death from a doctor who worked with such things. My big takeway, from a systems perspective, was that we generally don't die because of a single component- level failure but rather as a collective systematic overloads that push failure throughout the body until a component dies (and so do we).

Age makes our lungs, arteries, heart, organs, and the rest of it work sub optimally. Poorer lung function forces our hearts to work harder. Poor heart function causes our lungs to work harder. An unusual shock like shovelling pushes all components, which push each other, which is a great way to trigger failure modes.

This looks a lot like what we see in complex systems over time. Age is biological-debt :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> The real tragedy here is that folks are living such sedentary lives that a simple activity like clearing snow from your sidewalk/driveway becomes lethal.

I was once a typical neckbeard programmer who drank way too much coke and red bull and lived off of unhealthy foods. I have a 180º different lifestyle now and will never go back. I enjoy shoveling my driveway.

Everyone should invest in their own physical fitness. Make time for it. Make it your lifestyle so it's not a chore or a second-thought, but a regular part of your routine. At the very least, do it for your mental health.

<comment><USER7> May I ask what age you changed your ways? I'm 38 and it feels like constant failure. I also worry the damage is done :(

<comment><USER8> I did at 36, Went from 250lbs to 185lbs in 7 months.

I have a spinal condition so no heavy weights (nothing over 35kg) so lots of reps, pull-ups, calisthetics and eating a 1500 calorie a day diet (which sucked but I adapted remarkably quickly), I've kept the weight off for 18mths and I'm still 185.

It's a lot easier to maintain fitness than lose it and get it back.

Going from a 44" stretch back to a 32-34" (depending on brand) waist in jeans was a nice feeling but the main improvement was energy levels, once I binned the sugary energy drinks and got use to drinking a few cups of coffee sweetened with a tea spoon of honey my energy levels through the day leveled out and I started sleeping better as well (which given the spine stuff was a major win).

I'll stay in shape for as long as I possibly can do.

<comment><USER9> > I did at 36, Went from 250lbs to 185lbs in 7 months.

This is crazy fast, hope it doesn't bounce back during the next 3-5 years. 18 months in, you're well on your way, keep it up with the consistency!

<comment><USER8> I count the calories of every meal I eat and every drink as well ruthlessly so unless something goes wrong with physics I'd be hard pressed to put on weight, I actually have the opposite problem, I have to slightly over eat to keep weight on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > The context is that many people pick up a shovel and do maximum effort > despite living a sedentary life.

This. Shoveling after last week's storm was definitely the most concerted exercise I've had in a year or more. I definitely felt at one point that my heart was working _way_ too hard (for whatever physiological reason; likely those outlined in the article) and forced myself to rest a few minutes, despite not being physically exhausted. And I'm neither overweight nor have high blood pressure.

<comment> FLUX-YOU Did you do warmups before shoveling snow?

I can't imagine going outside and doing that in cold weather with cold muscles.

<comment><USER11> > Did you do warmups before shoveling snow?

Seriously? Who does this?

<comment> FLUX-YOU Shoveling snow is obviously exercise. Does it seem weird to you that people warm up before lifting or running?

<comment><USER11> No. Neither does it to the average person. I'm just saying doing a warmup before chores is not something that's common practice. Maybe it should be, but you can't just assume it is because it seems like the right thing to do that it's common knowledge.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Sexist or not, I rarely see women shoveling snow. My wife will on occasion (and even less so now that we live in Seattle), but it's almost always been me because, well, I'm better built for it.

But what I didn't hear mentioned is that women have a much lower risk for heart attacks until menopause. And I don't know that I've ever seen a 55 year old woman shoveling snow (again, anecdata). If you strapping young lads were raised right, you'd go down and do it for her since you already have the shovel out. :-)

More so, shoveling snow is amazingly hard work on a level that most people probably rarely experience. I'm a lifelong distance runner with a healthy heart (though weeny little runner arms), and shoveling sure gets my heart going. I can't imagine the strain on a 54 year old guy with a beer gut who spends most of his day sitting. That _does_ sound like a recipe for a heart attack.

<comment><USER13> On the other hand, women who do have heart attacks do not do as well, at least partly because people assume they aren't having one.

[http://www.bbc.com/news/health-42590013](http://www.bbc.com/news/health-42590013)

<comment><USER14> Probably the same reason that men have lower breast cancer survival rates than women - the common assumption is that it's a gender specific disease, which delays diagnosis and treatment: [http://www.breastcancer.org/research- news/20120517](http://www.breastcancer.org/research-news/20120517)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Sounds like one theory of the actual mechanism is the Valsalva maneuver? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valsalva_maneuver](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valsalva_maneuver)

Could that be mitigated by just learning to not do it? People training in martial arts often practice this by combining breathing with specific moves, such as exhaling while punching. I imagine you could also learn to exhale as you lift the shovel.

<comment><USER16> Not doing the Valsalva maneuver means that you break your spine. It works by using the compressed air inside your lungs as support so that your abdominal and back muscles can do their work.

This is the reason that when you go to a physiotherapist and they crack your spine they ask you to exhale before, in order to be able to work without needing to fight your internal pressure. There is a reason we evolved with the instinct to do it.

Edit: to also comment on your note about martial arts: the very short scream you do when throwing a punch or kick is precisely a way to induce a Valsalva maneuver. Notice that you don't scream until you're out of breath, but you exhale very fast and you stop precisely when you hit, forcing pressure inside you to give you the support to need during the transfer of forces of the blow.

<comment> Paul-ish > Not doing the Valsalva maneuver means that you break your spine.

This is only anecdote, but if I fail to do the valsalva when exercising I just don't have as much power. I haven't broken my back yet.

The valsalva is useful at max effort, but doesn't seem necessary for a sustained activity such as shoveling snow. If they find valsalva is a problem, the answer may be not to shovel so much snow in one push.

<comment><USER16> You don't have as much power because your body automatically scales down to prevent you from injuring yourself. In addition, performing an exercise wrong doesn't mean that you automatically get injured, just that your chances of hurting yourself go up. If you're lucky, you're never going to break anything - this also depends on the kind of exercise you're doing and on its intensity.

As for the max-effort thing, the Valsalva maneuver can be performed at different degrees of intensity. It's not like every time you do it you have veins popping in your eyeballs, and I don't expect those untrained men referenced in the article to do it very strongly. It is correlated with the effort you're doing and on how much you're consciously compressing the air.

But yes, longer effort with less snow per shovel would definitely help.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Snow shoveling for me has always caused insane lower back pain. I have a bad back and have been laid up in bed for days because of it, even doing silly things like bending over to pick something small up.

I used that as an excuse to buy a snowblower. Now, removing snow is as easy as using a self-propelled lawnmower. It's one of those things I didn't realize I was missing out on and wish I had bought years ago.

<comment><USER18> Yep, people should hire someone or buy a snow blower. Or if you have too long of a drive get a plow.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Similarly, you're more likely to get a have sudden cardiac death while you're running a longer race, even if marathoners are unlikely to suffer from sudden cardiac death overall[1].

1 = [http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1106468#t=abstrac...](http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1106468#t=abstract)

My point in mentioning this is that there are multiple lines of evidence suggesting that your risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes is highest during peak exercise, not that I think this would be particularly controversial.

</comment><comment><USER19> You could also skip buying the "snow shovel" that holds too much snow at a time or is shaped badly for snow removal. You are not power lifting, just clearing an area. Be slow and steady.

Instead of the crap snow shovel buy a grain shovel[1], one of the snow pushers[2], or a Toro Power Shovel[3]. If you live in an area that gets a lot of snow then hire a service.

1) [https://www.tractorsupply.com/tsc/product/stanley-fatmax- fib...](https://www.tractorsupply.com/tsc/product/stanley-fatmax-fiberglass-d- handle-grain-shovel?cm_vc=-10005)

2) [http://www.truevalue.com/product/Polar-Tuff-Snow-Plow- Pusher...](http://www.truevalue.com/product/Polar-Tuff-Snow-Plow- Pusher-38-In-/70231.uts?keyword=snow%20pusher)

3) [https://www.toro.com/en/homeowner/snow-blowers/power- shovel-...](https://www.toro.com/en/homeowner/snow-blowers/power-shovel-38361) my dad had one an it worked well

<comment><USER20> Will second the #2 recommendation above - I have a fair amount of sidewalk in front of my house and the front of my office that I bought the snow pushers for. They're fast and move a lot of snow with minimal heavy breathing. 4 years and zero heart attacks. =)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> My takeaways: show shovelling can cause heart attacks because of the type of exertion you're doing + the cold weather, and it's much more likely in men because presumably more men than women shovel snow.

<comment><USER22> _it 's much more likely in men because presumably more men than women shovel snow._

The article said that's a suspicion, but is not a conclusion:

 _The researchers say they suspect that shovelling caused heart attacks because men are more likely than women to shovel snow. That may be true, or it might be a sexist assumption. But there may be another explanation for the findings: that women shovel snow in a way that doesn 't cause heart attacks._

<comment><USER23> Isn't "all women are naturally and inherently better at shoveling snow" just as sexist of an assumption as "women aren't as likely to shovel snow"?

If men are more likely to shovel snow, that's just statistics and sample sizes and can be controlled for to determine its validity. If all women everywhere are so much better at shoveling than men that it produces a statistically measurable outcome in an unrelated study, that is massively huge news about the innate physical differences between genders.

<comment><USER24> This isn't a case of better or worse at shoveling snow, though. I mean, it could be, but that's not what this implies. It simply states that maybe women shovel in a way that doesn't lead to heart attacks so easily, which wouldn't be that far into fantasy. It isn't the first time we've noticed such things.

For example, "throwing like a girl" is a thing for most girls, caused by the way the body is put together after puberty (before puberty, males and females throw similarly). There are some exercises that are great for men but not women - it makes the pelvic bone get weird for some women (can't remember the specifics. Its been 20 years).

Considering all this, it is quite possible that women naturally use different movements and different muscle groups to do the same job because of their physical differences. And perhaps this causes less strain. Or maybe it is hormones.

You know, or maybe more men shovel than women - they just didn't want to rest on such an assumption when they don't know it to be true.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I mentioned this to my wife (who is a doctor) and her response was basically "no duh." She said they learned about this in med school. Her explanation was that this is typically happening to people who rarely exercise and then all of a sudden are physically exerting themselves for a sustained period of time.

</comment><comment><USER26> So I understand that sudden exercise can cause clots to become loose and get stuck in one of your coronary arteries causing a heart attack.

But those clots are there whether you exercise or not, right? So they are going to cause a heart attack at some point. So by avoiding exercise, you just delay the inevitable.

Am I missing something?

<comment><USER27> The mechanism is that a plaque builds up in your coronary artery. This plaque can rupture, spontaneously or if disturbed for some reason. Then your blood starts rapidly forming a clot around the location of the rupture, and this is what blocks the artery.

[https://www.verywell.com/stemi-st-segment-elevation- myocardi...](https://www.verywell.com/stemi-st-segment-elevation-myocardial- infarction-1746032)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> > To be perfectly scientific, the researchers have no way of knowing know that > shovelling did the guys in.

Devil's advocate - perhaps it's some other activity altogether? Just for example, being snowed in with the spouse could lead to some indoor exertion?

</comment><comment><USER29> If you don't shovel it, you risk having it compact into an icy mess, which can be unhealthy in its own way.

</comment><comment><USER30> Here's a quick review of the large studies which the article cites:

[1] says that snowfall in Canada is correlated with heart attacks in men, but not in women. Shoveling is just a postulated cause.

[2] reports the proportions of different types of snow shoveling injuries in people treated in US hospital emergency departments. I did not find any statements in [2] to support the article's statement that "of the patients with heart attack after shoveling snow, 80 per cent were men." Perhaps the article's author had access to this data or read this result elsewhere. [2] did say that 6.7% of the snow shoveling injuries were cardiac-related. 0.8% of the injuries were fatal; all fatal injuries were cardiac-related.

Regarding gender as a risk factor, [2] did report that in patients age ≥ 55 years, males were twice as likely as females to have their injury be cardiac- related. This suggests that being old and male does confer extra risk of snow shoveling-related heart attack.

Note that [2] cites work saying that cold temperatures alone, even absent physical exertion, are associated with heart attack in at-risk patients. Cold temperature, independent of snow shoveling, could therefore be a cause for the results in [1].

[1] [http://www.cmaj.ca/content/189/6/E235](http://www.cmaj.ca/content/189/6/E235) [2] [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735675709...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735675709003714)

</comment><comment><USER31> In Vancouver, last winter, GlobalBC News made such a big deal out of people not shovelling their sidewalks. They even went so far to shame some owners. They seemed wreck-less about this issue considering that some people (like my dad who's a senior) would be risking their life shovelling the snow. Can you tell I hate the news sometimes? On some issues they really like to stir up outrage.

[Edit]At one point people were talking about the issue at work over lunch. Ugh.

<comment><USER32> If the law says the homeowner is responsible for clearing the sidewalk in front of their property (like in my town) then your dad needs to hire someone to do the work if he can't. My neighbor is well into her 80s so she hires. It's not even all that expensive. Not being physically able to do the work yourself is no excuse for neglecting your responsibility as a homeowner. Your dad should be shamed for putting pedestrians in danger.

<comment><USER18> Or just change the law. City could do it, jobs programs and all. You think I'm kidding but they do the streets anyway.

<comment><USER32> Making a phonecall is a lot easier than changing City law

Of course, they are out doing the sidewalk of city property, they have really nice machinery too.

<comment><USER18> Yeah, it's kind of a scam that you don't own the sidewalk but they force you to maintain it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Friend of my parents had this happen (& hey, we're in Canada)

Guy shovelled, went inside, had a shower, passed out in bed. Had to be rushed to hospital, bedridden for a couple days. Survived, but now his wife's a bit worrisome about him shovelling now

<comment><USER10> Pure speculation but I wonder if that was caused by the rapid shift in environmental temperature resulting in rapid blood vessel dilation? [1] Or do you know it was a heart attack and not fainting?

[1] [https://answers.webmd.com/answers/5038612/why-do-i-faint- or-...](https://answers.webmd.com/answers/5038612/why-do-i-faint-or-nearly- faint-after-taking-a-shower)

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I loved that they put the word suspect in bold. I wish other publications would do this.

</comment><comment><USER35> My cousin died in his late 30s while attempting to pull-start a chain saw in very cold conditions. The explanation I heard was arteries and vessels constrict in extreme cold, and combined with exertion triggered the heart attack.

</comment><comment><USER36> > The correlation was true regardless of the patient's age, the presence or > absence of cardiovascular risk like high blood pressure or other health > conditions.

Perhaps we should say that a sedentary lifestyle is by itself a cardiovascular risk factor, even if it affects the majority of the population. The same thing goes for body weight: even if the majority of adults in the US are overweight, we don't redefine that as the new normal weight, for good physiological and medical reasons. Perhaps with physical activity we have already normalized an unhealthy lifestyle.

</comment><comment><USER37> Get one of these: [0]: [http://www.biltema.se/sv/Fritid/Tradgard/Vinter/Snoslade-200...](http://www.biltema.se/sv/Fritid/Tradgard/Vinter/Snoslade-2000034889/) [1]: [http://www.acehardware.com/product/index.jsp?productId=39941...](http://www.acehardware.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3994134) \- in the US

for moving 90% of the snow and if you have to scoop the last bit it's not backbreaking.

</comment><comment><USER38> From the linked paper [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20825768](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20825768) >The average annual rate of snow shovel-related injuries and medical emergencies was 4.15 per 100,000 population.

That's actually much more than I would have guessed, but is that still high enough for the general public, or HN readers to care enough to change their behavior (i.e. decision to shovel or not)?

For comparison, car related fatalities were 11.59 per 100,000 in 2016.

<comment><USER39> > HN readers to care enough to change their behavior (i.e. decision to shovel > or not)?

Where I live its not an option unless you enjoy being sued. You are legally obligated to keep the sidewalks clear. If you don't, and someone "slips", you are on the hook for a massive settlement.

I'd also like to point out that the 4.15 per 100,000 only counts the people who went to the doctor or hospital for their injuries. You should have no doubt that droves of people who end up with back injuries (like myself) from shoveling do not seek medical treatment and are not counted in the statistics.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> The other big killer is pooping.

No joke. If someone at potential risk of a heart attack seems winded or has pain, don't let them sit on the toilet. That clenching stops your heart.

<comment><USER41> What about kneeling down with the body straight?

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Cold constricts blood vessels, increasing blood pressure. Combine that with the fact that shoveling is mostly strenuous on your arm muscles —- where upper body exercise causes an increased HR and BP as compared to lower body exercise [0].

[0] [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4183232/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4183232/)

</comment><comment><USER39> >The context is that many people pick up a shovel and do maximum effort despite living a sedentary life.

I'd like to point out that even those of us that work out regularly suffer terribly from shoveling. As someone in his mid 40s who works out regularly, daily exercise may prevent a shoveling-induced heart attack but it does absolutely nothing to prevent crippling lower-back pain that lasts for days/weeks.

</comment><comment><USER43> I guess I am not a numbers guy, but in six months 68k suffer heart attacks and 60k in the other six months so its snow, for what 8k extra?

yeah it can be hard work and some people just keep going regardless of when their body says stop. still I bet a lot of it is purely genetic, thresholds are higher for some in the same health than others. regardless, just some activity per day is good

</comment><comment><USER44> title caught my eye. thought I'd share a little anecdotal evidence: grandpa died from a heart attack while shoveling snow

</comment><comment><USER45> I wonder if there is data on this about snow sports, it seems like it should be common too. Skiing meets most of the same criteria - extreme cold, surprisingly exhausting, high altitude/low oxygen and often getting dehydrated. It is more of a sustained aerobic exercise vs. bursts of exertion though.

</comment><comment><USER46> Seems like an easy way to help fix this would be to require a snow blower or have the city do it. Or at the very least something in place to make it easier for someone at risk to not have to do the work themselves.

<comment><USER47> Or butt garages up to the street so there's no driveway to speak of. Oh no, now I also don't have a front lawn to mow. How will I ever get over such a loss.

<comment><USER46> The town I lived in you were responsible for shoveling and the overall condition of the sidewalk. It was something like $200 fine for not shoveling. I imagine there are probably many cities with similar laws.

<comment><USER47> Yeah, but the sidewalk's like 1/10 the work of the driveway, if that. Heavier the snow the bigger the difference, too, since you have to move the snow so far from the middle to reach the side of the driveway.

<comment><USER46> I just shovel a path up my driveway to my house so no one slips. I don't think there was a fine for driveways.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> So basically I have a medical reason not to shovel snow. I'm OK with this.

</comment><comment><USER49> Does this also mean that areas that rarely get snowfall also have a lower rate of heart attacks?

</comment><comment><USER50> "The notion that women might shovel snow with less risk is an intriguing one that just might make a good study."

Is it really sexist to just point out the obvious answer? Women have their men go out and shovel the snow.

<comment><USER32> Countless times in history the "obvious answer" has been dead wrong. It's really bad science to just assume the "obvious" rather than test it.

They acknowledge so.

<comment><USER50> To ignore the obvious and simplest hypothesis because you're afraid of being labelled politically incorrect is just as unscientific.

<comment><USER32> This is such a ridiculous comment that I'm pretty sure your just trolling

Nobody's ignoring it, it was assumed by the authors as the most likely reason for the disparity in _the sentence before the one you quoted._

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Great uncle had a heart attack at 63 while shoveling snow.

</comment><comment><USER52> Suit up, stay hydrated, and use a snowblower you knuckleheads.

<comment><USER12> If I still lived in Indiana, for sure I'd buy a snow blower. But I'm not taking up space in my garage for something I'll use once a year at _most_ in the Seattle area. So I keep a snow shovel around, make sure to stay in good shape, and remind myself that going all out versus shoveling at a sustainable rate will probably at most make ten minutes worth of difference.

<comment><USER53> Oddly enough, even here in central Indiana a snowblower is only needed about once in one or two seasons. Most snows are 2" or less and handled with the shovel easier than getting the snowblower out and warmed up. But when you need it, you need it. Fortunately it fits easily under a workbench with the handle folded over when not in use.

<comment><USER12> _Oddly enough, even here in central Indiana a snowblower is only needed about once in one or two seasons._

Yeah, I forgot that before we moved that it didn't seem to snow as much as it used to. Grew up spending entire winters cross-country skiing across the fields. Not so much as I got older. Wanna hear an old man's stories about the Blizzard of '78? :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Key takeaways:

> _Researchers... looked at more than 128,000 patients admitted to hospital > for a heart attack, and more than 68,000 heart attack deaths in Quebec > between 1981 and 2014 from November to April. They also got weather > information... and used it to track snowfall prior to the admission to > hospital and /or death._

> _Among the men, a third of the heart attacks occurred the day after a > snowfall. The association between shovelling and heart attack was very > strong. If the snow fell for two to three days, the association between > shovelling and a heart attack was even stronger. The correlation was true > regardless of the patient 's age, the presence or absence of cardiovascular > risk like high blood pressure or other health conditions._

> _But here 's the thing. The correlation was only true for men – not women. > The researchers say they suspect that shovelling caused heart attacks > because men are more likely than women to shovel snow. That may be true, or > it might be a sexist assumption. But there may be another explanation for > the findings: that women shovel snow in a way that doesn't cause heart > attacks._

> _Men age 50 and older with heart disease should avoid shovelling snow > period._

Why is it sexist to assume that snow shoveling is mostly done by men? It sounds more plausible than secret shoveling techniques.

<comment><USER55> Because discussing anything gender/identity-related nowadays has become bereft of all logic and always comes with emotional baggage.

<comment><USER32> Jesus, no, not at all, I have no idea why you'd jump to such wild conclusion as it's actually _very informative and an important piece of information._ I have no idea what sort of "emotion baggage" would cause the authors to write that, that would be really odd.

They are merely acknowledging the premise is based _solely_ on gender roles and not any sort of data they have collected or any preliminary observations.

The alternative would be something like "we drove around town for an hour and observed that 80% of people shoveling snow at that time were men so our hypothesis is the reason for the sex difference is men do most of the shoveling. This needs more rigorous data collection to verify." Or even "in our personal experience most of the household shoveling is done by men."

It could have been worded better to be more clear.

<comment><USER55> >It could have been worded better to be more clear.

But it wasn't, and what we have from them is a needlessly adversarial conclusion. I don't know why you're trying to make excuses for them. This is the norm for news outlets nowadays.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


How Federica Fragapane visualized organized crime in northern Italy - <AUTHOR> http://www.storybench.org/how-federica-fragapane-visualized-organized-crime-in-northern-italy/ <comment><USER2> Really enjoyed this article, was great to see the process and thinking behind something like this.</comment>


Aeropress – Why is a simple coffee maker such a hit? - <AUTHOR> https://www.ft.com/content/dc778eda-57f4-11ea-abe5-8e03987b7b20 <comment><USER2> [https://archive.md/zrHa3](https://archive.md/zrHa3)

</comment><comment><USER3> Couldn't get to the article even with "web" link, but to hazard a guess: makes good coffee, relatively cheap, don't have to throw the whole thing away after six months when a $0.50 circuit board fries and replacement parts aren't available.

If anybody can read it, tell me how I did!

<comment><USER4> It seems to me there are generally two trends in coffee. The kind of hipster-y home-brew space, where people use an aeropress or something similar (hand filter, chemex, french press) and spend a bit more on fresh beans and a grinder, and the high price coffee machine, where you spend hundreds to thousands on a machine that can do it all but does not necessarily produce good coffee on its own. It just seems the coffee industry has succeeded in making people believe that good and easy to produce coffee requires expensive equipment. The many discussions I had where people insisted they needed an expensive machine because 30 seconds hand grinding and pour over in the morning was "just too much" and would not believe that fresh beans from their local roasters are actually cheaper than some pads or pods.

Of course, not talking espresso here, where entirely different equipment is necessary.

<comment><USER5> > It just seems the coffee industry has succeeded in making people believe > that good and easy to produce coffee requires expensive equipment

What are you referring to here? The only expensive coffee equipment I see regularly in people's homes is the espresso machine. But your last sentence implies that's not what you mean. What other expensive coffee makers are people using?

<comment><USER4> I am talking about pad/pod machines, where the machine is not prohibitively expensive, but of course a lot compared to a hand filter or other simple coffee making device, and the coffee is of course ridiculously expensive.

Around here (Germany) many people also have coffee machines that automatically grind and brew the coffee. At a few hundred euros they are again not prohibitively expensive, but most people still feel they need them to get one or two cups of coffee a day.

I just met far to many people who believe if your machine costs several hundred euros and your coffee comes out of a pod it must be better than anything you brew by hand and of course brewing by hand takes infinite times longer. Maybe people are more reasonable where you are? Or you just know more knowledgeable coffee lovers than I do. ;-)

<comment><USER5> Yeah, not sure. I'm in Australia and people here tend to take espresso pretty seriously. I generally either see stove-top coffee makers or espresso machines.

There are probably a lot of people that use pod-based machines, but perhaps just not among my friends. (Personally I think pod-based coffee should be banned for environmental reasons.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> My only complaint is that it's made of plastic. French presses are usually just metal and glass, which I much prefer to pour hot liquids into.

</comment><comment><USER7> I have an aeropress for making coffee at work. It is quick and easy to use and it is very quick to clean but the main reason for me is the process. I get my cup, filter and press from my desk, fill the porlex grinder with some beans, then I stand in the kitchen nearest to my desk (very open-plan large office building) and grind the beans. Every time I grind the coffee people walk by and comment on the nice smell. I enjoy the process, I enjoy the sound of the manual grinder and I enjoy taking the time to perform the task after sitting at a keyboard for so long. I make the coffee (upside down) and watch other people go to the onsite cafe and buy a $5 coffee which takes longer to order than I take to make mine. I find it tastes great and is considerably better filtered than a french press. I have had this a fair few years now but I know I am approaching my 700th cup as I bought it with 2 packs of 350 paper filters and I will soon run out. 5 stars, would buy again. ( At home I favour a Bialetti Moka stove-top. )

<comment><USER8> You can definitely re-use the paper filters around least 3 times before throwing them away.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I like my aeropress, and used to use it with beans from my local roasters.

But as of late I've switched back to just making regular ol' drip coffee in a cheap coffee maker with Chock full 'o nuts coffee.

As easy as an aeropress is compared to other quality brewing methods, I still find the drip machine much easier -- load up the filter and water, walk away, come back and pour a cup. (Plus, I can't seem to get my aeropress not to also pee down the side of the mug as I press it down)

Somehow, my coffee experience hasn't degraded at all. No, it doesn't taste the same, but to me it's still totally fine, and almost always a better coffee than the drip I get from most coffee shops.

Amazing coffee in an aeropress is just a white whale for me.

</comment><comment><USER10> Feels like we've jumped some sort of chasm or shark here:

"The AeroPress is the coffee version of Linux, the geeks' preferred computer operating system. It is not pretty, not especially easy, but it is effective and almost cool."

</comment><comment><USER11> Similar discussion a few years back: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7615399](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7615399)

</comment><comment><USER12> I was starting a business importing roasted coffee from Europe to the US a few years ago. I asked my roaster in Paris what machine he recommended. His suggestion was over 1,000 euro.

Smiled, and said my wife won't sacrifice counter space.

He came back with Aeropress and i've never looked back. Near espresso flavor... I do double size - 16 grams fresh ground (using a Porlex) with 6 grams of water:coffee.

Also use the "upside down" hack and permafilters (the finest screen one).

<comment><USER13> >> Near espresso flavor.

As someone whose counter space is "wasted" on a rather large espresso machine, let me just say, you need to try better coffee. Especially if you're "starting a business importing roasted coffee". You have no way to test if your product is any good otherwise.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I am the only coffee drinker in my household. The Aeropress can easily make one, good, cup of coffee at a time, quickly, and it's easy to clean.

The only other thing that come close to to meeting these goals is instant coffee, which has other drawbacks...

</comment><comment><USER15> I don't understand why you would use one of these over a "standard" french press.

</comment><comment><USER16> I've been using it for years, it's just different.

</comment><comment><USER17> The full title ends in "such a hit _in Silicon Valley_ ".

</comment><comment><USER18> paywall

<comment><USER19> you can use this to bypass the paywall [https://m.facebook.com/flx/warn/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%...](https://m.facebook.com/flx/warn/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcontent%2Fdc778eda-57f4-11ea- abe5-8e03987b7b20&h=AT0F1OutP07RteQv6Y6ncCfEfoy-X1qAoi8ZRz_Pw0SSvn7Mr63urbNCaSxSPcUg8EATPHUXmsjXvp0yxoBXiWtwncEizDKKphwsaCodg- iVt-F2H6nWCTMYnUxPUx5Lbw&_rdr)</comment></comment>


Show HN: Restroom Rater. We take our crap seriously. - <AUTHOR> http://www.getrestroomrater.com <comment><USER2> I think that this is a very unique idea with a well designed website. But to be honest, at first impression I thought this was a gag site. With that said, I'm not sure how valuable an app like this would be to me. Unless I am the minority of opinion - never in my life have I thought about choosing a certain venue taking into consideration the features/cleanliness of the bathroom. I could be wrong.

I do however see something like this in addition to the HN post 3 days ago of AirPNP ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7339963](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7339963)). I also thought that was a mock web application at first, but it seems they're serious. Maybe I'm getting too jaded that I don't recognize the needs of the marketplace.

I'm curious how many users you currently have in the beta, if you're willing to divulge the information. Best of luck with executing, and I hope you prove me wrong.

<comment><USER3> When we first started doing this, it was 100% a joke app which we never really had an intention of taking forward. It was a side project from our main work to give us a bit of a breather and allow us to chill a bit - avoiding burnout, etc.

That being said, through various discussions & off-the-cuff mentions to quite a substantial number of people, it seems like people are interested enough to make it worth releasing.

It also has some real practical uses in some fairly common circumstances. For example, if you're physically handicapped, or you're in a city centre and need to go, but you know there is a high chance that the bathroom you visit will be really nasty. This is particularly the case around nightlife venues.

Right now, we are hosting a private beta in San Luis Obispo, as we're still in active development, but we'll be releasing to more in the next few weeks. We have a few hundred people signed up waiting for access.

This project is not our primary focus - we still have our day jobs - but we're enjoying working on it, there is quite a lot of interest & we believe that it could be a legitimately useful app which many people could use on a relatively regular basis.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I thought of it. And sort of started doing it. Means it's a good idea :)

To give the reasoning, I go by this simple rule: Show me your toilets, I tell you who you are. I only eat at places that have really nice toilets, not because I empty my tripes there (I don't do poopoo in public places) but it tells me a whole lot about how the people running the business view their customers.

If they don't give a crap (pun intended) about it, then they probably don't give a crap about me, and it's a no-no. It's not justified. The cost of building nice toilets is really low, considering the effect it has on people, and the fact it's there to last and not a recurring big investment.

If a restaurant/café has nice toilets, I instantly love it and become a customer. I tell everyone around me about it. I insist we go there, even though it has no practical utility for me. It's a screening tool, and I'm ruthless.

Good luck !

</comment><comment><USER5> Wasn't this the same idea that made George a millionaire on the reunion episode of Seinfeld?

<comment><USER3> Oh, maybe. Weren't aware of that, but we haven't found any other apps which do it.

<comment><USER4> Hey, great stuff. I already commented, but I think it really has potential.

Keep it up, man..

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> That's cool, have you already looked at SitOrSquat, which did this in 2010?

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

<comment><USER3> Yes, we did. It appears to be more of a promotional thing than a tool with much real world use. Mostly 1 star reviews, no longer supported & fairly confusing to use. We think the idea was cool, but we can do a better job :)

Additionally, having to manually add the bathrooms can be a bit of a no-go. We've currently got Foursquare integration with some filtering to try and be smart about this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> My friend posted this on our behalf. I'm one of the developers. Happy to answer questions, etc.

</comment><comment> whoa-duder Holy crap, was this build by a team of 14 year olds?

<comment> whoa-duder This isn't meant to be derogatory. I scrolled down to the team page and they look really young.

<comment><USER3> We're young - but not that young. Core team are 18 (me, dev), 18 (Cam, designer) & 21 (Kyle, design/founder)

<comment> whoa-duder Ah, still young! Good luck duders!</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Rare Minoan sealstone in the treasure-laden tomb of a Bronze Age Greek warrior - <AUTHOR> https://phys.org/news/2017-11-team-rare-minoan-sealstone-treasure-laden.html <comment><USER2> For more detailed images of the stone, see National Geograpic coverage [1] or the University of Cincinnati magazine article (including micrographs of details) [2].

[1] [https://www.google.com/amp/s/relay.nationalgeographic.com/pr...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/2017/11/greek- sealstone-gemstone-combat-griffin-warrior-tomb-spd)

[2] [http://magazine.uc.edu/editors_picks/recent_features/unearth...](http://magazine.uc.edu/editors_picks/recent_features/unearthingamasterpiece.html)

<comment><USER3> The micrograph details in the second link are staggering. Honestly none of the photographs in the original article do it the slightest bit of justice. You can see the fallen warrior's locks of hair, and the patterns on his dress. That's _insane_. This would be an impressive piece of art coming from any culture at any point in history.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "Indeed, many of the seal's details, such as the intricate weaponry ornamentation and jewelry decoration, become clear only when viewed with a powerful camera lens and photomicroscopy."

This suggests that 3000 years ago human eye was much much stronger than today and could see details that we are unable to see today. I've seen similar objects in museums with incredibly fine detail that I could not resolve (like circular seals made with clay) [https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ancient-art- civilizat...](https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ancient-art- civilizations/ancient-near-east1/sumerian/a/cylinder-seals)

<comment><USER5> I have really bad vision; -7.0 to -7.5 in both eyes. Without glasses my focal point is about 3 inches from my face. At that range I can see quite a bit of fine detail that you'd never notice from even a foot away. In the past, before corrective lenses, I imagine 'fine jewlery maker' would be one of the few careers open to me, and that I'd be pretty good at it.

<comment><USER4> So the issue is not about having a higher density of rods and cones in the eye but about the focal point (which I think should be related to the lens). The closer to the surface the eye focus the sharper the image and more details are seen.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The realism in the depiction of human figures is incredibly advanced and predates Classical Athens sculpture by 1000 years. Like finding an iPad in Mediaeval England.

<comment><USER7> Isn't it "Like finding Picasso in Medieval England"?

<comment><USER8> Except for the "realism in the depiction of human figures" bit.

<comment><USER9> Picasso was a virtuoso artist from child: [http://www.pablo-ruiz- picasso.net/period-first.php](http://www.pablo-ruiz-picasso.net/period- first.php)

His later experiments with style were not an artifact of lack of talent, but conscious artistic experimentation.

Sadly, modern artists try often to skip the mastering the basics and just start to splat color on canvas.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> wow, amazing coincidence since I was just reading earlier today about the 425BCE Battle of Pylos in Donald Kagan's The Peloponnesian War. and that battle was a thousand years after this burial!

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

<comment><USER11> Donald Kagan is amazing. The lectures to his Introduction to Greek History course at Yale are also on Youtube [1].

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL023BCE5134243987](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL023BCE5134243987)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This area has a lot more to uncover. I visited Pylos two years ago and there are excavations in numerous sites around it. Can't wait to see what is next.

</comment><comment><USER13> They discovered a cave nearby that was used more than 5000 years ago. The cave entrance collapsed 5000 ago and was discovered just recently. An undisturbed view of prehistoric life from some much time ago.

</comment><comment><USER14> Couldn't the idea that ancient people were bad at art just come from their small populations, small quantity of discovered artifacts and not teaching each other their skills? Surely a single person could figure out how to draw on his own and that might be as rare as it is today. I don't know anyone who could produce pictures of people's bodies of that quality. One such special person might have made this seal, but not been around to make other seals from a similar period.

<comment><USER15> > _Couldn 't the idea that ancient people were bad at art_

I don't thing there is such an idea -- not a widespread one, and not one held by archeologists at any rate. Even cavemen paintings (e.g. in france) show magnificent skill.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> one word: hercules</comment>


Comments on Safe Web Proposal? - <AUTHOR> http://www.eggplant.pro/blog/proposal-safeweb/ <comment><USER2> I'm not sure you can do without images

<comment><AUTHOR> You would still have images. They would be base-64 encoded into the document using "Data URI Scheme": [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_URI_scheme](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_URI_scheme)</comment></comment>


Show HN: PM News – Career advice from top PMs to advance your product career - <AUTHOR> https://www.pm.news <comment><AUTHOR> Hi HN,

Personally, I created PM News to learn from the best.

I'm 21 and I love building products. I've made a few.[0]

I even started a popular newsletter [1] about making products.

Over time, I noticed that many of my readers wanted career advice to help them along their product career.

So I thought, "why not just create a place with the best product career advice on the web?"

PM News allows me to help those that want to advance in their career.

It also gives me an excuse to have conversations with some of the best product people in the biz like Chris Messina. And Brian Norgard (fingers crossed).

This is designed for people already in their career that want insights to advance further.

Hope you all find it useful :)

[0] [https://antdke.co/pages/projects](https://antdke.co/pages/projects)

[1] [https://theproductperson.com](https://theproductperson.com)</comment>


Millions of DiRT 3 Steam Keys Leaked - <AUTHOR> http://www.tomshardware.com/news/DIRT-3-Steam-Codemasters-Game-Key-Radeon,13360.html

<comment><USER2> I'm sure someone is embarrassed, but it sounds like Valve will just blacklist all these keys from Steam, issue new keys to the intended recipients, and that will be the end of it.</comment>


Vodafone India Sues A Customer For His Facebook Status - <AUTHOR> http://www.pluggd.in/vodafone-dhaval-valia-case-on-facebook-post-297/

<comment><USER2> Indian brands are notorious for arm-twisting their customers. I have seen one senior level executive of a major Indian brand claim that in a population of 1 billion, they can afford to piss off a lot of customers and still get new customers to not worry about the churn rate because people don't have many options and customers know that each one of the option suck equally.

</comment><comment><USER3> they have pissed off more customers than ever. now, new customers will be more scared of vodafone..</comment>


Twitter is suspending pro-Bloomberg accounts, citing 'platform manipulation' - <AUTHOR> https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2020-02-21/twitter-suspends-bloomberg-accounts <comment><USER3> > As part of a far-reaching social media strategy, the Bloomberg campaign has > hired hundreds of temporary employees to pump out campaign messages through > Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. These "deputy field organizers" receive > $2,500 per month to promote the former New York mayor's candidacy within > their personal social circles

Accusations of paid shills have been thrown around so freely on the Internet, it's refreshing to have actual textbook examples for once!

<comment><USER4> Wow, how can get paid $2,500/month to post Bloomberg spam? That sounds like a fantastic deal! If you extrapolated that to an annual salary, about 35% of Americans work jobs that pay less than that.

<comment><USER5> And that is very minuscule fraction of his wealth.

This is really scary because it means that if somehow billionaires and companies that received assistance from Quantitative Easing decided to spend their wealth, it would cause considerable inflation.

<comment><USER6> He could spend his entire fortune and it wouldn't even make the smalle blip in our economy. While he's wealthy, $55 billion isn't really much money in the American economy with a GDP of over 21 trilion.

Quantitative easing has literally zero to do with what you're proposing, the amount of money infused was pretty small compared to the size of our economy (arguably way too little), and the rest of us would've been even more fucked had it not happened.

Correlating QE to billionaire spending and inflation is like correlating how much change you find in your couch to your maximum potential earnings. It doesn't make sense.

And don't get me wrong, I totally hate Bloomberg and I know he has literally zero business being president. I'm not shilling for him, he's a piece of crap, don't vote for him...

I just really fucking hate it when people say things that sound "right" or even "informed" about economics that aren't because the whole science gets shit on daily by people who have no business talking about it without stating "I know nothing" before posting. If you don't make posts on physics theories don't make them about economics; it's actually even more hurtful because getting through the misinformation is harder and more prone to error.

<comment><USER7> > Correlating QE to billionaire spending and inflation is like correlating how > much change you find in your couch to your maximum potential earnings.

Of course you have to correlate it. Do you know what QE was? Without QE fixing the balance sheets of the banking system and low interest rates, we'd most likely be facing major deflation. Without QE and low interest, bloomberg's net worth would be much smaller and that most definitely would affect his spending.

> it's actually even more hurtful because getting through the misinformation > is harder and more prone to error.

The fact that you correlated economics to physics/science makes it difficult to take your argument seriously.

[https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2019/10/17/eid- economics-...](https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2019/10/17/eid-economics- not-science/)

[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/11/nobel-...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/11/nobel- prize-economics-not-science-hubris-disaster)

At best you can argue that economics is a pseudo/soft science like political science than a real/hard science like physics.

<comment><USER6> _sigh_

You linked to absolute bullshit.

Dody T. Eid is a fucking nobdoy. Straight up just some jackass who has no background in economics writing very conservative op-eds. Next up is Joris, who let me quote the wikipedia block from google: "[..] is a Dutch non-fiction author, anthropologist, news correspondent, and TV interviewer. Wikipedia"

You can credit my Economics background for my astute bullshit detector.

> Of course you have to correlate it. Do you know what QE was? Without QE > fixing the balance sheets of the banking system and low interest rates, we'd > most likely be facing major deflation. Without QE and low interest, > bloomberg's net worth would be much smaller and that most definitely would > affect his spending.

Yeah, great idea deflation, that's how the great depression happened because the government at the time and federal bank said "piss off wankers." It triggers a deflationary spiral, which stops spending, and causes economic collapse, here's a link: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflation#Deflationary_spiral](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflation#Deflationary_spiral)

It's safe to say it's you, friend, who does not know anything about QE, economic history, theory, or its application.

FWIW, I hate Milton Friedman and think he was an asshole who had an enormous amount of bullshit ideological driven policies that strayed far from the science, but god damn he hit the nail on the monetary policy preventing the great depression... which is exactly what happened in 2008/9 by the FED holding interest rates low or negative.

I do like Keynes mostly, but unfortunately, because a lot of America has no idea about how economics works, especially on a macro scale, we didn't get the "new deal." We should have we got "the shitty deal," which was no investment infrastructure.

<comment><USER7> > You can credit my Economics background for my astute bullshit detector.

Is that because of all the bullshit in economics gave you ample practice in detecting bullshit? Well be patient with me because my limited economics background most likely pales in comparison to yours.

> Yeah, great idea deflation

I didn't say deflation is great. You are reading into things too much. I just said QE and low interest rates had an impact on inflation. Something which you cavalierly dismissed. I said QE and low interest rates prevented deflation.

> It's safe to say it's you, friend, who does not know anything about QE, > economic history, theory, or its application.

All you've provided are just ad hominems and just cnbc talking points with nonpertinent rants on the side. Everything you disagree with is "bullshit" and everything you say is "gospel". Typical economics background behavior.

For someone "with an economics background", you would know how it has so many "gurus" and so much unsettled "science" in it. How one nobel prize winning economist could say the world economy is going to collapse after the previous election and another can say it will be great and economics couldn't settle the issue either way.

But then again, this comment thread is precisely why I view economics as a religion rather than a science. Where people make up shit that aligns with their agenda and worship their prophets ( Keynes, Marx, etc ). Sometimes it's hard to differentiate between a religious zealot and someone with "an economics background".

<comment><USER6> I only want to quote you from a couple days ago because I think you need to reflect here and take time to stop spewing non-sense which you're making up... and I don't think you're seeing it clearly; so, maybe this will help you out...

In reply to this:

>> I rely on Matt Levine to explain, more clearly than I could, how brokerages make money

You wrote:

> You rely on someone who never worked for a brokerage to teach you how > brokerages worked?

Maybe you should really think that through in the context of economics.

<comment><USER7> > I only want to quote you from a couple days ago

You are invested in this. That's the type of religious zeal I'm talking about.

> Maybe you should really think that through in the context of economics.

Only if economics worked like brokerages work.

The fact that you have to go "3 days back into comment history" rather than using the "science" in economics to support your argument should tell you something. That's the difference between religion, economics, political science, etc and physics, chemistry, astronomy, etc. One responds with straw man and red herrings, the other responds with actual science and facts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The more I look at platforms like Twitter and Facebook, the more I start liking the WeChat "anti-viral" timeline concept. Posts on your WeChat timeline show only likes from your friends. This applies even on posts from other people - you can only see likes on those posts from _your_ friends, not any of that person's friends. Boom - no more platform manipulation, since everything on your timeline is 100% driven by your friends.

Unfortunately the Chinese government can and will censor posts on these feeds, which is made super easy by how slow things usually spread on that platform - but that's a different issue entirely. I'm not advocating literally switching to WeChat - just that the concept feels at once far more "social" and rather less prone to certain kinds of manipulation.

<comment><USER9> Does WeChat have an equivalent to "Trending"? Part of the strategy of campaigns like this one is to get something globally trending, and Twitter seems to like the idea of global (or even local) trends existing. It'd be interesting to have a per-user concept of "Trending," scoped to just the people you follow, but I suspect Twitter wouldn't like it because it's harder to onboard new users and get them engaged.

The other part of campaigns like this is replying to major accounts to push something, so you'd have to have your "anti-viral" timeline hide replies that weren't endorsed by people you don't follow. That is, if friend A retweeted something by a famous politician, and a thousand people replied including none of your friends, and friend B liked one of those replies, _only_ that one reply would show up for you if you looked at the tweet. Again, I suspect this is bad for engagement (so I'm wondering if WeChat actually does this?).

<comment><USER10> In my recollection, Tencent (WeChat's owner) derives a lot of their revenue from microtransactions, so engagement in the core app isn't as big a deal for them.

<comment><USER11> I think it's not giving the whole picture of paint WeChat/tencent as a normal company trying to make profit. They are providing a national service, it doesn't need to be profitable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > _Facebook's response to the Bloomberg campaign's novel social strategy_

Novel? What?

The practice has been around a really long time, and it has been around on the internet long enough that the term "astroturfing" was coined decades ago. And the term "paid shill" has been around longer than that. Today it's very common in several places including Amazon product reviews and political discussions.

Wikipedia gives ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing#History_of_incide...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing#History_of_incidents)) an example from way back: 'an early example of the practice was in Act 1, Scene 2 of Shakespeare's play Julius Caesar. In the play, Cassius writes fake letters from "the public" to convince Brutus to assassinate Caesar.'

I'm not a big fan of the practice (it involves ulterior motives), but the most unique thing I see about this is they did a clumsy job of it.

<comment><USER13> Despite your (and many others in this thread) assertion, this is fundamentally _new_ because it hasn't previously been done in political campaigns in any meaningful scale.

The mere existence of a few private campaigns of the sort doen't diminish how much of a departure this is with what has previously been considered acceptable in the political realm.

If we assume that the widespread every-politician-is-corrupt cynicism goes along with/is rooted in a wish to see _less_ corruption, you are also applying rather harmful tactics: by claiming everyone plays dirty, any differences between the candidates are erased, and so are any incentives to behave ethically. The cynicism is self-fulfilling: politicians only ever getting superficial accusations with no discernable relation to their actual behaviour will soon stop trying, because why bother?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Good work, Twitter! Now just ban at least 20,000,000 more of bot accounts over the world and your platform will actually become a bit better.

<comment><USER15> I imagine if Bloomberg (or whoever the next billionaire is) was more friendlier with the Twitter C-levels, or was a big investor, they wouldn't have dared to do anything...

So that's the new first step for the next billionaire (or fake one) who wants to be president: buy a significant share of Twitter.

Chilling, huh?

<comment><USER16> they didnt mind the hillary "correct the record" shills

<comment><USER17> They obviously don't mind the thousands of pro-trump shills, either

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The execution of this is so stupid. For $2500 they should have been getting more than copy paste content. Are there no under-employeed recent college grads who can write a few original, pro-Bloomberg tweets a day for $2500 a month?

<comment><USER19> I donno, I think this shows that Bloomberg has a knack for government work. Pay people an extraordinarily inflated price for something that sounds straightforward on the surface, only to have them execute on the letter of the contract in cheapest and most amateurish way imaginable. The man clearly belongs.

<comment><USER13> The only thing more boring than government work are tired lazy stereotypes accusing government employees of incompetence/lazyness/wastefulness.

<comment><USER20> Or prissy internet sissies that can't read a joke without feeling personally attacked

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I don't see how Bloomberg did anything wrong.

Paying people to publish your message is part of normal political campaigning.

<comment><USER22> Yeah I don't know how you handle something like this and don't end up in a place where only sanctioned decrees and declarations from the ministry of truth in information is allowed. Not that there's an obvious solution to this mire

<comment><USER23> You require paid political ads by campaigns to explicitly say "Paid for by <campaign>".

As, in fact, we already do, this is just a hack around the way those laws are applied.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I wish they would do it for Kremlin bots as well, they do a lot of propaganda here in Russia

<comment><USER25> Why is Russia so special and unique in this regard?

I am honestly curious because there are countries with more impactful and tangible geopolitical interests (e.g. Saudi Arabia - who owns a substantial portion of Twitter), and yet it's only the comic-book villain, Putin's Russia who apparently does this.

The other alternative is that Russia does this, but so ineffectively that they stand out, but that seems unlikely because it would also imply that other countries do it so effectively that no one notices.

The third alternative I can think of is that interested parties are okay with the direction in which _some_ foreign powers want to sway American public opinion. Those interested parties control the mainstream media - or enough of it - to be able to decide which countries' bots get reported on and which get ignored. Honestly it's this option that I find exponentially more likely.

<comment><USER26> Russia was experiencing democratic protests against their czar and might have had a peaceful transition to democracy in 1918. German-supported propaganda ended up ruining their 20th century. Russia is copying that playbook.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/19/opinion/was-lenin-a- germa...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/19/opinion/was-lenin-a-german- agent.html)

<comment><USER27> The Germans definitely sent Lenin because he would pressure whichever government Russia ended up with to withdraw from the war. It's wrong to call Lenin a German agent the same way it's disingenuous to call Corbyn a Russian agent in the UK just because he's a critic of NATO.

Anyway, it's a fallacy to think that Russia would be fine without the Revolution. Peaceful transitions to liberal democracy are an exception that only happen on very particular cases.

<comment><USER28> I think you have it opposite. Aren't there far more examples of peaceful transitions to liberal democracies (ie, almost every country who had a monarchy in Europe and or were under control of said countries... and now has a parliament/republic).

Albeit it took longer and it was "gradual" but few of them had the hyper- violent post "vanguard" revolutions events that resulted in some of the worst tragedies in history?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge) (note famous french liberal Jean-Paul Sartre attempted to cover up news of this event in the west because he thought it would hurt the spread the revolution to the global "politeriat")

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

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

Almost all violent revolutions have resulted in a stain on world history. Yet the (less news worthy) numbers who gradually adopted independent courts and shifted from monarchy to republican/parliamentary power are much higher, and none of them had awful mass murders of people whose ideas weren't "in line" with the revolutionary ideology, not long after the revolutions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I don't believe proof of shilling is necessary. It should be considered fundamental small group primate behavior.

<comment><USER30> How would it get status as a recognized "fundamental small group primate behavior" without proven examples? You're saying that you want the 200th floor penthouse without any of the apartments below it.

<comment><USER31> Wait, are these comments saying they're unaware of proven examples of shilling/astroturfing?

<comment><USER32> Some people have purposely avoided studying any of the last 3000 years of human history involving communications. Especially those involving deception.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Democracy is crippled when megatech decides who gets to speak and when, whatever you may think of Bloomberg in particular.

</comment><comment><USER34> Conspiracy theory: Bloomberg is doing this cash-pump campaign so that folk are forced to talk about (and become aware of) the shady techniques that campaigns use normally anyway.

<comment><USER35> To what end?

<comment><USER34> To prime the populous for when other types of media manipulation occur - <USER2> aren't going to dig into media manipulation if it's done by someone they like and never realize the sheer mass of it. But if it's by someone they don't...

If nothing else, Bloomberg's ad budget is a solid experiment for the impact of ad budgets on elections. I don't know how much of the transparency that seems to exist around what Bloomberg is doing is normal for campaigns, but that is also a plus.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Should have hired the Internet Research Agency.

</comment><comment><USER37> As much as I generally dislike and have wariness of these sorts of selective suspensions from the giant tech communications platforms, Micheal Bloomberg himself is such a thoroughly detestable individual that it's hard not to be pleased. Whether you're a republican conservative type or a liberal democrat, Bloomberg has the worst of either world to offer you in his smugly authoritarian, elitist and humorless tendencies. Grotesque in so many ways.

</comment><comment><USER38> I can see opposing candidates pretending to be Bloomberg's paid people saying stuff to make Bloomberg look bad. Any country who wants Bloomberg to not be a viable candidate could do the same.

At this point I think anyone telling me to vote for Bloomberg received a check from him. It's not true always of course, but it's the first thing that pops into my head.

<comment><USER39> Valid point, it's fuzzy. I just remembered New Knowledge [1] who ran false flag operations to make it look like their opponent was supported by Russian bot nets.

There's likely a bit of both. Would Bloomberg pay $2500 per month for simple copy & paste jobs? Doubtful, I'm sure he has better media people that know they could get that for tiny fraction of the price. There may be pro-Bloomberg paid posting while somebody also pays for dumb multiplication bots to spread a message (or false flag it).

[1] [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/us/alabama-senate-roy- jon...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/us/alabama-senate-roy-jones- russia.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I have seen this happening in other forums, particularly the comments section of the New York Times. I can't be sure that astroturfing is what's happening, but it seems pretty likely given this new information.

</comment><comment><USER41> OK, so the Blumberg campaign arguably erred by being so open about this effort. Unless, as others note, it was just consciousness raising. Or getting Twitter blamed, or whatever.

But what's interesting is what this portends for the coming campaign. Will Twitter, Facebook and Instagram be suspending all accounts that post ~duplicative political content? And if their policies vary by candidate, will that be firm evidence of bias?

This is going to make 2016 look like 2012, I suspect.

</comment><comment><USER42> Who gives a crap about Bloomberg.

Everyone with a monetary interest in Twitter should be ashamed of themselves — shareholders, employees, etc. they are all "people" without a moral compass. Or rather, the compass exists, but it just points to money.

</comment><comment><USER43> The tweets in their example look like people clicking a share button, which commonly use a link shortener and are often formatted like "article - link," you can see this by searching for headlines of nearly any publisher on Twitter. Here is an example for an article currently on the NYT homepage: [https://mobile.twitter.com/search?q=Bernie%20Sanders%2C%20th...](https://mobile.twitter.com/search?q=Bernie%20Sanders%2C%20the%20Teflon%20Candidate%2C%20Faces%20Sudden%20New%20Tests&src=typed_query&f=live)

The OP's hero image caption states:

> Twitter says duplicative messages violate its policy against platform > manipulation and spam

Does this mean people should start to worry about clicking share buttons now? It is hardly bot activity to use a feature of the platform. Everyone who clicks a share button by default is tweeting the same message.

<comment> yjftsjthsd-h > Does this mean people should start to worry about clicking share buttons > now?

If they're getting paid to, then I certainly hope so.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Everyone with a monetary interest in Twitter should be ashamed of themselves — shareholders, employees, etc. they are all "people" without a moral compass. Or rather, the compass exists, but it just points to money.

</comment><comment><USER44> This has to be the most embarrassing run for president in history.

</comment><comment><USER45> Archive link: [http://archive.is/59nJN](http://archive.is/59nJN)

<comment><USER46> Doesn't work, try [https://outline.com/LWxMUu](https://outline.com/LWxMUu)

<comment><USER47> Are you using a broken DNS server, like 188.8.131.52 from Cloudflare?

<comment><USER48> Cloudflare merely asks for the IP and returns what it is given. Which in the case of archive.is is a fake result, but Cloudflare can't help that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> A little like slapping a gnat on your neck whilst an avalanche crashes down the mountain towards your timber cabin.

</comment><comment><USER50> Michael Bloomberg is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.

<comment><USER51> You forgot to add "this HN comment sponsored by Bloomberg2020".

<comment><USER50> No, I didn't.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> I go to Twitter and the first thing I see is Twitter's "News for you" which states "Clint Eastwood signals his support of Mike Bloomberg".

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> this was also pretty brazen by him actively taking part in the shilling (or whoever[1] manages his account): [https://twitter.com/dominicholden/status/1230522541111947264](https://twitter.com/dominicholden/status/1230522541111947264)

[1] does anyone know if he manages the account?

<comment><USER53> Maybe it's just me, but it doesn't seem like the Bloomberg campaign was trying to pass that video off as real. They edited crickets chirping into the audio.

<comment><AUTHOR> I hope it is satire as sibling comment suggests.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> I'm surprised they don't do it for the _obviously_ fake accounts posting in favour of Donald Trump. There's something very fishy with some of those comments, and the profiles that they come from are very sparse. It should be easy enough to flag/detect automatically.

<comment><USER55> I've had sarcastic supported upvoted by Trump bots as true support to the tune of hundreds of accounts. It's almost embarrassing how manipulated Twitter is. Facebook is a lost cause. The climate change stuff they repost alone convinces me we're not going to win the 21st century propaganda war.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> Is Twitter a net positive for society?

<comment><USER31> Softbank, aka, the Saudi national fund, seem to think so!

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Bypass paywall [https://outline.com/LWxMUu](https://outline.com/LWxMUu)

</comment><comment><USER57> "Twitter says duplicative messages violate its policy against platform manipulation and spam"

Sounds like retweeting should also be banned under this policy. But that would require some semblance of continuity and fairness in policy enforcement.

<comment><USER58> Your quote isn't present in the text. I don't see the phrase "Twitter says" or "duplicative messages".

The closest is: Twitter said the campaign violated its rules against "creating multiple accounts to post duplicative content,"

<comment><USER43> It is in the caption of the hero image, displayed right above the article body.

<comment><USER58> Ahh, I see. Thanks!

I couldn't use normal view to read the page without agreeing to the ToS so I switched to Firefox's reader view. That doesn't include the image.

My reading is that the caption (which I can read by view-source) is a second- hand interpretation of Twitter's statements. I think the direct Twitter quote, which I copied earlier, is more relevant, and addresses vinniejames's concerns about retweets.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> It's spam - just like anyone else. Sensationalized because it's connected to someone special.

<comment><USER60> Sorry, what? This is spam, but the potential effect is significantly greater. This is someone trying to buy an election and circumvent democracy. I'd say it's not sensationalized enough given the stakes.

<comment><USER61> I've never fully understood why bots are seen as subverting democracy when things like flyers, posters, and yard signs aren't.

If I go to an empty lot and I put up 50 Mike yard signs, what's the difference between that and a bot that makes 50 Mike tweets?

<comment><USER62> The difference is that the bot is pretending to be a person. People are herd animals, they are easily manipulated to follow views that the herd sees as "correct". Having bots that are pretending to be people expressing their views is essentially an attempt at large-scale psychological manipulation. It is not simply about making people aware of a candidate or a certain point of view, it is about trying to make people believe many others believe that point of view to try and manipulate them into believing it as well.

<comment><USER57> Bots are not "pretending" to be anything. Humans have a false assumption that everything posted on social media was hand typed by another human, at the time it was posted. This is not, and almost never had been true, therein lies the problem. There have been "bots" posting online since day 1

<comment><USER62> When bots have human names and human profile pictures they are most certainly pretending to be human. But even if they do not have these, by not explicitly mentioning they are bots on social networking sites (including sites like reddit) they are effectively pretending to be humans as well, because like you mentioned people assume that other users on the site are human.

<comment><USER57> It's a false assumption. People shouldn't assume anything, there are plenty of places to do legitimate research, political or otherwise, social media isn't one of them

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> I mean I guess at least Bloomberg is being honest about it. Every other campaign is doing the exact same thing, but pretending they're not.

<comment><USER64> Can you source your statement that other candidates are paying people to promote campaign messages on their own social circles, without disclosure?

<comment><USER65> This article says the people are disclosing.

"We ask that all of our deputy field organizers identify themselves as working on behalf of the Mike Bloomberg 2020 campaign on their social media accounts."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> This is how democracy dies. When we, as a society, permit the election outcome to be determined by the executive leadership of a handful of tech companies.

"Russia" has absolutely no power compared to the implications of this

<comment><USER66> Look how much money Bloomberg had spent and isn't doing all that great in national polls. Also look at the 2016 election, Hilary spent almost double what Trump spent and still lost.

[https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president- primary...](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president- primary-d/national/)

[https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary- forecast/](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/)

Money doesn't mean automatic votes unless people agree with your message at least some.

Also, Russia had very little impact in 2016 election (if you have proof otherwise, I'd love to see it). It did make much of the media and Washington go crazy for a couple years, but that seemed just an amplification of Russia's attempt to mess with things.

<comment><USER67> In contrast, look at how far along Bloomberg would be if he was not able to spend any of his own money. I'd say his money has had quite an effect.

The 2016 election margin was very slim. A great number of factors could plausibly have made the difference. Russian social media manipulation is likely within that margin. Russia's hack of the DNC is definitely within that margin.

<comment><USER68> The Bloomberg example demonstrates @kyrra's point. Bloomberg is moving up rapidly in the polls because Democrats are desperately looking for a "not Bernie" candidate. Bloomberg is using money to get his message out there. But money alone wouldn't have done it. Tom Steyer spent $127 million of his own money and couldn't buy any support.

Clinton spent twice as much on her campaign, and adding in pro-Clinton PACs spending on her behalf was three times as much. If money was as important as people say, it should never have been close enough for Russian media manipulation to matter.

<comment><USER67> I don't think anybody is saying that money alone is enough. For one thing, just like any ad campaign, you have to spend it well.

But if you really believe money isn't very important, you'll have to explain why successful candidates all spend a great deal of time raising money. And then keep on doing so despite the clear advantages of incumbency.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>