Annual Income and Cost of Living for BART Employees - <AUTHOR> http://sxywu.github.io/80k <comment><USER3> This is a good lesson for those of us making programs who "need" to charge a certain price in order to make a living. There is something in the human psyche that really wants to make a connection between the price of an item and the living conditions of the seller or the buyer.

The lesson is this: the Law of Supply and Demand is not interested in your rationalizations or ad-hoc reasoning about "fair" pricing. In this case, the cost of living for BART employees has _nothing_ to do with what BART should pay the employees, unless those costs cause enough employees and potential employees to quit and reduce the supply of labor.

For those of us in tech, the lesson again is that pricing has nothing to do with your costs in making a good or service. If the return is insufficient, you may either choose not to make the good in the first place, or cease making the good. It has no effect on pricing.

<comment><USER4> As Shirley says:

> For another, what does 80k really mean? Is it the average of their base > salaries or their total costs of employment? And who are included in this > average? Certainly, if management salaries are included, it'd unreasonably > skew the data!

I am concerned why there are 217 people in management. I am sure we can find some other people who will work in management for less. Fire the management!

If it were up to me, I'd stick to the BART compensation for everyone but the utility workers and increase their base by about 1k over current BART proposal. I'd make up for that by cutting down on management costs. I would not necessarily decrease pay outside of those with corporate title but they have to start letting some of the people in management go. My goal would be to reduce the number of management employees from 217 to 150 by the end of 2014. Nobody needs 17% of their workforce to be in management. Trim that fat.

I don't have much confidence in either the unions or the management to do their job. I bet everyone involved is very glad that I don't run BART.

<comment><USER5> I suspect management covers all the professional grades as well you know the HR, marketing, securitty and professional engineers not just those with strict line management roles.

<comment><USER4> Hm... I guess I got a little carried away. I still don't understand why a security instructor or an engineer would be considered management. I'm sure there's a rationale. Somebody want to help me understand this concept?

<comment><USER5> Because thats how they are recorded by HR for reporting purposes and in the US to make them exempt grades.

99.99% of HN readers who work in tech will be considered management/professional grades even if you dont formally "manage" anyone

<comment><USER4> I don't mean to derail this conversation but I thought to HR I am just "Contingent Labor". How can I be considered management?

<comment><USER5> Are you considered an "exempt" grade if so HR will _have_ to put you in the M&P (managerial and professional) group to avoid all sorts of nasty tax problems with the IRS.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Bart workers pay $92/mo for health insurance. [1]

This post is comparing the income for one Bart employee to the expenses for a family of four. I'm not sure why child care is included if only one adult is working.

Subtracting those out, I get $54,912. This seems about right for a frugal life in the burbs.

[1] [http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BART-workers-pay- plus-...](http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BART-workers-pay-plus- benefits-among-top-in-U-S-4723315.php)

<comment><USER7> > _This seems about right for a frugal life in the burbs._

More than these peasants deserve, right? I mean, why should people providing a vital service to a city feel entitled to live amongst the betters they serve?

<comment><USER8> Yeah, unskilled, replaceable labor doesn't get paid much. That is how it always has been, and I don't see it as a huge, immediate problem. These folks are already making way more than people of similar levels of skill in other parts of the country -- in fact, they are double the median income in the US. There are plenty of other essential services, like garbage people, chefs, janitors, cabbies, etc. that get paid less and require similar levels of education.

I mean, when we remove scarcity, sure, give all the BART workers mansions. But until then, I think this is a fine wage for doing work that's on the block for being automated in ten or twenty years.

<comment><USER7> > _unskilled, replaceable labor_

Go get a job as a BART driver. Report back how unskilled and replaceable they are. And report your salary. It'll be lower than you're expecting. All the numbers you're being fed (including the ones on the linked page) are misleading unless you actually consider them from the perspective of a BART employee progressing through his career from the beginning.

<comment><USER8> I am not going to do what you suggested. If you want to explain why you think Bart driving is skilled, hard to replace labor, that would be productive, but telling me to change my career is not an argument.

It is not exactly a revelation that people just starting out in a career get paid less than experienced folks, especially in labor markets controlled by unions.

<comment><USER7> > _I am not going to do what you suggested._

Then what makes you think you can argue they're overpaid?

> _If you want to explain why you think Bart driving is skilled, hard to > replace labor_

I know absolutely no one who has not gone through significant training who I would trust at the controls of a huge vehicle like a bus or train. I also don't know many people who want to drive around at night alone picking strangers up.

<comment><USER8> Same thing that makes you think you can argue they are underpaid.

> I know absolutely no one ...

How many people do you know who only have a high school diploma? Who have no other options that pay more than $60k/year?

<comment><USER7> Hmm... did I say they were underpaid?

> _How many people do you know who only have a high school diploma?_

My parents, all my grandparents, most of my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I would say "me", but that would be a lie, because I don't even have a high school diploma. Not sure about friends and acquaintances. Most of them are tech workers, so formal education rarely comes up.

> _Who have no other options that pay more than $60k /year?_

Lots of the people I mention, including myself, make or have in the past made more than $60k/year (at least inflation-adjusted).

Pieces of paper from a broken educational system are not determinant of how much someone can or should make.

<comment><USER8> You implied that they should be paid enough to live in downtown SF, which I think is equivalent to claiming they should be paid more. If not, let's just assume I can come up with some convoluted reason why I'm not talking about their pay either, and we can just stop talking about it.

> Pieces of paper from a broken educational system are not determinant of how > much someone can or should make.

Certainly agree with that. The demand for the work you can do and your ability to do the work with quality should be the main determinants. So I guess we'll see how much the city is willing to pay, and how far the BART workers are willing to push them before they just get replaced. Our discussion on the matter is kind of a non-factor.

<comment><USER7> What I implied is that arguing they shouldn't is detached elitism.

You're free to stop talking about anything you want at any time.

<comment><USER8> Interesting. Let me get this straight. You claim folks who think bart workers shouldn't get paid more are detached elitists. But, you also aren't actually arguing they should get paid more. That seems like an untenable position to me.

<comment><USER7> "Nonsense" is what the capitalists are spewing: "It's a good life" vs perceived market value. Stick to one or the other. Either it's sufficient that the market work it out, or quality of life matters. Argue one or the other, not both.

<comment><USER8> Personally, I think that both should be weighed into the decision, but BART workers are way above average in terms of how their QoL is covered, and as a result should not have that optimized further considering their already over- market pay and the considerable cost to the taxpayer.

<comment><USER7> [http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-03-08/news/ct-met- ge...](http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-03-08/news/ct-met-getting- around-0308-20100307_1_bus-drivers-cta-transit-systems)

"Way above average"? "over-market"? Are you adjusting for cost of living in your guess or not?

<comment><USER8> Above a average for workers with similar background and job difficulty. Not transit workers. Yes, I am just guessing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is a red herring argument. The REAL issue to anyone in the Bay Area who commutes is the extraordinary price of BART tickets. Right now, assuming I DON'T pay the monthly parking permit cost and just wing it (which is getting increasingly difficult...) I pay ~$10 a day for BART. Or about 200$ a month. If you hunt around, you can get monthly parking permits in SF for LESS than that. Yes, gas costs money. But then again, not having to be stuck in "the can" with a bunch of sick people during the winter months is worth the price of gas. BART is pricing themselves out of the commute game. So, my question is: what would it take to lower BART costs WHILE still paying people a decent wage? If it's not possible, then maybe BART just isn't feasible long term.

</comment><comment><USER10> Looks above the cost of living everywhere except SF. And there you just have to knock it down to one kid and you are fine. I don't think the equivalent of a bus driver should be able to live in a super over priced city like SF and still be able to have a bunch of kids. It's not a big deal to commute in from Oakland and other areas.

Should they be able to afford their own Manhattan apartments for a bunch of kids too next? Or should they get cheap shared accommodations and limit their number of kids if they want to live in the super rich city area instead of the burbs like everyone else does who starts a big family? I think it's fine if you have to make sacrifices to live in the city.

Personally, I think BART just needs to automate the trains and fire them all.

<comment><USER11> Says the game developer who sells virtual goods...

I've lived in the bay area longer than BART has been in operation, and I'd rather see my fares raised to pay the BART employees even more so that they can focus on the safety and security of the system instead of having to be worred about being evicted to make room for some virtual good merchant.

BART workers directly help millions of people in the bay area every day and provide far more value to the bay area community and economy relative to what they are paid then do the participants in this forum.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Last time I read on HN about the Bay Area developer salary, it seemed to me that consensus was that a $100-120k salary in the Bay Area is considered bang- on middle-income. BART technical jobs are well below that, and one can argue these are low-income. If $100-120k/year salary is middle income what's the exact issue with BART salaries?

<comment><USER13> Tech is a booming industry, and there aren't enough people with the skills to do the work that needs to be done so high salaries are common.

It is unclear what the supply and demand curve is for public transit employees, but it will be skewed by labor contracts. The issue is that a lot of people don't make as much as BART employees (or have nearly as good benefits). If their salaries of BART employees are higher than they could be to keep the BART running, and they can upset the lives of hundreds of thousands by striking to get even more it makes people concerned.

<comment><USER14> BART "receives 2,500 to 3,000 applicants every time it advertises for new train operators and station agents", and "gets 20,473 job applications annually for an average of 177 job openings".

[1] [http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Few-options-for- BART-r...](http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Few-options-for-BART-riders- who-aren-t-S-F-bound-4891337.php)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Why is it that when you go from 2 parents + 1 child -> 2 parents + 2 children, the cost goes up 6K, but when you go from 2 children -> 3 children, the cost goes up 18K? If anything it seems like per-child costs should diminish as you have more children?

Also I think all these analyses that assume a BART employee is going to be a single income-earner for a family are a bit strange - surely there are some BART employees who fall under this but I'd imagine not many? It seems like a luxury in this day and age to have a parent staying at home full time. And honestly I find myself having trouble sympathizing with people who have a lot of kids without secure high-income employment - I don't think it's the employer's responsibility to raise wages for employees that make a very expensive lifestyle choice. I do feel bad for their kids, but I think the responsibility for making sure they're taken care of should be the government's.

<comment><AUTHOR> I took the cost of living from Economic Policy Institute's Family Budget Calculator, and their documentation [1] is particularly interesting to sift through.

In particular, the child care costs are apparently broken down like this: One parent, one child = cost of 4-year-old care One parent, two children = cost of 4-year-old care + cost of one school-age child One parent, three children = cost of 4-year-old care + cost of two school-age children Two parents, one child = cost of 4-year-old care Two parents, two children = cost of 4-year-old care + cost of one school-age child Two parents, three children = cost of 4-year-old care + cost of two school-age children

And they assume the school-age children to require both before-school and after-school care.

As for comparing a cost of living for a two-parent household with the income of a single worker, I could only make that assumption because...how would I be able to extrapolate the household income of a two-parent family from BART salaries? As imperfect a solution as it is, I still hope that it will give insight, since my hope was not to shove any particular opinions on anyone, but rather just a tool for exploration.

[1] [http://www.epi.org/publication/wp297-2013-family-budget- calc...](http://www.epi.org/publication/wp297-2013-family-budget-calculator- technical-documentation/)

<comment><USER16> For two adults, >0 children, I think childcare should really be excluded from costs. It's not accurate for most any family in that position.

Though I understand figuring out the second parent's income is difficult, I think it's more dangerous to entirely exclude it. To me it comes off as misinformation (especially when combined with the childcare costs).

You can consider a hideable layer that allows the user to put the second parent's income, and default it to the average Bay Area income. I'm guessing that even if you defaulted it to 20-percentile for income, cost of living would no longer exceed household income, which is extremely important information in this discussion.

<comment><AUTHOR> I love it. I was just wondering how I could possibly include a second income in the graph, and your suggestion is just perfect - thank you!

As for the costs, they're actually customizable - you can choose it from the dropdown. I will also work to make that more explicit.

<comment><USER16> Glad I could help -- I look forward to the change!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This somehow misses out the fact that in a married couple having 'childcare' expenses, there are supposed to be 2 earners. With a gender gap of about 30% for married women that leaves about 60k a year of wife's income or about $3500 after taxes per month which should leave no problem making ends meet. Leaving wife out of work is reserved for the upper class nowadays, even not all of them. Definitely not for the bus drivers.

Also if the wife does not work, why do they have childcare expenses from? What is the wife doing then?

And, bus drivers don't need to save for retirement, unlike us coders, so they don't really need to save at all, union cares for them.

And they are not supposed to have transportation costs since they ride for free.

I am starting to think we will get self-driven buses long before we get self- driven cars...

<comment><USER18> Childcare != daycare. Even if one parent stays at home, you still have buy special clothing, children need more medical attention, school supplies etc. etc.

 _Leaving wife out of work is reserved for the upper class nowadays, even not all of them. Definitely not for the bus drivers._

It used to be that quite normal across all classes for one parent to go out to work and one to look after the family. One wonders what the point is in increasing economic growth if it's to make us less well off than we used to be.

<comment><USER19> You can easily live nowadays on a one-parent income... just not in the Bay Area. I lived in the Dallas area and that was the norm -- and not just for middle-income tech people either. A modest house (that doesn't cost much) and only one car (as it was in the 50's) and you can get by on a 60-70K salary, even taking into account childcare.

<comment><USER17> You can, but the standards of consumption changed to reflect working spouses, so with wife not working, most people will look like losers. That's life and it's not the problem of bus drivers only. If one doesn't like that he can turn sexist and beat wife locking her up at home, see how far he goes... Like it or not but living standards - in both material and behaviourial sense - <USER2> working spouses for everyone except upper class folks (and even them usually have spouses working to avoid looking sexist and old-fashioned).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> $607 a month for transportation seems odd since BART workers and their families ride for free (even after retirement!):

[http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking- news/ci_23778144/barts-f...](http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking- news/ci_23778144/barts-free-ride-program-among-bay-areas-most)

<comment><USER18> True, though outside of SF and Berkeley Oakland, far fewer people are within walking distance of a BART station, so a lot of people have to drive there. It's easy to forget this if you're carless (as I am) until you go somewhere else and need to figure out how to continue your journey beyond BART. Look at a geographical map and see how far apart the stations are at the extremities.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Any ideas as to what the true market rate for these types of jobs is?

Theoretically, if BART did not have a union, would we expect it to be filled with minimum wage or $40K type salaries.

Any other thoughts into how much labor costs as a proportion of their total expenditure. Is this where BART needs to decrease spending the most?

</comment><comment><USER22> BART PR person says that the average cost per year of a union, non management employee, is closer to $134k per year, including benefits. I'm not sure which side to believe. In any case I appreciate your work but would love to see a closer examination of the $134k figure.

<comment><USER5> yes so what all employees cost about 2.5 3.0 times the headline salary rate.

And what a lot of HN news readers probably dont realise (unless your in production engineering) is that for lower level blue collar jobs Bonus and OT are major parts of those workers pay packets.

<comment><USER23> I understand why maintenance staff might have surprise OT, but isn't a station agent or a conductor the very model of a job with predictable hours? It seems like BART should have no trouble correctly lining up workers and work without needing to resort to overtime.

Clarification: I'm surprised that overtime would be a "major" part of the average station agent's salary. Obviously there's going to be some mismatch, but (assuming there isn't crazy turnover or long training required) it should be fairly easy to predict the number of hours required and hire hours/2000 employees. The schedule is decided months in advance.

<comment><USER23> I hadn't realized how easy the data was to get[1]. The 300 Station agents make an average of 57.6k/year in salary, 10.5k/year in overtime and 7.4k in bonuses (includes vacation, unused sick days etc).

So for a station agent, they do make very close to 80k, and (assuming that overtime is 2x their normal rate) the 18% on top of their salary means they likely put in ~10% overtime. If my manager underestimated how long a station was open by 4 hours every week, I'd be annoyed, but 10% doesn't seem shocking.

[1] [https://github.com/enjalot/bart/blob/master/data/bart- comp-a...](https://github.com/enjalot/bart/blob/master/data/bart-comp-all.csv)

<comment><USER24> Especially when I was younger I worked a lot of hourly student-type jobs and since I've had a "real job" I've never been too far away from 24x7x365 ops.

The primary source of OT is stuff like "my kid's sick so I'm not coming in" and suddenly two guys work an extra half shift, one is staying in late the next coming in early, or at least as many hours as they can to help out. The next one is medical and training appointments and any non-nose to the grindstone official activity. So if mandatory 2-hour diversity class is today, "someone" is covering for 2 hours via OT, and/or the class attender is coming in on her day off for 2 paid overtime hours.

A big problem I can imagine with BART is the busy customer times are two big humps in morning and evening rush hour.

Most people can't/won't work split shifts, which adds to the excitement.

Depending how your departmental SLAs are financially structured, you may come out far ahead by spending an extra $100K/yr on overtime than by toughing it out and letting things fall apart.

Not to mention the effect on personnel. I suppose it varies by location, but usually a group of workers will always have some subgroup unable or unwilling to work overtime, but Usually the subgroup willing to soak up any hours will adsorb the slack before people start burning out.

This is also complicated by things like holiday policies. Some places I've worked paid overtime for 40+ in addition to double time for holidays providing a net pay rate of 2.5 your current rate and informally your holiday bonus is either getting the day off, or coming into the 24x365 operations dept for 2.5x pay. Many years (decades) ago, I was in operations and one of my last days of work before starting a promoted job was earning something like $60/hr on the 4th of July (back when gas was under a buck, to provide some inflation scale)

There are quite a few holidays... Just working every other one I could see someone accumulating quite a bit of OT, before unscheduled overtime like coverage for sick people begins.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> If you want to play with the raw data[1] I've uploaded it to Google[2]. Treating Base+OverTime+Other as someone's take home pay: * the mean across all employees is $88.8k * the median is a "Contract Specialist II" taking home 84.8k * the most common job, a train operator takes home 80.8k

[1] [https://github.com/enjalot/bart/tree/master/data](https://github.com/enjalot/bart/tree/master/data)

[2] [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Av3e0siMRvildEl...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Av3e0siMRvildElIT3hXU3BueUgzVkVzQzFNZW9VVkE&usp=sharing)

</comment><comment><USER25> For me the breakdown was great.

I can understand numbers like housing and expected them to be a bit higher (frankly? $1795 in EUR is roundabout 1300. My current budget for a new home - I'm actively looking - is 1200 EUR for my family of 3.5). Food obviously varies. I never thought about child care before I became a dad, but I understand that number quite well now.

What totally blew me away was healthcare. Wow. How is that worth another rent, a second apartment?

(I won't talk about absolutes too much - they obviously are local. In absolute terms nearly every salary on that page is _big_ in DE and IT might pay less than a BART mechanic gets. But again - local, really different situations etc.)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks darklajid! The health care costs is total insurance premiums and total out-of-pocket costs[1]. For a BART worker, it may only be upwards of $92, as they have a fixed health care contribution. For that reason, I have made the costs customizable, so you can edit and input any number you feel reasonable (I didn't want to make any personal assumptions with the numbers).

[1][http://www.epi.org/publication/wp297-2013-family-budget- calc...](http://www.epi.org/publication/wp297-2013-family-budget-calculator- technical-documentation/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> > This causes a slight discrepancy in the bar graph, as the cost of living > figures assume all parents to be working, but the income assumes only one > working parent.

That seems like a pretty big discrepancy, and makes the cost-of-living vs pay comparison meaningless. If you assume each parent contributes equally to their cost of living, you would pretty much halve the 'cost-of-living' line on the chart.

Even if the other parent only makes 50% of what the bart employee parent makes, it would pretty easily close the gap between pay and COL for most of these positions.

<comment><AUTHOR> I am going to implement a simple toggle option to include a second income (which I will research into what the median/average/reasonable salary in the Bay Area to be) on the bar graph - hopefully that solves the discrepancy!

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I have added a toggle for including a second income earner into the equation/bar graph. The figure is an average of the median per capita income of four Bay Area counties - hopefully this will give better context.

Also, more explicit "Customize" buttons to encourage people to play around with and edit the data :D

</comment><comment><USER27> These comments...they are completely awful.

</comment><comment><USER28> the bonuses look lower than the last time i looked at the sheet. the salary diff between management and regular workers is pretty high too.

pretty sure many senior IT engineers (who probably work 2x longer) would like to do 124K a year _in the SF area_.. then the proposal is to give them 150K by 2015.

in a simple world i'd use that money to give 25% more to all other workers

<comment><USER4> They are spending $26,982,431 in base salary to management. Almost $27M for 2013 and that is base salary alone. I can't find it acceptable either. They need to start letting people go in the management.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> The fade-oriented segmentation is ridiculously useless and reader-hostile.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ah, but the fade is on purpose, because I wanted to show that while they do have a high "cost of employment", what they truly pocket annually isn't as much. For that, the most important figure is the base salary, which is a solid block. The other things like pension and medical are either money they don't see until the future, or money they don't use unless they have a medical emergency.

<comment><USER29> I don't have to pay for medical insurance until I have an emergency?

<comment><USER24> Probably thinking of 20-somethings who have no copays or medical deductibles or chronic medical conditions or require medicines. That was my experience in my 20s. I worked at a place for 3 years, people asked me what the insurance was like, told them I never used it, so had no idea. Its a bit different of course, once you have a spouse and a couple kids on the policy, and start getting old, etc.

A properly implemented stealth agism policy (we only employ recent college grads because we're "hi tech", you know how it all goes) could save quite a bit. If you fire everyone once they have kids...</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Project Cybersyn: real-time computer control of a planned economy (1970-1973) - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybersyn <comment><USER2> It's quite telling that this attempt by a Marxist government to computerise control of the economy had it's biggest success in organising scabs during a strike.

Also..

 _It took about a year to become operational but it was never completely finished._

and

 _The software (...) was written by Chilean engineers in consultation with a team of 12 British programmers._

12 developers for a year.. controlling the entire economy?This smells a lot like vaporware, and it was in fact never operational, even though the article makes it sound like the main culprit was the 1973 coup.

<comment><USER3> It was just 500 factories. Probably any company today that has at least 500 factories has similar (modern) hierarchical system of control in place.

AI is effectively replacing free market from inside out not top down like in government attempts to instantiate centrally planned economy.

<comment><USER4> Exactly. Free market does not contradict planning. Both in-house and national- level planning works quite nicely in market economies. Leontief got a Nobel for theory and practice of the process.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is an interesting problem.

I'm not an expert, but I feel like a lot of socialism depends on accurate demand forecasting and in the past forecasting models may have failed because of lack of real-time data collection and processing capabilities. As both collection (sensor networks) and processing (CPU) capabilities increase exponentially, perhaps the model can be made more accurate.

Of course, I'm sure socialism as an economic system has other, deeper flaws :-)

<comment><USER6> This short essay from the 1920's lays out the fundamental flaws of trying to do economic calculations in the socialist state:

Economic Calculation In The Socialist Commonwealth: <http://mises.org/econcalc.asp>

<comment><USER7> I'm also a big fan of Hayek's "The Use of Knowledge in Society" which explains how a capitalist system, rather than being "unplanned" as its critics often claim, actually uses decentralized planning that makes more efficient use of knowledge at all levels of society.

<http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw1.html>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I really, really like that photograph of the "control room." It's like a beautiful fusion of every fab 1960s sci-fi set I've ever seen.

<comment><USER9> That's exactly what it is (Sci-fi). It was never operational, just a mockup for propaganda reasons.

There is a very interesting video about the entire project here: <http://vimeo.com/8000921>

<comment><USER8> Thanks for that link -- the video is even more fascinating.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I wonder how open it was, and how democratically controllable it was.

I'm not surprised by such a system, I mean, every big controlling entity (Banks, Wall-Mart) has a something like this but much more modern. The difficult "political" part here, is to make such a information system _democratic_ by opening information to citizens and putting them at the basis of decisions.

Robin Hahnel and Micheal Albert wrote things about that, an economy with decentralized decision taking-process, "Looking Forward: Participatory Economics in the Twenty First Century" is a good intro to that. They include computers to ease decision making.

</comment><comment><USER11> JIT inventory control + Dr. Evil

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-in-time_(business)>

</comment><comment><USER12> It would be interesting to see where Soviet central planning might have gone if it were possible to solve massive sets of thousands or even millions of simultaneous equations digitally during the heyday of the whole affair.

</comment><comment><USER13> Anyone see a connection with the real world Cybersyn and the fictitious Cyberdyne Systems from the Terminator movie?

</comment><comment><USER14> This sounds like the way that WalMart operates its stores.</comment>


Show HN: Venv2docker – create a docker image from a python virtualenv - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Markbnj/venv2docker <comment><AUTHOR> Author here. I've been working on this for the past few days and would love to get some feedback on it. Some caveats: it's a pretty young script, has only been tested in bash, and only on ubuntu 15.10 and debian jessie. If it works on any other platform it's an accident. Any suggestions or feedback will be appreciated, good or bad :).

<comment><USER2> This looks cool, and I like the details you've included in the README. I would love to see a 'Quick start' section at the top, that describes how to use this for a simple use case. The 'Tutorial: a quickie django image' part at the bottom is sort of like that, but it's a little long.

Let's say I have a Flask project which can be run by:

1) git clone xxx; cd xxx

2) pip install -r requirements.txt

3) python app.py

How would I turn that repo into a docker container, and run the app? I guess it's only a few more commands, given your helpful --pip=FILE flag.</comment></comment>


Building the Machine – Organizational Design in Startups - <AUTHOR> http://tomtunguz.com/organizational-design/ <comment><USER2> I've been trying to find books or online courses to learn about scaling the org structure of a startup and the phases it passes through. Can anyone recommend anything?</comment>


1M Species at Risk of Extinction (UN report) - <AUTHOR> https://www.businessinsider.com/1-million-species-could-go-extinct-un-report-2019-5 <comment><AUTHOR> Original announcement: [https://www.ipbes.net/news/Media-Release-Global- Assessment](https://www.ipbes.net/news/Media-Release-Global-Assessment)

> The Report finds that around 1 million animal and plant species are now > threatened with extinction, many within decades, more than ever before in > human history.

> The average abundance of native species in most major land-based habitats > has fallen by at least 20%, mostly since 1900. More than 40% of amphibian > species, almost 33% of reefforming corals and more than a third of all > marine mammals are threatened. The picture is less clear for insect species, > but available evidence supports a tentative estimate of 10% being > threatened. At least 680 vertebrate species had been driven to extinction > since the 16th century and more than 9% of all domesticated breeds of > mammals used for food and agriculture had become extinct by 2016, with at > least 1,000 more breeds still threatened.</comment>


Encode Decode URL - <AUTHOR> https://usemytools.net/encode-decode/ <comment><USER2> If it meets the guidelines, this might make a good 'Show HN'. Show HN guidelines: [https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html)</comment>


Embrace the trolls - <AUTHOR> http://blog.ivylees.com/embrace-the-trolls/

<comment><USER2> I disagree with the middle-way answer: it also doesn't require any thinking.

In any forum, you should separate the emotional content from the factual content and only respond to the latter. This is quite different from taking the middle way.

Though there are moderate trolls whose inflammatory postings contain useful factual content, I prefer forums where extreme trolling is dealt with harshly. Dissent is uncorrelated with rudeness (meaning that moderating extreme trolling won't drown out dissent) and no-one wants to spend their online time with the horribleness of uncontrolled trolling.

<comment><USER3> The scary thing to me is how few trolls it takes to destroy an otherwise perfectly good community. 10 trolls can ruin the atmosphere for 1000 people easily.

<comment><USER4> That's right, I`ll keep the 'ignore the troll' motto. Trolls add nothing to a discussion, constructive criticisms does.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> There's a big difference between people with outlying opinions, who can add valuable feedback to a discussion and trolls, who add nothing.

Experiments have repeatedly shown that when trolls are visible only to themselves, no one else can acknowledge their presence, so they just go away.

Trolls are to be ignored. Outliers are to be embraced.

<comment><USER3> HN has some of this built in it looks like.

Plenty of times I'll see a comment by someone (usually clearly trolling) and the comment is labelled 'dead' seconds after posting.

Here is a timely example: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=743103>

The comment at the bottom clearly is not a troll and yet it is labelled 'dead'.

Outlying opinions are _not_ appreciated on HN though, there was a 'worstcomments' link (admin only now it seems) that would show some (very) clear evidence of that.

Which is a real pity.

<comment><USER5> _Outlying opinions are not appreciated on HN though_

I would amend that to, "Outlying opinions are often subject to harsh treatment on HN."

As an occasional outlier here, I used to wonder if I was losing my mind from time to time. How could I feel so strongly about something while almost every responder felt the opposite?

I don't worry about it so much any more. Just say what you're thinking and let the chips fall where they may. Maybe we'll all learn something.

Better to have that learning experience in this "harmless playground" first than with a boss or a customer.

<comment><USER3> If they respond in writing you learn something if all you get is a bunch of unmotivated downvotes (and that happens quite often) it even leaves the old hands feeling like they got beaten up for something without knowing why.

This is frustrating.

<comment><USER6> > all you get is a bunch of unmotivated downvotes (and that happens quite > often) it even leaves the old hands feeling like they got beaten up for > something without knowing why.

"old hands" has nothing to do with it. It's basically a couple of people who claim that they're owed something by other folks on HN.

> This is frustrating.

In almost every other community, you get NO feedback and you're here complaining that you're not getting feedback in the form that you'd like.

When someone gives you a gift that isn't exactly what you'd like, the gracious thing to do is to thank them.

<comment><USER3> Thank you ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> How about this instead: I should remain humble, always open to the possibility that I could be wrong, or my work could need improvement; use reason, logic and critical thinking to assess feedback objectively.

<comment><USER8> Humility is generally a virtue; but not in the face of arrogant stupidity, then it is pandering to idiots. There are claims, unfortunately fairly common on some political issues, where you can be sure comment you are responding to is egregiously wrong.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Trolls aren't always someone who responds in a negative and strong way, though. The "best" trolls are the ones that you're not even sure are trolling...</comment>


On negotiating your first few partnerships - <AUTHOR> http://danshipper.com/on-negotiating-your-first-few-partnerships

<comment><USER2> I liked the comment about "You can't grow bigger than your partners." This is very true of small firms starting with small partners. If you want a 5 person consulting firm to resell your product, you get a lot of attention, but not a lot of traction. The opposite has a danger too though - if you sign up IBM or Accenture as a first partner, you may be too small for them to care. The ideal is finding a way to sign up with one set of partners that allows you to outgrow them if needed.

</comment><comment><USER3> What exactly does a partnering company get if the escrow is triggered? They obviously get your source code, but the question is what are they allowed to do with it...

<comment><USER4> Generally they just get a limited, non-exclusive license to use the code for their own purposes. e.g. they can't resell it so someone else, just use it the way they would have had the escrow not been triggered.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is a really useful article on a rarely covered aspect of running a small start-up. Thanks.

<comment><USER4> Thanks! Glad you thought so

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This article is incredibly useful and timing cannot be more right for us. Thanks for sharing !</comment>


Mob Wars Creator Puts A Hit Out On Zynga, Sues For Copyright Infringement - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/02/14/mob-wars-creator-sues-zynga-for-copyright-infringement/#

<comment><AUTHOR> I felt it appropriate to post this followup to the Mob Wars lawsuit a month ago (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=415574>) where I adamantly stated this exact thing wouldn't happen (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=416037>). I was wrong.</comment>


Apple partner says new Maps app in iOS 6 is terrible - <AUTHOR> http://www.bgr.com/2012/09/18/apple-maps-ios-6-criticism-waze/ <comment><USER2> A competitor of TomTom indicates that Apple is relying mostly on TomTom for mapping data, and says "they've chosen the weakest partner" and "their data is terrible." Not exactly a neutral source.

Not that it's necessarily untrue; they might be gambling like they did with Siri, that the best way to get a service like this running well is to ship it and respond to real-world feedback.

<comment><USER3> As anyone who has tried the iOS6 betas can confirm, the maps are pretty bad. I've looked for directions to nearby towns and it will send me to another country. Searching for directions from my office to a friends house sent me to a point that didn't even have the town's name anywhere near it.

And as far as I know, you can't search for public transport directions (at least in London a month ago), which was practically 60% of my maps usage. I had to either use google maps mobile web app or downgrade to iOS5. I did the latter.

<comment><USER4> "As anyone who has tried the iOS6 betas can confirm"... by violating their NDA and confirming issues with _beta_ software?

I'm guessing, myself, that the Apple Maps are going to be crappy compared to google for at least a year, or two. And it's probably going to be half a decade before we see even rough parity on their routing (particularly walking/transit).

But lets be critical about their released product and respect the Beta envelope until it's opened.

<comment><USER5> The final GM version has been out for over a week now, you don't sign an NDA if you download it from third party sources. The maps still sucks in the GM version.

<comment><USER6> Not to be a stickler, but the map data comes from the server, not from the Maps app itself. Thus, even though you have the GM Maps app, you do not necessarily know whether the user experience will still suck on the final release day, tomorrow. They could push out some final massive improvement to the server data before then. :) (No, I have no special knowledge of this, and if I did I wouldn't say.)

Full disclosure: I am biased. I worked on Apple's maps team, last year, so naturally I want the app to be good.

<comment><USER5> Well, the reviewers have had access to the same data as I have and critized the map data quality - I doubt Apple would delay an update of their map data they have ready to launch just for the heck of it at the cost of a lot of negative commentary.

The app itself is great, unfortunately the data quality isn't anywhere close to even the quality the iOS 5 Google Maps data. Apart from the obvious flaws like no street view or transit data, the pure data is not good too unfortunately. Let's hope Apple improves it fast, but I'm not too hopeful considering that Google has spent the last 7 years gathering data and improving their maps (and getting a lot of exclusive info submitted by their users).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've been using Maps for many months as part of the developer program.

They are not "terrible" but they are significantly worse than Google Maps. Let me count the ways:

1) "International" support is actually terrible. Whereas Google Maps has just about every road in Bastia (Corsica, France) accurately labeled, Apple Maps had almost none.

2) Search is not as reliable and sometimes comes up with obscure unrelated responses.

3) Several times I've been lead to the wrong spot in remote areas, either because of inaccurate addressing or slightly off road maps.

4) Public transit is not built in. I've pretty much stopped taking the bus. Hopefully third party providers will fill this gap.

This is a great article on why Apple will have a hard time competing with Google Maps:

[http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/09/how- go...](http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/09/how-go..).

Unfortunately, Google Maps on iPhone Safari is barely usable.

On the plus side, Siri integration with spoken turn-by-turn directions is a huge improvement, and the lock screen has a nice heads-up nav display. Yelp integration is also a nice touch.

</comment><comment><USER8> I've been using the new Maps for a few months since it appeared in the first beta builds. I live in Sydney, Australia and the search struggles to find places. It's not so bad if you put in the entire address, but a search for a store or location regularly returns nothing.

I've noticed that this has been improving lately. When it first came out a search for "Apple Store Chatswood" (2km from my work) would return stores in the USA. Now it returns the correct destination.

It's still not a trustworthy source of directions and I regularly have to use Google Maps via the browser.

So while this is very frustrating, I can see it improving so am not too worried long term.

Mind you if Google Maps was an App in the Store I'd buy it asap.

</comment><comment><USER9> Yeah, I've been using iOS 6 and the new Maps is fine. It's not perfect, I guess, but there were issues with the old, Google-based app as well. The thing about Apple is they iterate quickly on things like this, so I expect that the kinks with their map app (backend, dataset-related issues included) will be ironed out soon.

<comment><USER10> > The thing about Apple is they iterate quickly on things like this

do they? I don't doubt their ability to solve hard problems elegantly (if a problem happens to be one they want to solve), but I can't think of any strong parallels to this that would suggest that. Their other services seem to iterate on much the same time scales as their major app and OS releases (especially in the last 5 years).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'll be the one outlier and confess that, interestingly enough, particularly as someone who doesn't drive, that I've never used Google Maps for transit routing. I've visited Chicago, London, San Francisco - and extensively used mass transit in all these places - but it never occurred to me that I could use Google for routing instructions - I've always used the local Cal Train/Bart/Tube/El Apps that give me routing information and departure/arrival times.

In hindsight, I feel a little foolish now that I've discovered that I could have done this with Google Maps (Ironic, given that I _do_ use Google Maps for cycling/walking directions)

I guess that puts me as one of the few Mass Transit riders that won't be negatively impacted by the upgrade (downgrade?) to the iPhone 5.

<comment><USER11> In San Francisco the iOS 5 maps app doesn't have real-time schedule information on the buses, so it's not that useful except for the route itself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> The loss of transit directions is just critical. One of the most important features of my iPhone that I rely on every single day and they're ripping it out. I won't be upgrading to iOS 6 until they fix this.

<comment><USER13> I wouldn't mind so much if I at least know what trains were at a certain station in NYC.

Its completely unhelpful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I've been disappointed with maps, but would be incredbily surprised if Google doesn't release a stand-alone iOS version of their maps app within days or weeks. Whether it will include turn-by-turn directions is an unanswered question in my mind, but it would at least solve public-transportation and street-view needs. I suppose you'd still be stuck using Apple's maps for any in-app mapping development unless you can work out a deal with another provider or roll your own OSM implementation.

<comment><USER15> You think? I don't see that much upside for google (do they really make that much money from ads inside maps?)... at the same time mapping is such a critical application I can see it having a dramatic effect in the iOS vs android wars.

<comment><USER14> Think of it this way. The more Google knows about its users, the better- positioned they are to make more money off of them. If they know a person travels to a certain part of the city/state/country/world they can use that information to serve more context-appropriate ads to that person elsewhere in the Google eco-system. There's tremendous value in location - I don't see them giving that up.

<comment><USER16> I would be very surprised if the Google (search) website could share information like location with a hypothetical Google Maps app. And even if it could, I would expect Apple to shut down that avenue eventually.

<comment><USER14> Every Google iOS app has encouraged users to login to their Google account. I'd surprise me if this isn't the case with the maps app as well, and there's a convincing reason to encourage people to do so - giving them the ability to send directions to your phone from desktops and other devices. While it doesn't mean everyone will do this, they could still use anonymous location information to direct users to businesses in whatever context the user is most-applicable to the user (i.e. if they're shopping in a mall, or something like that).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I've been using the beta to navigate around Vancouver for a month or so and it works quite well. Turn by turn with voice commands through bluetooth to my car is great. The Yelp integration is pretty useful too. Big thing that's missing is the street view, but not something I've used much in the past.

Regardless of how it stands compared to standalone GPS units and Android it's a big improvement over the previous maps app.

<comment><USER18> > _Big thing that's missing is the street view, but not something I've used > much in the past._

I suspect that puts you in a tiny minority...

Streetview is a _huge_ deal.

The lack of transit integration also pretty much makes Apple's maps a non- starter for me.

I'm curious to see what they do in places like Tokyo, where public transit is used for a huge majority of trips, and the transit system is complicated enough that a good routing app is very useful. The iphone is very popular in Japan, so I'd think Apple would be somewhat reluctant to just give its customers the finger like that...

<comment><USER19> > The iphone is very popular in Japan, so I'd think Apple would be somewhat > reluctant to just give its customers the finger like that...

This is a potential goldmine for Android OEMs. The Japanese frequently buy new phones (more so than any other country, I believe), and if word gets out that the iPhone doesn't have public transit directions, they could easily make a lot of sales.

<comment><USER20> Then again I've heard that the Japanese have this magical invention called an "app" which someone can install on their phone to add new functionality.

I've even heard that there are some ones already for say the Tokyo subway.

<comment><USER18> There are lots of third-party transit routing possibilities (although many are not so great). Nonetheless, many people will use the defaults, and having to switch apps to do something which didn't use to require it is, of course, annoying. Basically, the phone sucking by default is not a particularly good business strategy.

My suspicion is that the Japanese resellers (au, SoftBank) will preinstall something better than Apple's map (maybe Google's rumored new mapping app). I've no idea how much freedom they have to do this under their contracts with Apple, though, or whether they could integrate such an app more deeply (e.g. cause it to be used as the system default mapping app).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The inability to easily use the public transportation option was the biggest issue for me.

</comment><comment><USER22> You can get walking directions in iOS 6

[http://lifehacker.com/5943259/get-walking-directions-in- ios-...](http://lifehacker.com/5943259/get-walking-directions-in-ios-6)

</comment><comment><USER23> And by "partner" BGR of course actually meant "competitor".

<comment><USER24> And by author, BGR meant Android Columnist:

 _Dan joins the BGR team as the Android Editor, covering all things relating to Google's premiere operating system_

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Said Dan Graziano...

"Dan joins the BGR team as the Android Editor, covering all things relating to Google's premiere operating system. ..."

</comment><comment><USER26> iOS 6 maps is a massive step backwards in an otherwise solid release. I'm looking forward to Google releasing their own maps app, assuming they do. For now, I'll get by with their web app.

</comment><comment><USER27> Sorry, you guys are just not thinking differently enough.</comment>


What a posthumous brain scan reveals about Leonardo Da Vinci's creativity? - <AUTHOR> http://www.brainpickings.org/2014/11/17/leonardos-brain-leonard-shlain/ <comment><USER2> I cannot say anything about the concrete assertions the author makes. He's using artful language to say a scientific thing; a scientific thing that cannot be verified. What I can say is that I see a theme: A theme of unity opposed to distinction. In a world where experts are specialized, people are atomized into rational actors, inquiry cut up into disciplines and schools, classes stratified into hierarchy, the Earth parceled out into privacies, and the most lauded brains in the world the most bifurcated, Da Vinci's life and mind must be unintelligible.

His brain was mixed up; his life was mixed up. Where Da Vinci ended and the world began was no where to be found. His interests saw no division, his talents no distinction. He degraded himself, rolled in the dirt, put his roots there and grew taller than the ivory tower. He without lineage outgrew any line; he came from the tenebrous muck of the world and left for the heavens.

<comment><USER3> Maybe you're exaggerating a bit on specialization? Unless humans reach immortality (or you live alone in a world), there's no other solution for progress. Most modern specialists out there actually know superficially a broad number of fields (and any of them likely much better than Da Vinci ever knew), but must specialize in one to optimize progress. There's only so much time to reach the frontier of progress, and you need to be at least reasonably quick to get there, lest your work be made obsolete by others before it's even published.

I don't think any expert should be unhappy for "missing out on knowledge" of many fields, because knowledge is infinite -- he should instead be happy to know the _essential_ knowledge of some fields and be able to expand the frontier of human knowledge, which I believe is more satisfying than just soaking up results of all is out there (and probably can pay your lunch).

In popular words, "Jack of all trades, master of none" (unless you're in the middle ages).

<comment><USER2> The segregation of knowledgeable people into sets of experts based on domains of expertise is more the problem than individuals specializing. People will doggedly pursue answers to their questions without such rigid social structures, but it prevents the interaction between people that would otherwise fruitfully cooperate together. These structures, I believe, mostly serve political and bureaucratic functions rather than the facilitation of human inquiry. We like to pretend our institutions are optimized for their ends, but usually they're optimized for the allocation of resources and power. Cutting people up into experts, giving them titles, making them clique together, impairs them but it makes them 'easier to manage'.

<comment><USER3> Ah now I can see a more valid point. The problem is not so much that people specialize in certain problems/'issues'/fields/tools/..., it's more that the fields are arbitrarily drawn and rigid. That I can agree with.

"People will doggedly pursue answers to their questions without such rigid social structures" \-- that is a good observation imo, and I think science progresses best when it is oriented around problems. The specialization then comes as devoting large amounts of time to a deep understanding of the problem and the different tools necessary to get it solved. But perhaps it's only natural (or human nature) to split tools into categories to study them separately and effectively, and be able to draw upon people who know those tools very well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Leonardo da Vinci was not a pacifist (second paragraph). As linked here on Hacker News, he designed weapons of war and bragged how great they would work, He was essentially an "arms dealer."

In his words:

"...I have methods for destroying every rock or other fortress, even if it were founded on a rock, etc. Again, I have kinds of mortars; most convenient and easy to carry; and with these I can fling small stones almost resembling a storm; and with the smoke of these cause great terror to the enemy, to his great detriment and confusion. ..."

[http://www.theladders.com/career-newsletters/leonardo-da- vin...](http://www.theladders.com/career-newsletters/leonardo-da-vinci-resume)

<comment><USER5> He was opposed to war but made war machines to pay the bills. Besides there's a certain logic to avoiding war by being more heavily armed than your neighbours.

<comment><USER6> Without nukes the cold war would have probably been significantly warmer

<comment><USER7> Or never gotten off the ground in the first place...

<comment><USER8> Because Stalin wouldn't have stopped at the Elbe, but pushed on to the Bay of Biscay?

<comment><USER7> By the time the bomb was tested, Nazi Germany had already surrendered (VE Day, May 8. Trinity test, July 16). And Stalin had already agreed to get involved in Asia.

If he wanted to go all the way to the Atlantic, why did he stop at Elbe and spend time negotiating at Potsdam.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> >Outside of the prohibitively expensive alternative of private tutors, admission to one of these schools was the only means to learning the secret code that opened the doors of opportunity.

Mathematics is built around a similar sort of cipher. Even learning from textbooks is not enough to truly penetrate the collective knowledge stored in the symbols of math. The symbols change from sub field to sub field and in a certain sense encrypt the knowledge from one who has not read all preceding papers.

It makes me wonder if one could perform some sort of cryptanalysis on these documents as a method of understanding.

<comment><USER2> I did Math in undergrad. I hung out with grads and profs a lot, and of course the bright undergrads who would become the grads and profs who apprehended mathematical concepts far quicker than I ever could. It became clear to me partway through my freshman year that mathematics is an extremely social activity. The books are gappy, the exercises are more open ended than you'd think for something that has a single answer, the lectures are best when they are conversations, and the best place to learn something is at the chalkboard with a cup of tea in hand as someone scratches out a diagram composed of all intuition and no logic that makes you go "aha!"

I think all barriers of language are social barriers.

<comment><USER10> >It became clear to me partway through my freshman year that mathematics is an extremely social activity.

I think many fields are like this, and the "dream" of ending selective residential colleges (which are designed to facilitate this kind of social study) in favor of MOOCs may not be so idyllic.

<comment><USER2> Definitely, definitely. The idea that individuals achieve through individual means individual rewards does not explain any of my experiences with any of my activities-- especially the ones I get paid for.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Bit of a click bait title. What some guy imagines a brain scan on Leonardo would have looked like seems closer.

</comment><comment><USER12> I thought this left/right brain stuff was considered pseudoscience at best. Granted, there is more to this article, but I find it somewhat hard to take seriously.

</comment><comment><USER13> Who else thinks the "Mona Lisa" painting is crap? It's always been overrated, and seeing it live did nothing to change my impression. Not to disparage da Vinci's corpus ... but just sayin'.

<comment><USER14> Understanding the context of art is frequently as important as direct experience. Jackson Pollack has been decried as an alcoholic fraud by some, but like Da Vinci, it is the techniques he pioneered as much as his works that are fascinating. There was a study that claimed he (Pollock) represented fractals, even Chaos theory in some of this work. [http://phys.unsw.edu.au/phys_about/PHYSICS!/FRACTAL_EXPRESSI...](http://phys.unsw.edu.au/phys_about/PHYSICS!/FRACTAL_EXPRESSIONISM/fractal_taylor.html)

On a tangent, this is the soundtrack to the eponymous movie, Pollock by composer Jeff Beal. Give it a listen, while taking a look at some of Pollock's catalog: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oD0nFjjUCQo&list=RDoD0nFjjUC...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oD0nFjjUCQo&list=RDoD0nFjjUCQo)

Like nwatson, I wasn't moved the first time I saw Mona. But understanding her history brought her to life the next time we met.

<comment><USER8> > Jackson Pollack has been decried as an alcoholic fraud by some, but like Da > Vinci, it is the techniques he pioneered as much as his works that are > fascinating

Throwing paint at the wall like a baby projectile-vomitting rainbow-colored Gerber puree'd carrots?</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: PasteEnabler – reenable context actions on sites that block it - <AUTHOR> https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pasteenabler/dhadehfniifbmemochpmbofcjckpdnnl <comment><AUTHOR> I made this after seeing the n-th bank try to limit me from copy+pasting my account number in. As if me typing in 16 numbers is going to be more accurate than copy and pasting from 1pass.

It reenables the following functionality on sites that disable it:

* Ability to paste content * Ability to copy content * Ability to cut content * Ability to right click content * Ability to autocomplete certain inputs * Ability to select text * Ability to drag and drop text to/from inputs

If a website does not allow you to copy and paste simply click the icon and try again.

Source code here: [https://github.com/jonluca/PasteEnabler](https://github.com/jonluca/PasteEnabler)

Let me know if you see any sites where it does not work or that do more complicated JavaScript limits - it's very rewarding finding ways to break their "security" implementations.</comment>


360° degree live test stream directly from the bitmovin office and our Hackathon - <AUTHOR> http://bitmovin.com/public-demos/vr-testsite/vr.html?dash=https://gce-testbucket.storage.googleapis.com/giroptic/mpds/stream.mpd <comment><AUTHOR> This stream is just a test stream we did for fun. It's using a Giroptic 360° cam + the bitmovin live encoder + Google Cloud Storage + the bitmovin 360° HTML5 player.</comment>


Spanish scientists create a 3D bioprinter to print human skin - <AUTHOR> http://sciencebulletin.org/archives/9634.html <comment><USER2> Hopefully this new process's product can help alleviate some of the issues faced by burn victims.

When I was a small child I was run over by a car and severely burned (by the catalytic converter). I had to have multiple skin grafts, one fairly large.

At the time (1987), a temporary measure was to graft pig's skin over the burn. This is apparently still done today, but this new process's product (and others) could conceivably be used instead.

After the temporary graft I got autografts, which involves cutting skin off an un-burned area and applying it to a burned area. This was pretty painful†, and I wound up with a bad infection on the donor site.

The grafts have been fine ever since, but they're pretty unsightly (thankfully my clothes cover them). I also have the scar from the donor site (worsened by the infection). The artificial skin produced by these new printers will hopefully prevent some of these issues.

† I have memories of hurting from this, but I was only 1.5 years old, so I'm not sure if they're really memories or interpolations of things I've been told.

</comment><comment><USER3> The CIEMAT scientists then took an oath that they would never graft the skin onto a robotic endoskeleton for the purpose of infiltrating human resistance groups. Watching from the printer control workstation, Cortana remained silent.

<comment><USER3> Nobody in the room could bring themselves to mention the other reason why there was demand for robots with real human skin.

<comment><USER4> It's sex bots... isn't it?

Have you seen the new Cortana? Damn!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Cool. Does that mean you can print fingerprints with this tech? Might come in handy in the dystopian world we are headed into.

<comment><USER6> Being able to leave fingerprints of a high value target at a crime scene could really make things interesting from a lot of perspectives.

eg: providing false alibi's, setup/framing, coercion/bribery

When (if?) that actually starts to happen, law enforcement could get a whole lot trickier. :/

<comment><USER7> Interesting! Reminds me of "The Unreconstructed M" By Philip K. Dick. [https://www.jerkersearcher.com/sffaudio_pdfs/TheUnreconstruc...](https://www.jerkersearcher.com/sffaudio_pdfs/TheUnreconstructedMByPhilipK.Dick.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> One step closer to Westworld

</comment><comment><USER9> This looks amazing, but it's a bit vague. While it may be satisfactory as "functional" skin, does it have nerves?

<comment><USER10> There are no nerves in the epidermis.

<comment><USER11> It says in the article that they also replicate the dermis.

Although I'm no expert, it seems to me that the dermis _does_ have nerves: [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Skin_lay...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Skin_layers.svg)

<comment><USER10> I stand corrected.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I m hoping that in some point in the future we will be able to print directly on the body to repair damage .

I suffer from Keratoconus and the only actual solution is corneal transplantation; I would be wonderful to be able to grow the cornea in situ. Bio-startup idea anyone?

</comment><comment><USER13> I imagine some years from now a high demand for this by tattoo removal clinics.

</comment><comment><USER14> Maybe they can print a nice thick amount for our new President. He seems to be in need of it.

<comment><USER15> Nothing like political jabs to highlight the hypocrisy of YC. Where are the comments decrying how this sort of comment is not what this community is about? Where's @dang with his boilerplate lecture?

<comment><USER7> IDK, the fact that we are all sitting here, light grey at the bottom of the page is a pretty good sign the system is working.</comment></comment></comment>


Facebook buys Ubuntu producation company Canonical for 3 Billion - <AUTHOR> http://itsfoss.com/facebook-to-buy-ubuntu-for-3-billion/ <comment><USER2> In other news, Yahoo announced that it is purchasing RadioShack with the intent of resurrecting the Tandy brand to launch a new line of affordable personal computing devices.

"Tandy was an iconic brand that was ahead of its time," Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer stated. "Tandy's acquisition of GRiD Systems, the maker of the first consumer tablet, the GRiDPad, might have been several decades too early, but we're a forward-thinking company and look forward to building on Tandy's legacy of innovation."

The deal must be approved by RadioShack shareholders. Under the proposed terms, shareholders of RadioShack stock would receive a vintage Broadcast.com stock certificate with photo of Mark Cuban, 2 Geocities t-shirts, and 50 premium Tumblr themes.

</comment><comment><USER3> Yeah, exactly the kind of news I was expecting on April 1 ;)

<comment><USER4> though i think Zuckerberg would be less nazi and misguided with usability than Shutleworth.

<comment><USER3> I'm also sure 3bln is way too low for such a company comparing with other FB's purchases.

<comment><USER4> ...not if it was in actual money

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> AHH, My heart stopped I don't want to Read more.

</comment><comment><USER6> Amazon buying Canonical, I could have believed.

</comment><comment><USER7> It was only a matter of time. We all saw this coming.

</comment><comment><USER8> Almost had me. Freaked out for 30 sec

</comment><comment><USER9> you _almost_ had me :)

GREAT title!</comment>


World's Top Arms Exporters Visualized - <AUTHOR> http://insightfulinteraction.com/armsexport.html <comment><USER2> Importers: [http://insightfulinteraction.com/armsimport.html](http://insightfulinteraction.com/armsimport.html)

<comment><USER3> The importer data is way more provocative to me than the exporter data, which met my expectations.

<comment><USER4> True. I have noticed that we in Sweden give away a rather substantial portion of our national gross product in order to fight poverty in other countries. Most of those countries - including India are in this list. The outcome seems to be that we give away money to cater for their poor, while they happily exploit their own workers to out-compete us on every market, while maintaining huge military budgets that they apparently spend on buying things from our most aggressive neighbor. Excellent.

<comment><USER5> If you think Sweden gives India any kind of substantial money to reduce poverty, you're seriously mistaken.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Hi my name is Natalia, and I'm the creator of this visualization. I want to thank the person who posted it here, and everyone for the discussion. I'd love to hear topics/ideas you are interested in for the future visualizations.

<comment><USER7> Thank you for the great visualizations! Here some ideas:

Personally, I would be interested in sensitivities instead of absolute values to capture trends. Say,

        * the rate of change of CO2 production per country
        * ...sensitivities of your given interactions

or

        * money invested in reforestation
        * change of healthcare expenses per country over time...
        * expenses for "bio" products vs. "discount"/fast food

Thanks again, and have fun! :-)

<comment><USER6> WOW, thank you for this - brilliant ideas - and I personally love the topics which means a lot of inspiration while creating for me. Thanks again. Cheers, Natalia

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Wow. I always knew the US exported arms, so I kind of expected that we were the worst offenders. But whoa! Look at Russia. The country must be depending on weapon exports to keep their economy going, which is simply not diversified enough to weather through the down times.

<comment><USER9> I wonder how much of this is AK-47s. It is arguably the most successful arm.

<comment><USER10> >It is arguably the most successful arm.

depends on the definition of "success" :) I'd say that no number of AKs would have protected the Assad regime the way the S-300/400 has done so far. The Su-27 platform has been kind of AK of multi-purpose fighter planes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This was an interesting way to visualise the arms database.

Some patterns are interesting:

What appears to be almost 50% of Russia's exports go to India, while what appears to be almost 90% of China's exports go to the countries surrounding India (Pakistan, Bangladesh, and a Myanmar).

<comment><USER12> Yeah, what's up with that? I know India and Pakistan aren't exactly best friends (Kashmir and all that), but they're not at full scale war with each other are they? Why the need for all the arms? India's arms imports in particular are shockingly high, especially for a country with so much need for investment in infrastructure and poverty alleviation.

No idea where Bangladesh and Myanmar stand in relation to all this.

<comment><USER13> "India's arms imports in particular are shockingly high"

If you are a country with China for a neighbour, and have experience of having already fought (and lost) a war with China, I bet you would import a lot of arms. India is (among other things) importing arms to defend against China, not Pakistan.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> No surprise with Russia topping the list. Since 1990 the country's entire economic output has been exploiting what's left of soviet infrastructure and selling natural resources.

<comment> guard-of-terra Any countries with totally new economies in the last 25 years?

China comes to mind, along with other east asia. But it's natural to exploit what you've already got.

And most of Russia's non-military industries turned out not competitive.

<comment><USER14> Well non-competitive isn't quite correct. Certain industries indeed were non- competitive (i.e. automotive, which btw boomed domestically post 1990), but as a whole they were torn apart by privatization and corruption.

One reason being that the way these business and industries transferred into private holdings was always somewhat dubious (and hence the very real risk of losing these holdings with the next change in political winds e.g. Khodorkovsky). Anyone that got their hands on a piece of the soviet-pie tried to get as much out of it putting as little as possible into it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> With as popular as Glock is, you'd think Austria would be bigger than a basically insignificant sliver.

I suppose if it was scaled by units sold instead of dollar values that may swing it towards inexpensive small arms like Glock pistols. Actually, that may be why USA and Russia are so enormous as exporters: they make expensive heavy arms like tanks, artillery, warplanes, ships, machine guns, bombs, while lots of places "gun guys" (which I sort of am) would think may show up (like Austria) won't because they only make relatively cheap small arms.

All of my arms are made in Russia or USA, if that means anything.

EDIT: Some other commenters have mentioned the stats don't include firearms and crew-served machine guns. Again, it's all the big stuff.

<comment><USER16> > All of my arms are made in Russia or USA, if that means anything.

As an Australian, I found this statement difficult to parse. The idea of owning a gun is so foreign to me, let alone multiple.

<comment><USER17> As an Australian, I remember when guns were not something to be feared, but rather used if you need to .. my grandmothers 410 was used to dispatch snakes (dangerous) and rabbits (vermin) on a regular basis, and I remember fondly the bush trips with my uncles and cousins to eradicate invasive swine in the region.

Fortunately, Australia is yet to be invaded (unless you count our own ancestors heinous actions against the native owners of the land), or you would perhaps have a different perspective on just how foreign gun ownership can impact your life .. the time may well come, in our lifetimes or shortly thereafter, when Australians are even more subservient to a foreign power than they currently are ..

<comment><USER18> Many nations in which guns are commonplace amongst the citizenry have been invaded, many times. The armies fought, the occupation happened, the vast majority of citizens did not pick up whatever weapon they had to hand to fight the invading army. The prevalence of weaponry amongst the citizenry of the countries involved has no bearing that I can see.

<comment><USER19> Commonplace =/= prevalent. What wars are you thinkint of? No snark, just curious.

In terms of prevalence, I don't think there is an apt comparison in the historical narrative for the US. I heard, but cannot confirm, that we blow off more rounds for target practice than the active conflicts around the globe use in combat. Even if that statement is incorrect, I can think of no other nation with an equivalent saturation of small arms.

<comment><USER20> Target practice plus bird hunting, which can use a lot of shotshells with little to show for it if you're not so good at it like me ^_^. I don't think most other forms of hunting use that very many rounds.

US _civilian_ production is between 13-14 _billion_ rounds per year (military production at Lake City, I don't know, but we get sold canceled orders and lots that fail milspec tests but are otherwise good ammo). Rimfire production alone is 3 billion. For some time a lot of that has been getting stored for ... a rainy day. And if you do the math that's only a bit more than 40 rounds/person/year.

But the number is still very very large. Heck, in one high school academic year on the JROTC rifle team I probably shot over 2,000 rounds of .22 LR (for every morning of practice, 3 sighting in shots plus 10 rounds each in two positions).

As for "saturation", yeah. In the last three years, the number of Missouri state issued concealed carry licenses (note any state's is good, and many are cheaper) in my county has almost doubled, to the point where 5% of the age eligible adults have one. And the 19-20 age range has only been eligible for about a year, while those getting them are largely the older, age and less ability to defend yourself + the Baby Boomers entering retirement age is a major driver.

42-3 states have "shall issue" concealed carry regimes, and California and Hawaii look to be following soon (it's being litigated, but some large population counties have already thrown in the towel); the Supremes could extend that to all states. In the last 4 years, Chicago went from nobody but the anointed being allowed to own handguns to shall issue concealed carry and more than a few incidents of legal self-defense with them.... Etc. etc.

<comment><USER19> Point being that if it ever goes Red Dawn whoever is doing the invading is going to have a rough time of it. We ['muricans] shoot a lot. We even hit stuff occasionally :|

<comment><USER20> Indeed; per the misattributed Yamamoto Isoroku quote, " _You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass._ "

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Interesting that Ukraine has higher arms export numbers than Sweden, Netherlands and Spain. I never knew Ukraine was an arms exporter at all.

<comment><USER22> The USSR based a LOT of stuff in the Ukraine, both in terms of operational units, and supporting industry. Most of which was inherited by Ukraine when the USSR was dissolved. While many of the operational units were also dissolved, or traded back to Russia (for example, some Tu-160 strategic bombers), arms export is a pretty sweet way (relatively) for a new country to get some nice cashflow. Wiki says that Ukraine received about 30% of the USSR's arms industry... which is a lot.

<comment><USER10> >arms export is a pretty sweet way (relatively) for a new country to get some nice cashflow.

Ukraine was delivering relatively modern tanks - T-84 - to Thailand about the time when they outlawed Russian language while its army still had the old T-64. Historic lesson - putting your army on modern tanks should be the first step while outlawing a language of a major minority - second - and not otherwise :)

<comment><USER23> > when they outlawed Russian language

How do you mean? Half of Kiev (Ukrainian capital) speaks Russian as their first language. Half of the Ukrainian army and National Guard (including the volunteers) speak Russian as their fist language. Outlawed, eh?

<comment><USER10> they made it illegal (outlawed) to have schools in Russian, various government proceedings, etc... - all the achievements of the "Law of the Language", the results of the multi-year completely democratic and lawful process, were scrapped right in a first second by the junta right after the Maidan coup and thus among others sending a clear message of no more democracy for the ethnic Russians.

<comment><USER23> > they made it illegal (outlawed) to have schools in Russian

This is not true.

> various government proceedings

Always been like that. But the officials could always talk in Russian if they felt like it.

The rest is just propaganda.

<comment><USER10> >The rest is just propaganda.

ok. Then please do tell us what was so important about the language law that it was the very first order of business of the Kiev's junta on the very first moment it came to power.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I think showing the types of arms exported by country would be considerably more meaningful. I'd be interested to know if the reason the dollar amounts for certain countries is so high is that they're selling very expensive defense systems and not just a high volume of small arms. And from the source data, it looks like the value is expressed in constant 1990 dollars.

</comment><comment><USER25> Visualizations like this are always awesome, but it would also be interesting to see the inverse of this chart.

Where do countries import arms from?

<comment><USER26> When you hover over a chord you can see both exports and imports for each pair of countries. The arms imports visualization is here: [http://insightfulinteraction.com/armsimport.html](http://insightfulinteraction.com/armsimport.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> As cool as it looks, its almost impossible to get the finer details with these kinds of visualizations.

For example, India apparently exports 10m worth of arms. To find out which countries buy from India is nearly impossible because of the relative scale of the visualization.

<comment><USER28> Below is a link to an image from the SIPRI db about countries India exports to. The database they used is pretty easy to use if you want to go more in depth.

[http://i.imgur.com/qx03P4W.png](http://i.imgur.com/qx03P4W.png)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> What are major conventional weapons? Does that include rifles and pistols?

Phillipines apparently has less than $1M in exports, yet it's home to Armscor / Rock Island Armory, which sells quite a bit into the US.

<comment><USER22> Does not appear to include firearms, or even some classes of crew served weapons. The source db is here: [http://www.sipri.org/databases/armstransfers](http://www.sipri.org/databases/armstransfers) you can get 'get everything' query and take a peak at the categories yourself. From a quick skim, its basically every possible type of actual weapon (as in actually kills things) except firearms and crew served machine guns... and I guess grenade launchers. Portable anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons are on the list. A lot of aircraft and naval avionics is on the list as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Germany's largest importer is Israel. What an interesting world.

<comment><USER31> _...Protecting Israel 's security is "part of my country's raison d'être," Merkel said in a March 2008 speech to the Israeli Knesset. "For me as German chancellor," she continued, "Israel's security will never be open to negotiation."

Partly as a result, Israel gets nuclear-capable submarines from the Germans, as well as any other weapons it wants. This time the Israelis wanted more modern launchers for rocket-propelled grenades and anti-armor weapons, made by Dynamit Nobel Defence near the western German town of Siegen.[0]_

[0] [http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german- weapons-e...](http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-weapons- exports-on-the-rise-as-merkel-doctrine-takes-hold-a-870596.html)

<comment><USER32> new century, new alliances, new enemies.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> [http://insightfulinteraction.com/armsproducers.html](http://insightfulinteraction.com/armsproducers.html)

...quite different!

</comment><comment><USER33> Surprised by the fact that India buys and keeps it. And looks like China buys and give to all the Indian border countries. *Indian here

</comment><comment><USER34> I notice there is no US-russia trade. Is this due to trade sanctions?

<comment><USER35> It may be a factor, but the US and Russia have very few imports overall. They don't need to, because they already produce almost everything they need at home.

The graph is difficult to read, but it appears that most countries either have a significant arms industry (and mostly supply themselves and sell to others) or don't (and mostly buy from others). I don't see any countries that have significant amounts of both imports and exports.

<comment> guard-of-terra China both imports and exports if I read correctly.</comment></comment></comment>