Judge Halts Work on Microsoft's JEDI Contract in Victory for Amazon - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/13/technology/amazon-jedi-pentagon-contract-microsoft.html <comment><USER2> "On Thursday, Judge Campbell-Smith also required that Amazon pay a $42 million deposit that will be held by the court in case it later determines that the injunction was wrongfully issued and that Microsoft is owed damages."

I know $42MM is pocket change to these companies but this goes a long ways toward removing my perception of the judge being biased.

<comment><USER3> > my perception of the judge being biased.

That perception was possibly influenced by the HN title "Siding with Amazon" vs the title the NY Times used "Judge Halts Work on Microsoft's JEDI Contract in Victory for Amazon". At no point in the article do the words "sides" or "siding" appear.

Edit: The HN title has been changed since I wrote this.

<comment><USER4> [https://twitter.com/nyt_diff/status/1228059729391476736](https://twitter.com/nyt_diff/status/1228059729391476736)

The NYT changed their headline after publication.

<comment><USER5> They usually run multiple headlines for each story, and I think they're A-B tested over time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Should be a factor. Guy involved in the JEDI decision was pursuing a job at Amazon.

[https://theintercept.com/2019/06/03/amazon-defense- departmen...](https://theintercept.com/2019/06/03/amazon-defense-department- jedi-contract/)

</comment><comment><USER7> The pissing contest between Jeff and Larry (AWS and Oracle) has only resulted in MS getting Oracle + Azure. That may not seem like much, but to most enterprise and government bodies that is a huge + on the MS side is it not?

Also not mentioned here AWS already has GovCloud- there are a number of agencies both federal and state that use AWS. Its not like this contract is the _only_ contract there is to win. Its just a big one. Jeff is a pretty damn sore loser.

<comment><USER8> The president told the secretary of defense to "screw" one vendor in a competition for a $10B contract because of personal biases unrelated to the contract. In any normal time, that would be an administration ending scandal. Right now, it hardly rates, but on an absolute scale it's still a big deal and completely justifies this lawsuit.

<comment><USER9> Not to be too cynical, but if we started investigating every DoD contract where personal biases decided who won and who lost... the military industrial complex would probably crumble overnight.

<comment><USER10> This isn't that though. This isn't every individual's personal bias; this is a publicly declared bias by the commander in chief. A little different.

<comment><USER11> It's not even bias.

It's a __vendetta __

<comment><USER12> Awarding a perfectly capable competitor (Microsoft) a contract isn't a vendetta. Somehow I think Amazon will continue to thrive with or without the JEDI contract.

<comment><USER13> Why does Amazon's survival preclude a vendetta?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Well there's at least one positive outcome from this whole debacle so far with Oracle's lawsuit being heavily undercut by the award to MS.

</comment><comment><USER15> I think Amazon will lose this case. It will be impossible to prove that Donald Trump's public attacks on Jeff Bezos influenced the decision of the Department of Defense to award the JEDI contract to Microsoft. Amazon wants to depose Donald Trump, SecDef Mark Esper, and former SecDef James Mattis. I don't see Donald Trump willingly testifying to a court under oath. If Esper and Mattis have to testify, they will say that the contract was awarded fairly and based on a neutral and thorough review of both proposals, and that Microsoft's offer fulfilled the needs of the DoD better. The SecDef, being the most important individual in the DoD, is in the best position to determine the department's needs. While this doesn't mean that corruption of the decision making process is impossible, these contracts have a paper trail and review/counter-review processes by a multitude of procurement officers and committees, and a federal judge unilaterally deciding the winners of military contracts would set a terrible precedent. At worst the contract could be voided and the competition restarted, but the final decision would most likely be the same.

<comment><USER16> >> Microsoft's offer fulfilled the needs of the DoD better

Which it's not even up for debate that it did. The Pentagon already runs a ton of Microsoft software - something Amazon has no ability to properly support at this scale.

<comment><USER17> Of course it's up for debate. Everyone thought Amazon would win the contract because they had such a lead in cloud services until Trump got involved as part of his personal vendetta with Bezos for the Washington Post

<comment><USER16> >> Everyone thought

Citation needed. I didn't think that for a minute. If anything MS was the only sane choice here, for reasons I wrote of above.

>> Trump got involved

Citation needed.

<comment><USER14> >>Citation Needed (Everyone Thought) [0][1][2]

Oracle certainly thought Amazon was the front runner, unfairly so, to the point that they began a lawsuit prior to all this current mess.

>>Citation Needed (Trump Got involved) [3][4]

When the President expresses a desire to "screw" over a potential vendor, that's getting involved.

[0] [https://apnews.com/3f36de42be3d45b7bee0d2c5febd2557](https://apnews.com/3f36de42be3d45b7bee0d2c5febd2557)

[1] [https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2019/04/11/oracle-p...](https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2019/04/11/oracle- pentagon-jedi-cloud-contract-msft-amzn-ibm.html)

[2] [https://www.businessinsider.com/heres-why-amazon-is- heavily-...](https://www.businessinsider.com/heres-why-amazon-is-heavily- favored-to-win-the-10-billion-jedi-contract-2018-10)

[3][https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/09/amazon-blames-trump-for- losi...](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/09/amazon-blames-trump-for-losing-jedi- cloud-contract.html)

[4] [https://www.fiercetelecom.com/telecom/trump-mulls- stepping-i...](https://www.fiercetelecom.com/telecom/trump-mulls-stepping- into-pentagon-s-jedi-cloud-contract-aws-and-microsoft-are-pursuing)

<comment><USER18> Your [3] is just a story reporting this story, citing nothing but Amazon's complaint. Your [4] quotes Trump saying lots of companies are complaining, and an internal ethics investigation at the DoD which turned up someone working on the contract who worked at AWS;

> _The Pentagon found potential ethical violations by a former Amazon Web > Services employee who had worked on JEDI during a stint at the Defense > Department, according to a New York Times story. Those potential violations > were referred to Office of Inspector General for further investigation._

<comment><USER14> Read more closely. #3 Has a direct quote from President Trump about wanting to "screw" Amazon. Again, #4 shows the President speaking in a way that could cause DoD to feel pressured and might indicate he took further more direct action, though also maybe not: that will come out in pre-trial discovery. You asked for citations that showed the President's involvement. Both of these provide it.

<comment><USER16> But it doesn't: "when a book charting then-Defense Secretary James Mattis' tenure at the White House claimed the president told Mattis to "screw Amazon" out of the contract"

That's not a "direct quote" by any stretch of imagination.

This is "walls are closing in" and "sources familiar with president's thinking" style news reporting.

<comment><USER14> It doesn't have to be a spoken live on TV or written out on twitter for it to be true, accurate, verbatim quote. You're right, "direct" is not the correct word in such a case though. But there's nothing wrong with using sources for reporting, the quality of the reporting simply depends on the quality of the sources. And this one quote is not the only evidence of the President's involvement. There is the other source I cited, as well as plenty of other examples of President Trump expressing displeasure with Amazon for other reasons.

<comment><USER16> All of which use either circular reasoning or mind reading to support their assertions. Face it, you have _zero_ evidence for what you stated (third hand account in a vehemently anti-trump publication does not reliable evidence make), but pretend to have bulletproof evidence. That's simply not the case.

<comment><USER14> It's not mind reading when the President himself has expressed animosity towards Amazon & Jeff Bezos. Comb through his twitter feed for amble examples.

As for someone like Mattis, he has shown nothing in his career that I'm aware of that undermines his integrity and desire to serve his country. Yes, he may bear some ill will towards the president, but at least from an outsider view they parted over legitimate policy differences, and there's no reason to believe Mattis would have outright fabricated a quote like "screw Amazon". If we were talking about someone else (maybe John Bolton) I would be more skeptical. Mattis... I'm not saying it's %100, but I'd be more likely than not to believe he was honest in his recounting of that quote. That quote aside, instances where President Trump has bashed Amazon & Bezos are common-- again, the President's twitter feed is a good record on this topic.

This is not the type of circular reasoning you refer to, but I acknowledge that can be an problem... one person speculates, another news source reports on it, a third uses both the first two to paint a picture of consensus. That Mattis quote and President Trumps direct statements elsewhere don't fit that mold.

But lets link it back to the main point at hand: Could even the directly attributable statements from President Trump be taken as involvement, or as potentially influencing the procurement process? That is something reasonable people might disagree about. That is why there is this legal fight. At this point, there is simply too little publicly available information to say "yes" or "no". There is enough to suggest the possibility. The discovery portion of pre-trial will have to investigate to gather more evidence, or fail to do so and not prevail. Currently there's enough to suggest the possibility that a court agrees a case can move forward, but it's important to note this isn't some partisan "never Trumper" decision. The court was still skeptical enough to require nearly $50,000,000 be set aside against the possibility they are wrong and therefore need to cover damages resulting from the suit & project delay.

Regardless, I think we've both said our piece here. I've clarified as best I can, as have you. I don't see much to be gained by going forward. I'll say only that I disagree with your assessment of the situation, but appreciate a dissenting point of to make me think more critically about the topic, and hope you can appreciate that my own opinions come from a place of honest opinion, not some partisan position (I don't fit the mold on either side, and am generally criticized by people on both sides when I don't reflexively support "the party line.) So, thanks for a thought provoking thread.

<comment><USER16> >> As for someone like Mattis

But the book in question _wasn't by Mattis_. :-)

>> expressed animosity towards Amazon & Jeff Bezos

And Bezos "expressed animosity" towards Trump. Are you suggesting that WaPo doesn't have editorial independence now? Which I'm pretty sure it does not, but it might be news to you if you follow your own logic where "expressing animosity" equates to "interference".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Microsoft will win this, is what my gut feeling says. And Amazon may be forced to pay compensation by the people in the process.

How about they actually prove they can focus on privacy and be a good implementor for the government? I doubt if they will ever do that. That's the concern.

</comment><comment><USER3> "In December, Amazon filed a challenge to the deal in federal court, saying that Mr. Trump used "improper pressure" on the Pentagon at its expense."

"Microsoft said Amazon "only provided the speculation of bias, with nothing approaching the 'hard facts' necessary" to demand them."

He may have applied improper pressure but I wasn't able to find where they presented any evidence to support this accusation. Was there any evidence or is the point of the court process to get some?

<comment><USER20> This lawsuit is an effort to get hard evidence. This is just an injunction while they sort out how to go forward and what paperwork/depositions to grant Amazon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Look, I understand that in a perfect world, all contracts would be neutral and fair. But we live in a decidedly imperfect world, full of bribes, vendettas, and good ole boy clubs.

We live in an age where you can be fired for expressing an opinion or character that doesn't align with your employer on social media.

Imagine making a new twitter account in your own name, and doing nothing but insulting your company. What do you expect to happen? That's not far from the case here. Are we more sympathetic because the players are rich?

Bezos bought a company that, for better or worse, constantly antagonizes the current government administration. Why is he shocked that his alt account didn't get a contract from them?

</comment><comment><USER22> I used to work for a defense contractor and was involved in several proposals. A similar situation happened to us. RFP was written in a way that strongly favored our product. The proposal team thought we were the only contractor that could deliver the requirements and we priced it to reflect that. We lost to a competitor we didn't even anticipate (a new entry into the space) and who probably massively underbid us.

I don't know anything about Amazon's proposal or if Trump has anything to do with the decision, but I imagine they may have believed all the hype and not priced it as competitively as they should. Or perhaps they misjudged the importance of certain requirements or Microsoft's capabilities. Regardless, I imagine this was a wake up call at Amazon.

Oh yeah, that contract we lost - we protested it and ended up getting some work out of it after all.

</comment><comment><USER23> Seems a bit pointless.

Even if Amazon wins there will likely be a re-bid process. At which point they will simply select Microsoft again. As we've seen with the DOJ Trump can exert significant influence without having to actually tell them what to do.

<comment><USER24> These large proposals can take many years to award. There could very likely be a new administration by that time.

See the KC-X tanker program as an example:

01/2007 - RFP comes out

02/2008 - Northrop Grumman wins

03/2008 - Boeing successfully protests

08/2008 - Revised RFP comes out, then cancelled

09/2009 - Third RFP comes out

02/2011 - Boeing wins

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC-X#Initial_competition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC-X#Initial_competition)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> short MS

<comment><USER26> Stop. Full stop...

This contract would add about $250m in additional each quarter. Their last Q's revenue was somewhere in the neighborhood of $33b.

Just stop with your nonsense.

<comment><USER27> Obviously getting the JEDI contract has implications for Azure/Microsoft far, far beyond the monetary value of the contract itself.

<comment><USER28> Agreed, and the majority of the positive press and Azure being seen as being a more then viable alternative has already been done.

AWS won't be able to revert that change in public perception that Azure has grown up.

That's also the reason I don't understand Amazon fighting the decision, because it just makes them look immature now. Better to move on and focus on providing customer value, keep innovating and build better tech.

And its very likely MS will win this and get another ego boost over AWS.

<comment><USER29> The public perception that Azure is a viable alternative to AWS has been secure long before the JEDI contract was awarded.

> That's also the reason I don't understand Amazon fighting the decision, > because it just makes them look immature now.

In a big enough procurement, if you dig deep enough, there is _always_ some impropriety that you can find, that may get you anything from a small payout to the contract being reversed. It's not a matter of maturity, or technical merits - it's a matter of politics and money.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> This is insane. Why does the government award a $2b contract to buy a $20m product. This is the joke of privatization.

<comment><USER31> That the government is a poor spender and over pays is a joke of privatization? please elaborate because it seems to me that it is the joke of government purchasing: gov spends more than it takes in by people who are never in office long enough for the bill to come due.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> My hunch is that Amazon is desperate for this because of looming regulations. We regularly see companies that cozy up to the government get special treatment.</comment>


How salad became a major source of food poisoning in the US - <AUTHOR> https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/4/26/17282378/romaine-lettuce-recall-ecoli-yuma <comment><USER2> Keep things in perspective though.

That article mentions 3,000 people per year die from food poisoning, and leafy vegetables are the cause of 1/4 of that, or 750 deaths/year.

However, heart disease alone causes 610,000 deaths per year ([https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/facts.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/facts.htm)). "Individuals who ate more than 5 servings of fruits and vegetables per had roughly a 20 percent lower risk of coronary heart disease" ([https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should- you...](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you- eat/vegetables-and-fruits/)). 20% of 610,000 = 122,000/year. That the heart disease risk reduction is 162x more significant than the food poisoning risk increase, should be more than enough to outweigh the risk of food poisoning.

However, and less clear, there is also evidence that leafy green vegetables protect against diabetes, cancer, dementia, and Alzheimer's.

<comment><USER3> Just keep in mind that epidemiology is fundamentally not able to tell you anything about positive causation.

In this case, individuals who eat more that 5 servings of fruits and vegetables probably also exhibit a whole host of behaviors that contribute to this outcome. Essentially, they are not a representative sample of the population at large, but rather a sub-group who is "healthful" in a whole bunch of ways.

<comment><USER2> I fully concede this (and jacobolus's) point. I'm not a health researcher either, so don't take my word for any of this.

Building a double-blind clinical trial regarding changing people's diets over their lifetime and observing cardiovascular mortality is very hard.

Some clinical studies do exist, but they are usually looking over shorter terms and at heart disease risk factors rather than mortality. These show similar results:

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16368299](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16368299) \- Systolic blood pressure decreased from 144 (SE +/\- 1.1) to 134 mm Hg (SE +/\- 2, P < .001), and diastolic blood pressure decreased from 87.4 (SE +/\- 1.2) to 83.4 mm Hg (SE +/\- 1.2, P < .05) from tomato extract.

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26328470](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26328470) \- In the subgroup of hypertensives, quercetin (onion skin extract) decreased 24 h systolic BP by -3·6 mmHg (P=0·022) when compared with placebo (mean treatment difference, -3·9 mmHg; P=0·049).

Many of the epidemiological studies also adjust for many of the features that you might look for. For example [https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/30/1/130/619054](https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/30/1/130/619054) adjusts for "age, randomized treatment, body mass index (BMI), smoking, alcohol intake, physical activity, history of diabetes, history of hypertension, history of high cholesterol, and use of multivitamins" and comes to the same conclusion.

<comment><USER3> > Building a double-blind clinical trial regarding changing people's diets > over their lifetime and observing cardiovascular mortality is very hard.

But it is the _only_ diet research that can actually generate knowledge.

The studies you cite are nice and all, but the first two are for studies that measured outcomes after 6-8 _weeks_. If you assume an average lifespan of 70 years, the longest study represented ~1/450th of a human lifespan. And, as you mention, they only measure what we think are valid indicators, not actual outcomes! And the third study may control for all of the things you mention, but it doesn't control for the other foods the study participants ate!

Really the only piece of information that you need to know regarding red meat is that public health messaging for the last _50 years_ has been that people should limit red meat intake. And it was successful. According to this[0], red meat consumption has decreased from 133lbs per person in 1965 to 107lbs per person in 2016. But it is during this exact same time period that the obesity epidemic came into existence. So, perhaps red meat is marginally bad for you, but it is almost certainly not cause of all of the various afflictions that we think are caused in some way by our diets.

[0]: [https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/about-the- industry/st...](https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/about-the- industry/statistics/per-capita-consumption-of-poultry-and-livestock-1965-to- estimated-2012-in-pounds/)

<comment><USER2> > But it is the only diet research that can actually generate knowledge.

> The studies you cite are nice and all, but the first two are for studies > that measured outcomes after 6-8 weeks. If you assume an average lifespan of > 70 years, the longest study represented ~1/450th of a human lifespan. And, > as you mention, they only measure what we think are valid indicators, not > actual outcomes! And the third study may control for all of the things you > mention, but it doesn't control for the other foods the study participants > ate!

I fully agree with everything you wrote about the science here.

However, many of the epidemiological studies are over very large populations and time periods, so it's not as though the body of evidence consists of a 6-8 week studies. And honestly the fact that the effects are so strong in such a short period of time strengthen the argument in some ways.

> Really the only piece of information that you need to know regarding red > meat is that public health messaging for the last 50 years has been that > people should limit red meat intake. And it was successful. According to > this, red meat consumption has decreased from 133lbs per person in 1965 to > 107lbs per person in 2016. But it is during this exact same time period that > the obesity epidemic came into existence. So, perhaps red meat is marginally > bad for you, but it is almost certainly not cause of all of the various > afflictions that we think are caused in some way by our diets.

Interesting response. I never claimed that meat was bad, only that leafy vegetables were good. I find it almost incredible that your argument against the nutritional value of leafy vegetables is that there aren't enough double blind clinical trials, and then your defense of red meat uses a time correlation that doesn't adjust for any confounding variables at all. It also cites a document from an meat industry group. If you look at USDA numbers ([https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-availability- per...](https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-availability-per-capita- data-system/interactive-charts-and-highlights/)), overall meat consumption has been consistently and slowly rising, however beef is being replaced with chicken, so yes _red_ meat consumption is declining.

<comment><USER3> > However, many of the epidemiological studies are over very large populations > and time periods, so it's not as though the body of evidence consists of a > 6-8 week studies. And honestly the fact that the effects are so strong in > such a short period of time strengthen the argument in some ways.

The studies all tell us nothing about the long term implications of diet. The long study tells us nothing because it is purely correlational. The short studies tell us nothing because they are not measuring the thing we care about (long term health outcomes). You can't somehow generate knowledge by combining two types of studies which each are incapable of generating knowledge about the thing we care about.

> I never claimed that meat was bad, only that leafy vegetables were good.

Yeah, I clearly was hallucinating. Nowhere did you mention red meat. And yet I rambled on about it for a paragraph. :-) Sorry!

But:

> I find it almost incredible that your argument against the nutritional value > of leafy vegetables is that there aren't enough double blind clinical > trials, and then your defense of red meat uses a time correlation that > doesn't adjust for any confounding variables at all.

That's because correlation cannot demonstrate causation, but it can demonstrate the lack of causation. It's all about confounding variables, as you point out. If you have two trend lines which correlate, there can always be a third, unmeasured variable which is actually causing the two measured variables. However, if you have trend lines which do not correlate, then the only way they can be related is by some extremely convoluted chain of causation. Which, I guess, is technically possible, but rapidly approaches 0 probability.

In other words, epidemiology is very useful for narrowing the possibly explanations for some phenomena, and it can suggest places where we should continue focusing our attention, but it can't actually tell us if we've found the right culprit.

<comment><USER4> Correlation cannot demonstrate lack of causation, only lack of linear dose response. (Incl. Multivariate)

Any nonlinear enough process will show with wrong low correlations.

Suppose the process is stepwise - silly sample hypothesis, eating over x grams meat a day is harmful. It is binary. Correlation is meaningless for such a process. You have to use significantly more powerful statistic tools. Logistic regression will somewhat work for such a process for instance if the boundary is somewhat fuzzy. (You can put exact mathematical bound on how fuzzy.)

To extend it for multivariate analysis you get to use such complex tools as nonlinear ICA. (Instead of CCA and PCA for linear.)

<comment><USER3> I'm using the wrong terminology, I'm certain, but what I'm getting at is that observational (which is probably what I mean instead of correlational) studies can negate a hypothesis, but they can never prove one. So, one hypothesis is that red meat consumption leads to heart disease. If the data shows the trend lines of heart disease and red meat consumption going in opposite directions, then you know your hypothesis is wrong. But if the trend lines are going in the same direction, the hypothesis hasn't been proven; all you know is that it is a _potential_ explanation.

Now, it may be that there is a different relationship, like the one that you mention: that eating more than X grams per day is harmful. The data from an observational study can negate this hypothesis (if there is no threshold pattern evident in the data), but it cannot prove the hypothesis. All it can do, at best, is let you know that the hypothesis _might_ be true.

<comment><USER4> Observational studies can be post- interventional and in this case can prove or not a hypothesis that a certain widespread intervention was successful.

This is very rare and hard to run, so more direct interventional short term studies are used more often.

Suppose a certain country believed an observational study pointing that eating more than certain amount of sugar is harmful (suppose backed by other evidence). They instated hard tax and limit on sugar in foods as an intervention. After some time a big observational study is ran and it is assessed if the intervention brought results.

This is precisely what observational studies (follow up) should do. Not really try to find hypotheses - these need more direct evidence.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, but if there is an intervention, then it is not purely an observational study. The big problem with nutrition science is that most of the long term studies are purely observational. There is no intervention at all. All they are measuring is how certain observed measurements correlate (or not) with other observed measurements. These are the types of studies I'm talking about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Hydroponic lettuce is simply the easiest thing I've grown. I'm surprised I don't see it mentioned more often. I bought an Agrobrite 4 bulb T5 light on Amazon that runs 216watts. The math works out to $15/month if running 16 hours a day. It takes about 2-3 weeks for the 9 seeds to start, but I was swimming in lettuce in no time. It tastes excellent too. Search for Jeb Gardner on youtube for some entertaining lettuce videos grown in an office environment.

<comment><USER6> Seems like Mesculan type greens would work well with that setup. Can harvest in a little over a month (well outdoors, I don't know with that light but maybe similar).

It's mixed type greens, mustards, lettuce etc. Cut when leaves are about the size of the business part of a spoon. Cut it so it comes back and you can get 3 or 4 cuttings per planting. Plant it successively (i.e every week or two plant another section) so it's constantly available.

Faster to harvest, more sustained harvest, and it tastes better than lettuce because you can put little greens like collards and arugula in the mix. Indoors you'd avoid the insect troubles that plague these tiny greens outside as well.

<comment><USER7> The other cool thing about this is that you can let one go to seed and you will be swimming in seeds as well (though it's tricky to manage the light height because the flower stalk is quite tall).

Hydroponics are not just great for food, they are awesome for people suffering from lack of light exposure in winter months. When I lived in Canada, I used to put a 4 foot long plant stand with fluorescent daylight bulbs along each wall of my apartment. I can't remember how long I had the light timer set for (probably 14 hours). It's incredible the difference. These days you can get creative with various LED solutions and probably do even better.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> One interesting thing ive noticed about chinese culture are the heuristics around cleanliness. Vegetables are always washed vigorously and cooked. Salads and sandwiches and other raw-like things are rather disliked. Hands are washed after petting dogs/cats. Slippers always worn around the house. Dislike of carpets. Windows opened every morning for fresh air. Other random stuff.

The safety heuristics cant be delegated to a larger system as one doesn't exists so individual households maintain this knowledge and many of them turn into habitual preference.

<comment><USER9> I remember watching TV growing up... Full house or whatever family sitcom. The kids laid the bed with their shoes on, school clothes. My mom comments on how dirty that is.

Additionaly it seems like only textbook are Americans using paper towels to open bathroom doors after washing their hands. My mom instilled that at a young age (I'm 36 now). Now it irritates me to see a Dyson hand dryer, and have to open the bathroom door by pulling it.

<comment><USER10> From a European perspective, I so often notice this in American movies. Everybody constantly with shoes in beds an sofas, apparently without a thought. Always grosses me out - it simply would not ever _occur_ to me to put my shoes on furniture.

<comment><USER11> Even when I'm completely black out, shitfaced drunk, I still manage to pull my shoes off before falling onto my bed.

The one time I couldn't manage to get my boots off, I just sort of awkwardly slept with my legs hanging over the edge of the bed.

<comment><USER12> But you wore them right up to your bed, not taking them off at the door? :O

<comment><USER11> I have wooden floors, so I'm not too concerned about wearing shoes inside.

<comment><USER13> This chain has made me curious; has there been any study of the negative health consequences of people's behavior with shoes within their living space? I'm not aware of any health concerns (major or minor) over such a thing.

For example, if such things were a worry then I'd be more concerned over my dog's bare paws while outside and his nonchalant attitude of not wiping them as he comes inside.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> That's it - I'm going back to outsourcing all of my leafy greens consumption. I'll let the cattle and swine eat it for me, then I'll eat them!

<comment><USER15> Digestion as a Service.

<comment><USER16> Uber for Digestion

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Not to be graphic here, but when they are picking lettuce _where_ the portable bathroom is - is important. These guys are pushed for time -- and if the potty is too far away...

Also, to deal with this, some farms have movable portable bathrooms on wheels that hover over the produce or in between and follow the group, I am sure they leak.

[https://toddbigelow.photoshelter.com/image/I0000BLSwooXCRac](https://toddbigelow.photoshelter.com/image/I0000BLSwooXCRac)

<comment><USER18> This is an important part of the equation, and it's unfortunate that the article doesn't go into sufficient detail about the actual mechanisms by which the infection can happen. If anything, the article's mentions of "people are simply eating more fresh produce these days" and "some contamination can still slip through" foster an attitude of helplessness, as if this is a new normal we need to get used to.

Poor living and working conditions for migrant farmworkers is a contributing factor to outbreaks like this. Workers who are present illegally or are otherwise marginalized and taken advantage of, even if they are part of legal guest-worker programs, suffer conditions where poor housing facilities or the need to work under great time pressures leads to inadequate sanitation.

A 2017 story [0] illustrates this:

>Kristina Espinoza, a labor department investigator who recently visited the farm, described a "makeshift labor camp" that was "dangerous" and "unsanitary," according to court documents. [...] Gonzalez had workers shower in nine stalls inside a cargo container; there was no functional sewage system, so wastewater accumulated underneath the container, Espinoza said. The electrical cord used to light the facility was exposed to standing water, posing a risk of electrocution, according to court documents. The workers shared one toilet in the trailer and had access to port-a-potties.

[0] [http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-farmworker- abuse-20170...](http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-farmworker- abuse-20170510-story.html)

<comment><USER19> Not only that, but farmers need to sterilize sewage before using it as fertilizer. Some will claim they do this, and then pocket the difference.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> >Instead of shipping heads of lettuce or large carrot sticks that people wash, we chop them and mix them up in processing, then package them in plastic bags. In that process, Marler said, "The bacteria has a chance to grow. And a lot of people get sick."

This confirms what I had always been suspicious of. Those prepackaged veggies sitting in plastic bags are just a few degrees of temperature away from being perfect bacterial breeding grounds. Don't ever buy that crap.

<comment><USER21> Or... rinse it before you eat it.

Just because it's already chopped and in a bag doesn't mean it suddenly doesn't need rinsing.

If I recall, not rinsing pre-chopped lettuce was one of the things pointed out to Chipotle after their recent debacle, that may have helped avoid making customers sick.

<comment><USER22> E coli don't rinse off; they form a biofilm with significant adhesion. You have to cook them to kill them.

<comment><USER23> Once I found out about biofilms from the cat fountain I built from NSF silver infused antimicrobial tubing, I never can look at plumbing piping the same. Biofilm formed even on the parts that should have been impervious. Even areas where water is constantly running and splashing. First the minerals deposit on the antimicrobial surfaces, and then the bacteria attach and film.

I had always thought that constant high pressure water usage would flush whatever crap is in a pipe. Preventing any real contamination. Well...a quick google search shows that biofilm on residential water pipes is a huge problem. High pressure activity does not eliminate biofilm...of course stagnant water is more of an issue...

<comment><USER24> You probably don't want to know how we filter our water then [1]:

"Slow sand filters work through the formation of a gelatinous layer (or biofilm) called the hypogeal layer or Schmutzdecke in the top few millimetres of the fine sand layer."

Treating all bacteria as the enemy is really solving the wrong problem — the question is not how to kill all the bacteria (which is impossible, from almost thermodynamic considerations (if there is free energy and the ability for life colonize it, then there will be life)), but how to manage the bacteria so we favor nonpathogenic or useful species and help them outcompete the 'bad' bacteria.

Incidentally, this is the same strategy our own bodies use—the immune system spends enormous amounts of effort discriminating between commensal/mutual and pathogenic species, and favoring the former as much trying to outright kill the latter.

We need to pick the right analogies. How to herd, tame, and recruit allies, not just how to fight and kill.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_sand_filter#Method_of_ope...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_sand_filter#Method_of_operation)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I don't know why people in this thread are asking how you avoid this. You don't have to. It's not a huge amount. Things have risks, and that's OK.

</comment><comment><USER26> If anyone has even a passing interest in food safety from a scientific or academic perspective, the Food Safety Talk podcast is fantastic. The lawyer quoted in the article is friends with the two hosts.

[http://foodsafetytalk.com/](http://foodsafetytalk.com/)

</comment><comment><USER27> So what can the salad eater do to be safe?

Some pathogens can't be washed off. Others can if you scrub, but not if you rinse.

If you buy the whole head, pathogens can hide in the core. And if you buy pre- cut bagged salad, how can you wash that?

What if you drench the salad in vinegar before eating it, will that kill E. coli O157:H7?

<comment><USER28> What I've heard (and I'm only citing unverified word of mouth) is that E.Coli is within the leaf itself, it comes from the water it used. You cannot wash it off or clean it. An infected head of lettuce is garbage.

<comment><USER27> Ugh.

[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/011406710037678...](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01140671003767834)

Skip down to the section on "Internalization of bacteria into deeper plant tissues"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Not mentioned is that organic farming doesn't allow irradiation which would kill e-coli. Everybody looks for organic foods thinking they are better but the truth is organic doesn't mean either.

<comment><USER30> In what way would irradiation make a food not-organic? I believe you, it seems stupid enough to be true.

<comment><USER31> USDA rules aside, how would you define "organic". It's a rather ... synthetic concept to begin with.

<comment><USER22> Produced using processes that we've tested for centuries. We're not sure they work, but we're sure they're not ridiculously dangerous. Contrast glyphosate.

<comment><USER32> >Produced using processes that we've tested for centuries. We're not sure they work, but we're sure they're not ridiculously dangerous.

There's a bunch of stuff that we "tested for centuries" and thought were safe... until they weren't. see: lead, smoking, asbestos, cured meats.

<comment><USER33> You can still buy all of these things if you want. They come with the appropriate labeling. I'm sorry if your concern is purely linguistic, but "organic" isn't a reserved word. Benzol is organic too. Organic laws are a thing too. Different kinds of organic.

Some people want to eat the same way people ate for millennia. Good for them. It's one of the benefits of living in a free market society. People have mistakenly thought a lot of things to be safe or dangerous, but if something has been working for thousands of years, even imperfectly, it carries a guarantee nobody else can provide.

Finally I don't understand why people are so angry at organic produce. I rarely buy it too, but what's the big deal? It sounds like they need to prove something. I don't get it.

<comment><USER32> >but if something has been working for thousands of years, even imperfectly, it carries a guarantee nobody else can provide.

my point is that the guarantee is a very weak one, and one based on tradition rather than facts. something being used for thousands of years merely means it doesn't cause harm in small enough timescales so that people can associate it with the effects. see: smoking, which is dangerously poisonous, but the effects are on such long timescales that its negative effects are dissociated from it.

>Finally I don't understand why people are so angry at organic produce. I rarely buy it too, but what's the big deal? It sounds like they need to prove something. I don't get it.

I guess the anger is directed to both the people that are gullible enough to buy it and continue to perpetuate the myth that it's somehow better, and the companies pushing organic produce (by exploiting said ignorance, and perpetuating said ignorance as a way to sell high margin produce)

<comment><USER33> >my point is that the guarantee is a very weak one, and one based on tradition rather than facts.

This is incredibly wrong. The guarantee is based 100% on facts. This is literally the only thing it's based on. No assumptions about mechanisms and correlations. Just facts.

You then proceed to explain how if something can bypass this method of testing it's only causing mild, low-level symptoms on large timescales. This is a much better guarantee than a paper published on nature. For me at least, because this is an opinion. You're free to be wrong, just as I am. Time shows who's gullible and who's not.

<comment><USER32> >This is incredibly wrong. The guarantee is based 100% on facts. This is literally the only thing it's based on. No assumptions about mechanisms and correlations. Just facts.

You're throwing around the word "fact" a little too liberally. "people did _x_ for thousands of years" is a fact, but it's not a guarantee of safety. " _x_ is safe because people used it for thousands of years" is a guarantee of safety based on your opinion, but it's not a fact.

>You then proceed to explain how if something can bypass this method of testing it's only causing mild, low-level symptoms on large timescales. This is a much better guarantee than a paper published on nature.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you accepting that harmful substances that cause mild, low-level symptoms can "fly under the radar" of "the test of time"? Or are you saying that the fact something is used for a long time is automatically a better proof of safety to you than a study published in nature?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> > Leafy vegetables were also the second most common cause of food poisoning- > related hospitalizations.

I never quite got to like lettuce. I don't know why people like it. It just doesn't have much taste, its leaves are too big, so have to shove them in awkwardly.

I'd rather have a salad with chopped ripe tomatoes, onions / chives, cucumbers, cabbage, etc. Even with those, I often wonder if people don't eat more veggies because American veggies from grocery store taste like plastic. So eating them is a chore, because well, it's "healthy" but not because they taste good.

<comment><USER35> Salad is an excuse to eat dressing.

<comment><USER36> Thats like saying french fries are an excuse for eating ketchup or other condiment. You would never eat/drink salad dressing by itself.

<comment><USER37> Have you ever had woodstock dressing, tho? Because I was just thinking to myself for the millionth time earlier today about how I would TOTALLY drink a glass of it/eat it as a soup if it wasn't, y'know, 100 calories for 2 tablespoons or whatever.

Sorry not sorry.

(Annie's makes it but it's almost impossible to find in stores, so here's the recipe if you're a fan of umami flavors: [https://recipes.sparkpeople.com/recipe- detail.asp?recipe=698...](https://recipes.sparkpeople.com/recipe- detail.asp?recipe=698649) )

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> The solution is clearly automation. Less humans, higher reliability processes, better tracking of environmental factors (humidity, temperature, etc.) and time in storage/transit. Faster and more modern supply chains with faster and higher reliability unit processes mean lower risks. The area is evolving: for example there has been a shift in Europe from chlorine washes to washing with ozone or ozonated water as well as increased use of UVC. It seems the rest of the world is yet to catch up. In the US [https://omidyar.com/](https://omidyar.com/) recently funded [http://safetraces.com/](http://safetraces.com/) ... we actually reached out to them this week but haven't heard back at all. I suspect high impact large scale improvements may be popularized in China with European technology.

</comment><comment><USER39> > _Marler also blames Americans' love of convenience for the problem. "Mass- > produced chopped, bagged lettuce that gets shipped around the US amplifies > the risk of poisoning," he said._

> _Instead of shipping heads of lettuce or large carrot sticks that people > wash, we chop them and mix them up in processing, then package them in > plastic bags. In that process, Marler said, "The bacteria has a chance to > grow. And a lot of people get sick."_

So it's not just the lettuce heads that get contaminated, it's how they are processed. This is reminiscent of the issues with large meat packing plants.

I've often wondered what effect that processing has on lettuce. Personally I prefer to buy a head and clean it myself because it tends to last a lot longer than a bag that's usually full of consendate and mashed onto the shelves by store employees, bruising half the contents...

<comment><USER40> That's something I think about when buying mushrooms as well; there's the chopped mushrooms, and then there's the whole mushrooms, and the former always looks kind of worse for ware so to speak, as if the chopping process transmits bacteria from the blades to the mushrooms.

I buy the whole mushrooms for that reason and simply because they're cheaper.

<comment><USER41> It's less bacteria and more general oxidation. They're not more dangerous, just less pretty (also likely less nutritious since many nutrients are destroyed by oxidation)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Sounds like the main take-away from this is that you should stick to "whole" vegetables, and avoid bags of chopped and sliced veg.

</comment><comment><USER43> The reason vegetables are poisonous is because of the animal waste that is being used to grow plants. If there wasn't such a huge livestock industry, people wouldn't be using their excrement for fertilizer and our plants would be safer.

<comment><USER44> It's not animal waste. It's human waste.

<comment><USER45> Its both. Runoff from factory farms is a serious issue.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> In South Asian countries, veggies are cooked throughly and that has brought out some exciting dishes. Eating uncooked food is always a risk.

<comment><USER47> You can also steam them if you don't want the taste to fade away by boiling or frying. But I always appreciate a good curry.

<comment><USER48> Steaming salad ruins the texture, in my opinion.

<comment><USER47> Not salad. Broccoli, cauliflower, asparagus, peas, zuchini etc. Stuff that you don't normally put in your salad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Okay, so how do I lower my risks?

Should I stop buying pre-washed? Should I buy local?

I like my salads, how do I get it safely on my plate?

<comment><USER50> Don't treat pre-washed as pre-washed. Wash it again.

<comment><USER51> This is actually not recommended:

 _And while the C.D.C. recommends washing all produce with water, including heads of lettuce, it does not recommend washing other forms of bagged lettuce, which has already been washed before bagging. "Your chances of contaminating it in your kitchen" — with contaminants that may already be on your kitchen countertop, hands or elsewhere — "are actually higher than if you didn't wash the salad greens," notes Dr. Gieraltowski._

source: [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/19/well/eat/romaine- lettuce-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/19/well/eat/romaine-lettuce- salad-food-poisoning-e-coli.html)

<comment><USER50> That's interesting. I get the opposite answer from most of the people I know who work in food-borne infectious diseases.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> _We really haven't seen kale and some of the other greens [with contamination] problems, at least not yet_

Okay, so which green counts? All I eat are spinach, kale, arugula, bok choy and the likes. The article seems really lacking in details.

</comment><comment><USER52> What does 'coring lettuce' mean? Cutting out what we know as a head of lettuce?

Are they saying that once the e.coli is trapped it can start spreading inside the lettuce?

</comment><comment><USER53> I really wonder what's the problem. Either the factory or the restaurant washes the salad for you or you do it yourself.

Here in an European country I can buy pre-washed salad like sliced sugarloaf or lettuce. I toss this directly on my plate and chow away. It's more expensive, but it's convenient and probably safe. I trust the shop to sell me good quality.

<comment><USER54> I'm loving this whole debate. People have eaten unwashed food for millennia. Now all of a sudden our food is only safe to eat if it's been sterilised with radiation!?

<comment><USER55> True, but a millennia ago, you'd be lucky to make it to 30. I think we have higher standards by now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> It's notable that "fish and shellfish just 6 percent."

I suspect the reason is simple - we distrust shellfish preparation, and take extra care.

With salads ... I mean yesterday I tipped a bag of salad into a bowl, stuck some dressing on an ate it.

Either salad bag makers are going to go the extra mile with "Washed in frozen nitrogen by astronauts for your safety" or the industry is dead.

</comment><comment><USER57> Be curious how the US compares to Europe. We often ate packaged salads there for the convenience factor, so it's not like everyone is lovingly hand-washing their artisanal lettuce leaves ...

</comment><comment><USER58> 3000 victims/year?! When is the POTUS addressing the Nation to launch a War on Food? Someone must end this carnage of innocents at the hand of terrorist salads!

</comment><comment><USER59> Why do people even eat salad (lettuce)? It tastes awful unless you drown it in sauce...

</comment><comment><USER60> tl;dr— people eat more salads now.

</comment><comment><USER61> tl;dr from 3rd section: salad became a major source of food in the US.

</comment><comment><USER62> Pass on lettuce and try lacinato kale

</comment><comment><USER63> I think most citizens would support a blanket fine of $1 million for every CDC-verified victim. It would help the victims and possibly eliminate the problem.</comment>


Fasciculations in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis - <AUTHOR> https://padiracinnovation.org/News/2020/09/fasciculations-in-amyotrophic-lateral-sclerosis <comment><USER2> Hum... ok, let me digress...

If there is an observable change in nerve terminals by proliferation, and neuron grow ratio is slow but (I assume) constant and known, could we "go back" in time and estimate an interval of time when the fasciculation started?

(Could support/reject the theory of an previous event that triggered the disease like a neurotoxic poison or so)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your post,

Yes I suppose it is possible in theory, but as in the first phase described in the article, surviving motor units are taking in charge junctions of the dying motor units, so the disease is invisible.

There are many theories about what causes ALS, most are borrowed from other diseases and some may reflect our thinking processes: We need a single cause for our comfort. But there may be no single cause of ALS, and perhaps no causal chain at all.

Actually it could be simply that when an upper motor neuron is stressed the disease is named ALS, when it is a neuron in substancia nigra it is called Parkinson, and when it is in the cingulate gyrus (and mostly in lobes) we call it Alzheimer.

But actually it is a story about neurons that are dying in the brain.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Thank you for bringing HN community's awareness about SLA.

My mum has been struggling with SLA since January and now at an advanced stage. As a reminder, there is currently no treatment and patients are told there is no revert back and that what's gone will always be.

In addition to express a second time my gratitude to anyone working on the topic or just bringing public awareness about it, I wanted to mention a few things about the current situation for people suffering from that or any severe disease/rare disease potentially:

\- Covid is making everything extremely challenging. Hospitals and doctors seem to be overwhelmed and communication/examination is very slow or difficult. I really hope that, despite the risks and consequences of the pandemic, we don't forget other diseases are still here and people are suffering from them.

\- She lives in France and not in a metropolitan area (somewhat close to Paris). When the only hospital able to receive people affected with the disease is not responsive, there is no alternative. We wish some private, specialized hospitals or medical center could assist her when needed.

\- We have very little to none information about the current research and trials about the disease. We would be very grateful from any good source of information (for patients and helpers) - thanks to this discussion, Jean- Pierre I have just bought your book which I think will help with this point.

\- ALS is extremely distressing and devastating for both the people sick, but also helpers and family. It mentally affects in ways we couldn't imagine before and I wish psychological support wouldn't be opt-in.

\- Admin work around the disease is mind boggling. Luckily my dad has been able to retire and exhaust himself between personal care, day and night, and admin non sense. It really shouldn't be.

We are very left alone when facing the disease and patients don't know where to look. It has been a reminder to be grateful for the moments we are able to live with our loved ones.

Additionally, I have a solid dev background and if there is any project on the topic I could join and help to improve the research or any of the pain points mentioned above, please contact me.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thierry,

Thanks for your kind post.

I am sorry that your mother has SLA. Keep hope, not all ALS cases are similar, some are less frightening than the textbook ALS.

In France as in other countries there are ALS centers or ALS clinics. I hope that your mother's neurologist discussed about exams at the most convenient SLA center [0 -1]. Unfortunately and as recounted by "Agence Régional de Santé", patients' outcome is better in "CHU" than in other French hospitals.

At the moment there are two drugs, Rilutek and Edaravone. Make sure your mother got also Edaravone, it was not prescribed to my uncle. And as Herodotus38 told in another thread there are encouraging results from a clinical trial about AMX0035, a combo of two common drugs.

In a few months we will have the results about Arimoclomol from which I expect really good news, and also about Nurown, a new kind of therapy.

All those drugs do not heal but at least they buy time.

Jean-Pierre

[0] [https://portail-sla.fr/liste-centres-labellises/](https://portail- sla.fr/liste-centres-labellises/)

[1] [https://www.encals.eu/centres/](https://www.encals.eu/centres/)

<comment><USER3> Thank you Jean-Pierre for taking the time to answer.

She is followed by the CRC SLA Paris/Salpêtrière. The center has been closed march-june as it was given to Covid patients and since then they seem to be struggling.

She's been put on Riluzone, she asked for other drugs but she got told there is none - we have never heard of Edaravone before, thanks for advising and we will look into it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Interesting article, the direct link to the paper is: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7425399/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7425399/)

ALS is a difficult disease, both to detect early and obviously to treat. This paper is looking for a biomarker to try and detect it earlier and as a way of measuring the course of the disease. I watched my grandfather fade away from it, thankfully after a full life, so it's something I've experienced and wondered about

As a tangent, there was a recent trial of a new therapeutic agent with modest benefit published in the NEJM. [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1916945](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1916945)

And accompanying editorial: [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2021144?query=rec...](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2021144?query=recirc_curatedRelated_article)

Both are paywalled (the abstract is available in the first) unless you subscribe to NEJM or know your way around these kinds of things.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for this post.

I looked at your website [0], those two cancer survival calculators are very interesting. While not being trained in biology or medicine, I did something a bit similar for ALS [1].

Jean-Pierre

[0] [https://www.predictsurvival.com/](https://www.predictsurvival.com/)

[1] [https://padiracinnovation.org/en/ALS/](https://padiracinnovation.org/en/ALS/)

<comment><USER4> Thanks, yeah what our site does is basically let you quickly fill out a bunch of models that have been validated to give predictions for advanced cancer where the eventual outcome is more or less certain but to help people best use the time they have left it can help to get a general sense of how much time. Nothing is perfect but if they all seem to agree it can help people plan. It's something that helps me when patients or family members want to know. I like to program as a hobby so it's fun that way too to build things.

I'm glad to see others doing work to bridge the gap between the research and things patients and clinicians can use.

How are you deciding which areas of medicine to focus on?

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry if I misunderstand you, English is not my native tongue. I have no intention to study medicine as I am a retired engineer. However I followed a master class in bioinformatics at a local university and several Coursera classes (Neuroscience and system biology).

ALS is specially interesting for me as two people in my step family died of ALS. So there is a suspicion of familial ALS but nobody decided to be tested and under French laws genetic testing for ALS is a complicated process.

Ideally I would like to design a computational model of ALS. I tried a few years ago [0], before I realized the complexity of the disease.

In the mean time I try to improve public ALS understanding by publishing roughly every 4 days an article about a scientific publication.

[0] [https://github.com/Hjertesvikt/ALS_model](https://github.com/Hjertesvikt/ALS_model)

<comment><USER4> I admire your commitment trying to tackle this, especially trying to come up with a model for the disease. There needs to be more intersection of medicine with engineers to advance things for patients.

John-Patrick, a fellow JP</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Do you use CVS with your web project? How exactly? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> We use a build machine. ;)

Really, it's the best way to deal with releases. People develop in their own branches of the code, and them when features are ready, we merge back into the Trunk.

We have a machine (actually a VM) check the code for revisions, and when there is a checkin, it downloads it from svn (cvs should be similar), and then builds, and uploads.

You could do jUnit tests, etc at the same point, to ensure that everything is in sync.

It's not exactly identical, but take a look at <http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000023.html>

Joel points out some good reasons why build machines can really help.

-Colin

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, and the article is great. With many dynamic/VM languages though you usually don't need a build server, but only some sort of a testing server.

And I think uploading to a production web server should be made by a human operator rather than automatically, once the team makes sure the update works.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> These are the options that come to my mind:

(1) Your htdocs directory is a CVS directory and you sync your site (cvs up) right there, under htdocs. Development/testing can be done elsewhere.

(2) CVS+FTP: you upload your files to htdocs manually; your local copy of the site is in sync with CVS. How about concurrent development? There should be only one "uploader" operator then.

(3) You don't have a local copy, everything is on the server (is this possible? where is the testing site?).

<comment><USER3> +1 all the Subversion comments - I would never use CVS for new development nowadays.

Anyways, your question is really about directory layouts, so here's what I do:

I have everything in SVN, under a relatively standard webapp directory structure (eg. /src for dynamic code, /static for static content, /i18n for localization files). My webroot is set to /home/www, with one directory per virtual host. Inside these directories are symlinks _only_. So I have /home/www/www.bootstrapacitor.com/static/images symlinked to /home/bootstrapacitor/svn/static/images, etc. For uploaded data, I have directories in /var/, so /home/www/www.bootstrapacitor.com/static/logos is symlinked to /var/bootstrapacitor/logos.

When I bring new code over, I just do a subversion checkout, and everything is automatically in its proper place. Eventually I'm planning to write a webscript that'll auto-deploy to staging and production, ensure that any necessary symlinks are in place, and check for database compatibility, but I haven't gotten around to that yet. I guess in the real long term I'll be ditching all webserver filestorage for a distributed filesystem like Mogile or Akamai, but that's way off in the future.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the insight, I never thought of symlinks on the production server.

My question though was whether my entire webroot should be a CVS check-out directory or it should be uploaded from, say, a build machine. Both ways look Ok, but there may be some advantages of one of these methods that I'm not aware of. That was my question.

I always used the upload scheme, which worked fine when I was alone or with an ultra-small team. For the upload method though there should be only one "uploader", and with small teams it's usually the team leader.

<comment><USER3> There's no practical difference between checking out directly onto the CVS server vs. checking out locally and then uploading. You get the same files either way, it's just that they're sent via CVS one way and FTP the other. I suppose that you may not want your source code travelling in the clear over the web, but you should be able to use SFTP or tunnel CVS over SSH. I know you can do it with SVN - I connect to our SVN server via HTTPS.

If you do make your web root a CVS directory, be sure to block access to CVS metadata. I basically whitelist a few known extensions (.php, .html, .css, .js, .png, .jpeg, .gif, and .swf) and block access to anything else. You don't want to give random websurfers access to your CVSROOT.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sure, I forgot when was the last time I used an unencrypted protocol with production servers. CVS works through SSH, Dreamweaver now supports SFTP too.

One last question: does Subversion require a daemon on server-side or it can also work on the shell level like CVS?

<comment><USER3> UI-wise, svn is a shell command like CVS. Tortoise also has a Windows shell extension for it (like CVS), and I think it's supported out of the box in Eclipse and some other IDEs.

As for what's going on on the server - SVN has a bunch of possible access protocols. There's a native svnserve protocol that IIRC runs a daemon server and accepts connections over the net. There's a local filesystem module. There's also a WebDAV module that lets you access it through Apache. That's what I use: I have a subdomain setup that virtual-hosts through Apache, with Subversion piped through SSL and all other content blocked.

<comment><AUTHOR> By "shell-level" I meant a cvs client, be it GUI or a shell command, can connect to a server that doesn't run any special daemons except sshd or telnet. Essentially, the cvs client logs in via telnet or ssh as a user and works on the file-system level. The less components you have to run something the better, always.

I looked at their web site but still don't get it - does SVN _require_ something other than sshd/telnet on the remote server? But never mind, I'll figure it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I use subversion. Way easier than CVS. It was created by the guys that created CVS, but they realized the limitations of CVS, so they build something better and easier to use.

<comment><AUTHOR> Not familiar with Subversion yet, but ok, how about the 3 schemes I mentioned here?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Use subversion.

<comment><AUTHOR> Does Subversion solve the problem I'm talking about? (see my other comment nearby)

<comment><USER5> Just keep a repository as your production directory and update that to the preferred tag (say, your latest stable release). You can work off a branch of the trunk for development and testing.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Libvirt Networking Handbook - <AUTHOR> https://jamielinux.com/docs/libvirt-networking-handbook/ <comment><USER2> Thanks, nice overview of the options and I learned a few details I wasn't aware of yet.</comment>


Show HN: sql_firewall – SQL Firewall Extension for PostgreSQL - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/uptimejp/sql_firewall

<comment><USER2> This would be interesting from a query analytics perspective, but in terms of protection, i would personally not want to rely on something at the DB level. I would place a significant bet that this opinion is not unique to me, and it is why you do not find this built into xxSQL already.

If the 'attacker' has access to execute unsafe queries, that is a problem you should address much further up the ladder rather than by adding additional work / responsibility to your DB.

<comment><USER3> I see your comment is raising some controversy, but I tend to be in your camp on this one. I do a significant amount of development involving PostgreSQL and I don't think I would want to rely on this. I don't want to belittle the work in question, but as someone that can develop for the database, I have other, better techniques which can provide defensive in depth such as injection prevention while not relying on yet another third party extension. I can set up stored procedure barriers, view barriers, and more between the data in my database and outside access from application tiers. Some of these techniques provide injection prevention as a side effect and in those cases where I do have to consciously provide such protection, I can do so in a central point of access that can service distributed application tiers.

Having said that, there are many development shops that don't have strong database development talent on hand and really treat the database as some black box where to stuff data. In these instances, the database development centric approaches aren't feasible as practical matter. In these cases, I think such a tool can be helpful since at least it gives you the choke point. Where you'd run into issues in this scenario is that this tool requires a learning period to know which queries are good and which aren't. When an application developer changes code, I would imagine that you'd have to address the SQL firewall training as well; a developer that might not be as comfortable developing for the database might not consider that factor and you might get some wonky deployments. I might be missing something on this count only having scanned the docs a bit for this extension.

<comment><AUTHOR> > there are many development shops that don't have strong database development > talent on hand and really treat the database as some black box where to > stuff data.

Exactly. That's the reason why we still see lots of SQL injection attacks and incidents, and the reason why I have created this module. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Neat! I did something similar as a patch to PostgreSQL proper in May of this year and gave a talk on it at BerlinSides[1]. I like the fact that your solution is implemented as an extension rather than as a patch to the core, but I worry about the fact that the extension API only has access to the post- analysis parse trees. While I'm comfortable saying that all of the types of SQLi attack that I'm aware of will cause a difference in the raw parse tree, I'm not so sure about whether those differences will carry through into the results of the analysis.

Also, how much overhead does this add? My software is linear (albeit with a fairly large constant) in the size of the input query and constant in the number of queries in the training set.

[1] [https://github.com/thequux/postgres](https://github.com/thequux/postgres)

<comment><USER5> > but I worry about the fact that the extension API only has access to the > post-analysis parse trees.

I doubt that's a problem. Parse analysis won't remove information from the query - otherwise it'll not be available for the actual planning and execution ;)

<comment><AUTHOR> > Parse analysis won't remove information from the query

That's right.

PostgreSQL's parse analysis keeps a statement structure with token-by-token in the parse tree, and PostgreSQL's query jumbling calculates a hash value from the parse tree.

So, it's possible to find something strange in the statement(s) if someone attempts to cheat.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm assuming this works for prepared queries? That is, I should be able to execute a query which is the same, aside from different values for the bound parameters. Anyway, looks pretty cool :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, it works well with prepared queries. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Very clever. Hope to see a mysql port someday.

There's a big argument going on in php-dev right now if php should do some basic, obvious injection protection. Of course that is controversial.

<comment><USER8> This already exists in MySQL (enterprise) here: [https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.6/en/firewall.html](https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.6/en/firewall.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, I think every database product needs similar solution to be protected. :)</comment></comment></comment>


Cell Death, Anastatis and Resurrection - <AUTHOR> https://www.quantamagazine.org/cell-death-anastasis-and-resurrection-20190708/ <comment><USER2> >Slices of neural tissue were even able to conduct electrical signals (for ethical reasons, the researchers had generally suppressed that capacity in the animals' whole brains).

Stuff like this always makes me think of Dennis Potter's 'Cold Lazarus', I highly recommend that people watch it. Especially if working in the research end of neurology. [https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115140/](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115140/)

</comment><comment><USER3> even though they changed the title of the article, Anastasis=Resurrection</comment>


NYT OpEd: 60% of all students who score at least 750 on SAT are Asian-Americans - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/DLeonhardt/status/829783591035006988 <comment><USER2> I bet most high scorers come from at middle class or above, two parent families. Which happens to be most Asian-Americans.</comment>


JARD, a full-featured Ruby debugger with TUI - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/nguyenquangminh0711/ruby_jard <comment><USER2> This looks great! I love byebug/pry, but this looks like having the RubyMine debugger without having to use RubyMine. Would be great fit for my personal Rails projects, where I can't be arsed to pay for a RubyMine license.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah I like the idea of it too. I wouldn't want to have to use a particular IDE just to benefit from its debugger.</comment></comment>


Get any snapchat user's email (privacy leak) - <AUTHOR> Snapchat has a terrible privacy leak: If you know anyone's username, you can get their email address very easily.
I reported this to snapchat on Dec. 14th via their support email, and tweeted at them as well with no response. I sent a follow-up yesterday and still haven't heard back at all (not even an acknowledgement that they got the message).
I'm posting this in the hope that they fix the issue quickly.
How to get any snapchat user's email:
Start by logging out of the app (via settings)
1) Try to log in using the username whose email you would like to see. (use any password or no password)
2) After login fails, hit "reset password"
3) View the user's full email in the "password reset" dialog.
[edit: formatting]
Update: They just fixed it. Thanks, snapchat! <comment><USER2> Emailed them myself about this yesterday and also reached out via LinkedIn but not sure if they got it. You can see an example of what it does here: [https://www.dropbox.com/s/0p63pc89s5mhwe5/2013-01-02%2004.33...](https://www.dropbox.com/s/0p63pc89s5mhwe5/2013-01-02%2004.33.38.png)</comment>


New EU law prescribes website blocking in the name of consumer protection - <AUTHOR> https://juliareda.eu/2017/11/eu-website-blocking/ <comment><USER2> I think this is the relevant paragraph in the document (page 27 in [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/commissions/imco/inag/...](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/commissions/imco/inag/2017/07-11/IMCO_AG\(2017\)608048_EN.pdf)) linked from the article:

"3\. Competent authorities shall have at least the following enforcement powers:

(e) where no other effective means are available to bring about the cessation or the prohibition of the infringement including by requesting a third party or other public authority to implement such measures, in order to prevent the risk of serious harm to the collective interests of consumers:

\- to remove content or restrict access to an online interface or to order the explicit display of a warning to consumers when accessing the online interface;

\- to order a hosting service provider to remove, disable or restrict the access to an online interface; or

\- where appropriate, order domain registries or registrars to delete a fully qualified domain name and allow the competent authority concerned to register it;"

Seems similar to already existing measures against infringement of copyrights, except that thing about circumventing the courts, as Reda writes. Could this possibly mean websites such as Facebook could be blocked on the grounds of protecting consumers? The document defines 'widespread infringement' as

"(1) any act or omission contrary to Union laws that protect consumers' interests that harmed, harms, or is likely to harm the collective interests of consumers"

<comment><USER3> "risk of serious harm to the collective interests of consumers"

What a weaselly term. Bet they spent months trying to come up with something that didn't sound ridiculously biased/anti-consumer and that's the best they came up with. So obviously corrupt.

<comment><USER4> Do you have any evidence to support your claims of corruption or are you just loud mouthing based on what you feel is true?

I ask because the EU already has the ability to block sites infringe on copyrights.

To me this law is one of the reactions taken to the fact that foreign powers are using completely faked news papers and social media pages to influence out elections.

Right now consumers have very little ammunition against companies like Facebook. In the EU we have the right to everything they've gathered on us and to demand they delete it, but if they went full retard we couldn't legally block them.

Now we can.

<comment><USER5> As a European, I find _both_ the ability to force others to not distribute information, _and_ the ability for others to restrict my access certain types of sites to be a disgusting violation of free speech. I would expect this in a certain country in Asia, not in bloody Europe. Not only does it violate free speech, the new ability to perform website takedowns bypass proper law and order, by not leaving any ability to defend oneself in a proper court of law. A copyright infringement claim may be false, for example.

The ability to block content country-wide won't help reduce misinformation, which will always have ways to spread. What are we going to do, make it illegal to be _uneducated_ , have _unpopular opinions_ or be a _bad person_? Instead, this new power can easily be abused to stop the spread of real information, and unpopular (for example, government-opposing or religious) opinions.

The original ability to delete information is absurd in a similar way, but more limited, as only the subject can request it. Yet it still bypasses a proper trial, leaving it up to you and the service provider to conclude if the information was useful to the "general public". That's _definitely_ going to result in deletion of valuable information.

If you want to give people a way to defend themselves against harmful information, give them the right to amend it instead. Deleting it is _wrong_. If you want to avoid fake news like you state, educate. Controlling people by removing information is _wrong_.

<comment><USER6> >Not only does it violate free speech, the new ability to perform website takedowns bypass proper law and order, by not leaving any ability to defend oneself in a proper court of law.

The law explicitly states itself to be a last measure when a court of law is not an option (ie, overseas or anonymous parties)

It is a last resort by consumer protection agencies when they can't use a court or the other party is unwilling to cooperate with their jurisdiction. That is not equivalent to "bypass proper law and order". It's enforcing it. That is the job of the CPA's.

>disgusting violation of free speech.

Yes but in some parts of Europe there is no Free Speech. Germany for example has Free Opinions, which is a narrower field of speech.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This feels like a fight we're going to lose eventually.

Proposals come up.. most fail. I admire those responsible for putting up resistance. But.. some succeed. Others partially succeed. Limited to stopping pedophilia, piracy, nazis... Those are bridgeheads.

The direction is monodirectional. Eighty six proposals can fail, but if the eighty seventh succeeds that's just as good. There is no going back. Win, good. Lose, try again. That kind of dynamic guarantees a certain result.

<comment><USER8> > The direction is monodirectional

The obvious tautology aside, I wouldn't agree with this in case of the EU (the US, probably.) To me, the EU feels more like two steps forward, one step back - this being the step back but, for example, the GDPR being the two steps (or leaps) forward.

In any case, this regulation seems more misguided rather than malicious. It's targeting real problems that have to be tackled but it does have the fault of granting overly broad powers to the respective institutions.

<comment><USER9> >In any case, this regulation seems more misguided rather than malicious.

Intent isn't relevant at all - only result.

<comment><USER10> And relevant in how it'll be interpreted by the courts.

<comment><USER9> Which is a statement about the worthlessness of the legal system and not the worth of the legislation.

<comment><USER10> explain please?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Whenever I see news like this I think of John Gilmore's quote, "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." Perhaps decisions like this will hasten a move toward a decentralized and an encrypted Net where politicians and their corporate sponsors have far less influence.

<comment><USER12> Maybe but as long as they leave the mainstream porn sites alone I don't think it'll speed it up that much.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This has been going on for a while but all the way down to the web host it seems like companies are on board with this stuff. I've found that terms of service for web hosting companies generally includes a clause that specifies one of your users harassing another one of your users.

As if you can prevent that as a website owner. Especially since such a thing would be totally subjective to judge. What it means is they are purposefully giving themselves any reason at all to shut off your site.

I asked one of them about it, I got directed to their legal department. I asked the legal department about the clause and they told me to look for hosting elsewhere given what they assumed was the way in which I conduct myself on the internet.

There is no legal reason. They just want to control information.

</comment><comment><USER14> You people definetly should fight this.

We had something like this under "ban pedo" umbrella, now this thing filter anything that is against the party rule

<comment><USER10> > now this thing filter anything that is against the party rule

Explain, did you read the text?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm against this ... unless they block Facebook :)

<comment><USER16> I realize you are joking to some extent, but if we are to demand net neutrality, we must be willing to enforce it even against our own motives. Facebook as a website shouldn't be treated any different than any other website. Of course we can legally attack Facebook from other angles like its nefarious business practices.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> The sad truth (and missing detail) is that most EU countries already have national laws that allow extra-judicial bodies request ISPs to block websites at the DNS/IP level with minimal oversight.

A DB of such requests, limited to Italy: [https://censura.bofh.it/](https://censura.bofh.it/)

</comment><comment><USER18> We must realise that there is nothing like "rights". There is only what we can secure for ourself, by way of voting or by way of revolution. You must fight for your rights, always. The moment people start thinking that their rights are inalienable, government starts eroding them.

</comment><comment><USER19> Man am I naive. I read the title as the EU wanting to provide a way to block web sites that do things like track consumers.

<comment><USER6> Technically that could be a fallout.

With the upcoming ePrivacy/GDPR in the EU, if you as a consumer sent a DNT header or disagree with being tracked, you can notify anyone doing so and they are under EU law required to delete your data and/or stop tracking you.

If they don't... well the nearest consumer protection office will be interested and they'll probably then follow up with blocking the website EU wide.

So in conclusion; yes this can be used against anyone who tracks you on the internet against your will since the EU law will make that illegal in the future and this law is a broadside against anyone trying to ignore EU law.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is horrible

</comment><comment><USER21> I tend to agree: "There is something bigger brewing here. Something much bigger. This is one to keep on the radar."

[https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2017/11/european-...](https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2017/11/european- union-just-decided-to-block-websites-without-due-process-for-consumer- protection/)

</comment><comment><USER22> This is great. Companies will now have to deal with this, along with the General Data Protection Regulation (which is a huge fine if in non-compliance)

It's a lot of friction and hoops to go through, especially for smaller companies, to do business that reaches into the EU (directly or indirectly) with these regulations.

</comment><comment><USER23> Consumer protection is a bad thing?

<comment><USER24> Only if it actually protects consumers instead of national interests.

In the EU 'consumer protection' is the guise of protecting suppliers. For example, protecting consumers from Buffalo Mozzarella means that only 4 regions of Italy may produce it (via the Protected designation of origin scheme) (it doesn't matter if the recipe/methods are correct). This way the consumer is 'protected' from being sold Buffalo Mozzarella from regions that can produce it cheaper.

This method seems to be a way to force compliance online. The EU is great but their digital initiatives are always examples of overreach. Last time it was those ridiculous cookie notices you see on websites notifying you that the website uses cookies.

<comment><USER25> Anybody anywhere can produce Buffalo Mozzarella. The protected term in the EU is "Mozzarella di Bufala Campana" which has the region already in it's name. The scheme has been introduced as trademarks protection of such terms that often have been associated with a specific region for centuries is not possible. It's really no different than regular trademarks for modern brands. Historically those schemes were introduced over a hundred years ago after faked products misled consumers. It's also a weaker interference in the free market than copyright protection: Anybody can start producing Mozzarella di Bufala Campana in the region while the rights to Kraft Cheese belong to a single company.

Producing a product the cheapest way possible is not the end goal. If those cheap products drive the traditional way out of the market (as consumers have no reliable way of distinguishing products) consumers that specifically want the product from that region are harmed. All others can buy generic Buffalo Mozzarella produced anywhere just fine.

<comment><USER25> "than copyright protection" should read "than trademark protection", sorry.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> "website blocking infrastructure"

Uhm we've had that for a long time, it is how sites with CP and other illegal things are dealt with.

</comment><comment><USER27> So this is how democracy dies.

</comment><comment><USER28> I read "prescribes" in the title as "proscribes." There's an argument for that too.

</comment><comment><USER29> >To give a recent example, independence-related websites were blocked in Catalunya just weeks ago.

That required judicial authorisation. Good way of beginning a post, with a lie.

<comment><USER30> I don't see how the fact that it required judicial authorization contradicts what the author said. Many abuses happen with the full backing of courts.

<comment><USER29> We should abolish prisons then? It's a ridiculous argument. Abuses can happen with full backing of the courts, but I expect them to not happen.

In all the years that this system has been in place in Spain I have never seen it used for anything other than blocking websites that were in breach of the law.

<comment><USER31> Wait, what? How do you get abolishing prisons out of that?

Back to the subject, what if a law is bad, but the mere act of saying publicly that the law is bad is, in itself, breaking the law? That's where this is all heading.

It starts with prohibiting the utterance of specific words because they hurt someone's feelings, but hidden under "consumer safety" or "public order." No one speaks against it because "of course we shouldn't hurt the feelings of others with mean words."

<comment><USER29> So what? We have hate speech laws in Europe. Try saying "the holocaust never happened" or "homosexuals are vile creatures" and you will see what can happen to you. There's no free speech in Europe anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This can be used to shut down services like Bitcoin, can't it?

</comment><comment><USER32> I don't see the relevance of Ms Reda's example of Catalonian domains being taken down. Using such an example seems more like a scare tactic than anything else.

The EU law she discusses seems clearly focused on (e-)commerce, and it instructs the government to have websites taken down only when that's the only way to protect consumers from being harmed (e.g. defrauded) by those websites.

News websites, even those encouraging people to show up to illegal referenda, don't appear to be affected by this law?

<comment><USER33> The relevance is direct - while the argument may be about some specific case, the power given does not have any limitations to this case, except vague requirement to serve "collective interest" of consumers, whatever that could be. It also builds the legal framework for extrajudicial control over the content on the Internet, which means the government may now control speech in order to serve "collective interest" of the consumers, which will inevitably be defined by the government itself, in a self-serving manner. This opens wide potential for abuse, and a stepping stone for implementing other extra- judicial limits on speech - if it's ok to protect consumer from fake watches, why not from fake news? Why not from "bad" viewpoints and "harmful" information? Thus the government gets full control over the online speech, for your own good, of course.

An example of how that happens and why it is dangerous is the Catalan domains story. The Spanish government is obviously trying to limit speech which is not in its interests.</comment></comment>


Dubai aims to launch hover-taxi by July - <AUTHOR> https://phys.org/news/2017-02-passenger-carrying-drone-dubai.html <comment><USER2> Has anyone ever seen an actual photo of this eHang 184 flying? (Not a rendering, not a prototype on the ground?)

The Volocopter has been flying for over a year, and seems a much better design (more redundancy, two pax, rotors not placed to break your legs).

Here pictures from manned test flights March 2016:

[http://www.volocopter.com/index.php/en/e-volo-en/timeline- en...](http://www.volocopter.com/index.php/en/e-volo-en/timeline-en?id=226)</comment>


Physics for Doofuses: Why Beds Exist - <AUTHOR> http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=464

<comment><USER2> At first I was surprised by the extent to which the commenters dissect the issue "Why are beds soft?", but then I read up on the author. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Aaronson>

An alternative (and simpler) explanation for the purpose of beds that I read somewhere is that they play a role in night-time thermo-regulation. (I can't find the source now. It probably wasn't very scientific.) The idea was that humans evolved in warmer climates than most live now, so they require additional night-time insulation.</comment>