'We're moving to higher ground': America's era of climate mass migration is here - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/24/americas-era-of-climate-mass-migration-is-here <comment><USER2> It wont help that North Carolina Senate in 2012 voted to prohibit agencies and towns from using the latest scientific data on sea-level rise in coastal management decisions.

<comment><USER3> In another Republican Party controlled state, Florida, they've also forbidden agencies to talk about climate change, global warming.

The truth will eventually come out by way of reality, but people will suffer for their greed.

<comment><USER4> California hardly has a Republican party at all anymore but produces more greenhouse gas than any other state.

And before you try to rationalize this with "per capita" arguments....you don't lose your home or get cancer "per capita"...the absolute numbers matter and California has higher absolute numbers than any other state.

<comment><USER5> Texas produces nearly twice as much CO2 as California.

1\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_carbon_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions)

2\. [https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/analysis/ima...](https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/analysis/images/figure_1.jpg)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The IPCC high estimate of sea level rise by 2100 is about 0.6m over 80 years. It's not good, but it's hardly a catastrophe. I take predictions like this about as seriously as the narrative that global warming is a hoax.

[https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/unfccc/cop19/3_gregory13sbsta.pdf](https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/unfccc/cop19/3_gregory13sbsta.pdf)

<comment><USER7> I'm not sure you actually understand what a 2ft rise means. Ignore all feedback mechanism (various other commenters have said things about the conservatism of ipcc) let's look at it basically:

1\. Go to a beach at high tide. Look at where the water is and add two feet. For sandy beaches that probably gets you through the dunes.

2\. Look at the beaches at low tide. How much further out is it? Measure the distance between low and high tide points and see how far inland you get to see where the ocean gets to.

3\. Go to marshlands - add 2ft to low tide and see if they're still marshlands or if they converted to shallow ocean. Similarly check high tide, what surrounding land would be submerged if you added 2 feet of water.

4\. Consider places near the coast that are lower than the high point of the beach. Now "spring tides" could get over that point and essentially turn that land into a swamp.

Finally of course, consider what happens if/when the ocean reaches farm land. The reason "salting the earth" is a phrase is because high salt content (as you might get from even short term flooding) kills most plants unless they've specifically evolved for high salt concentrations. Most grains for instance have not.

This of course ignores special cases like the Netherlands, Venice, etc that are already having to engineer solutions to a few inches of sea level increases.

<comment><USER6> I understand what sea level rise means. Pieces of cities and maybe a few whole cities will need to be torn down and rebuilt elsewhere. Building cities on a century timescale is not difficult. (How many of the vulnerable houses are more than 80 years old now?) Building new farms is trivial.

A 2ft rise is catastrophic if it happens in a day but not if it happens over 80 years. The IPCC report shows about a 1ft rise from 1900-2000 which no one seemed to notice (other than the engineers whose job it is to deal with). I would expect a 2ft rise this century to be about twice as bad, so not that bad. The Netherlands is proof that this type of thing can be handled with time and engineering.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "the cost of doing this for all at-risk Americans would be eye-watering. Estimates range from $200,000 to $1m per person to undertake a relocation. If 13 million people do have to move, it seems fantastical to imagine $13tn, or even a significant fraction of this amount, being spent by governments to ease the way. "As a country we aren't set up to deal with slow-moving disasters like this, so people around the country are on their own," said Joel Clement, a former Department of the Interior official who worked on the relocation of Alaskan towns."

<comment><USER9> Sometimes I wonder what in the world people are thinking. Does anybody actually find this a remotely reasonable estimate? Or even anything completely short of absolutely ridiculous? I moved, along with my wife, literally half way around the world for less than $5k. For $200k, you could spend a like 2% of that on moving costs and then practically retire in many parts of the world.

In the US the median personal income is around $35k. So you spend let's say $2000 moving and then you have $198k, or more than what most people will earn over the next 5 years for what?

<comment><USER10> Things get pretty weird when you start contemplating doing things at this scale. My father likes to tell of how, supposedly, McDonalds was considering introducing a new menu item, let's say it was an eggplant burger (I forget). The first question they had to answer was _does the entire world produce enough eggplant?_

Also, critically, if due to catastrophe you _abandon_ your $100k home and buy another $100k home in another place, your move cost $200k.

<comment><USER11> > Also, critically, if due to catastrophe you abandon your $100k home and buy > another $100k home in another place, your move cost $200k.

I don't think that's right. Let's say I "own" a $100k home, and have a $100k mortgage. I walk away from that house, buy another $100k house with another $100k mortgage. At the start, I have a $100k asset and a $100k liability, for a net of zero. After, I have a $100k asset and _two_ $100k liabilities, so I have lost $100k.

Alternately, let's say I own my $100k house free and clear, and have another $100 in the bank, for total assets of $200k. I abandon my house (writing the value down to $0), and buy another house for $100k. Now I still have the $100k house, but nothing in the bank. My total assets are $100k, so I've lost $100k.

In no scenario have I lost $200k.

<comment><USER12> > I walk away from that house

The bank sues you for the 100k unless you live in a non recourse state. In that case, the feds consider that forgiven 100k income and you'll owe taxes.

>In no scenario have I lost $200k

The median US house price is 200k not 100k.

<comment><USER11> > > I walk away from that house

> The bank sues you for the 100k unless you live in a non recourse state. In > that case, the feds consider that forgiven 100k income and you'll owe taxes.

My scenario assumed you still owed the $100k. If you live in a non-recourse state and just walk away, you're probably not going to be able to get a new mortgage.

> > In no scenario have I lost $200k

> The median US house price is 200k not 100k.

gascan's example was with $100k houses.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > Estimates range from $200,000 to $1m per person to undertake a relocation

Meanwhile, Atlanta metro, predicted to take 320,000 people, has brand new townhomes 30 minutes from the airport for $100k (in Newnan).

<comment><USER14> As someone who has spent a decent amount of time living in Atlanta, I'd guess the prices you've found reflect that it's just not that desirable of an area. There are plenty of opportunities and all of the amenities of modern life but Atlanta, and the broader surrounding areas, still have cultural scars from decades of racism.

Edited for clarity.

<comment><USER15> > Atlanta, and the broader surrounding areas, still have cultural scars from > decades of racism. Edited for clarity.

In Atlanta at least there is no such thing. If someone is choosing not to live in Atlanta due to perceived racism they would be making a mistake.

<comment><USER13> The parents is talking about the scars of racism; namely from the highway riots and continued white flight (unconscious).

Newnan, Palmetto are about the same distance from the city center and Buckhead as South Forsyth, Canton, yet property sells for 1/3; most likely because south Atlanta is in some ways a desert.

Are the schools as good as Alpharetta, nope.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> > Prodded to name refuges in the US, researchers will point to Washington and > Oregon in the Pacific north-west, where temperatures will remain bearable > and disasters unlikely to strike. Areas close to the Great Lakes and in New > England are also expected to prove increasingly attractive to those looking > to move.

The NorthEast could have earthquake issues in the next 50 years. Parts of New England are much better than other parts. Great Lakes area seems good as do areas like Atlanta, Nashville, Charlotte, Chicago (technically Great Lake area), Denver, and Austin.

<comment><USER17> Should also be just in time for the New Madrid fault to start shaking up everything from Nashville to Chicago to the Great Lakes:

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

Geologists have also been predicting large earthquake issues in the New Madrid fault in the next ~20- 50 years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I feel bad for those who keep getting flooded. At the same time, we should be asking the question, should we as a society allow structures and private property so close to bodies of water. Flooding is one reason, but the 2nd more important reason, is people should have public access to our lakes, rivers, and oceans. There should be a public buffer of land between the water and private land. Private property should not be flush up against our water boundaries.

<comment><USER19> The real question we should be asking instead is whether we should be backstopping these private properties with government funded insurance. Remove the backstop of government insurance and the market will quickly solve this problem.

<comment><USER20> Exactly. Government subsidies [thing]. [thing] becomes more popular, resulting in unforeseen consequences. Government must now do [stuff] to fix what [thing] caused!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Someone I know recently bought a beautiful beach house in Florida near Cape Canaveral. I'm too anxious to ask if she is familiar with the climate change issues in the area since they are almost at sea level and even NASA is struggling with climate change there.

On the other hand, I hope that where ever these American climate refugees go, that the cities they go to will have enough infrastructure especially for water, and if they don't, they can fix it.

</comment><comment><USER22> When reading articles like these I have a rule:

Any article which has the word "could" in there gets put into the speculation not factual bin.

So when the article starts with:

 _" By the end of this century, sea level rises alone could displace 13m people."_

we are in the wild speculation category and I know it's not really worth reading. It might be true but so might many other contradictory claims. Non the less, articles like these are not written for information but to cater to a market of people who believe the world is going under tomorrow and love to dwell in it.

<comment><USER23> Sky is falling porn.

Yes, there is a large market for it, unfortunately these are the people who yell about "believing in science". Noble goals, but I'm concerned they're useful idiots in a political game where the real players don't give a crap about the environment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Meanwhile Donald Trump builds his wall...

I don't think the timescales here are realistic. The pace has picked up on global warming and the feedback loops are in place. Projections for '2065' are a bit silly. There is also this small problem in that the 'American empire' is on the decline. Currently the US (and UK) live off the rest of the world via tax havens, the petro-dollar and militarism. These instruments are not going to last forever and it is not possible to plot a linear graph of 'sea level rises' and 'insurance prices'. Everyone in affected areas will be caught out by 'negative equity' with nobody wanting to buy their property.

<comment><USER25> Sad that you are being downvoted when you are describing the relevant macro trend. Our goal as stewards of civilization has to be to manage through this transition as peacefully as possible.</comment></comment>


Ask YC: What tools are you using to monitor a site's load? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> Consider collectd (<http://collectd.org/>). Unlike a lot of the usual suspects, collectd is a daemon that records the usual server health stats every 10 seconds into rrd files. After running it for two years on a few dozen systems, it's never failed or caused undue load on its own. We often see events that would have gone completely unnoticed in a 5-minute monitoring window.

</comment><comment><USER3> I've just started testing nagios <http://www.nagios.org/>.

It looks like complete overkill for a single server and I don't know how useful it is but it does look promising. It certainly looks like it would scale to tens if not hundreds of machines easily.

It includes an alert structure so different events triggers different actions. For example if the database stops responding email the DBA, if it's a router email the network admin etc.

Again I can't vouch for it over the long term as it's only been a week or so of testing but I can't complain atm.

It's a PITA field to research and I'm trying to avoid the 'roll my own' urges as I'd quite like to write it ;)

Anyone else got any ideas? There is a python based monitoring application out there somewhere that I stumbled upon about 6 months ago with a great plugin API and neato graphs but I can't find it again :( I blame google and not my incompetence :)

<comment><USER4> Nagios is excellent once you get comfortable with it. People have written check scripts for all sorts of bizarre hardware, interfaces (RS-232 polling, X10, etc.), and so forth. You can turn the babysitting proactive by writing event scripts, eg. when a MySQL slave goes out of sync or memcached wedges, the event handler notices, kicks it, and if it doesn't recover after a few tries, _THEN_ you get a page. Obviously you need to be careful about what you put in an event handler, but used judiciously, they're great.

Cacti, ganglia, and so forth are useful adjuncts for routers, clusters, and the like. But Nagios is a time-tested warhorse with a lot of community support. It's ugly but it works and works well.

PXE + cfengine + nagios can be pulled together for Real Ultimate Power, or at least a simulacrum of what goes on at places like Google (whose scripts are custom Python monstrosities for the most part, but the functionality is pretty similar, with several levels and types of babysitter systems funneling into a more proactive statistical resource allocation type of analysis framework since the scale is so vast; at least that's the track that development was on when I left, and Urs is still in charge so I doubt it's swerved much).

See here for an article on adaptive state monitoring: [http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2006/05/25/self- healing-n...](http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2006/05/25/self-healing- networks.html) with Nagios and Cfengine. Add something like PXE reimaging of dead nodes to the mix and you cut down workloads by an order of magnitude on large installations.

If you are a sysadmin and haven't experimented with self-healing systems, you should fix that gap in your skill set. If you have a sysadmin who can't or won't, fire him.

<comment><USER2> If you're starting from scratch, consider puppet (<http://www.reductivelabs.com/projects/puppet/>) as a cfengine replacement. cfengine is solid, but unless you've already mastered it, I think you'll find puppet is at least as capable and a lot more intuitive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I like munin better than nagios: <http://munin.projects.linpro.no/>

</comment><comment><USER6> Cacti with SNMP is a very good single app solution to keeping an eye on server health trends.

<http://cacti.net/screenshots.php>

Smokeping is quite useful for monitoring network and basic http request response times.

<http://oss.oetiker.ch/smokeping/>

Nagios is good for actively monitoring services and alerting you when things go wrong.

I generally use those and create tons of additional monitoring tools that generate reports/charts.

</comment><comment> patrickg-zill Are you talking about site load or server load?

If you want to measure the load on a server, look into the sar utility, which is included in Linux and all other Unix'es. It will take snapshots of data at 10 minute intervals and store them. Other tools will take that data and turn it into a bar graph or other visualization.

</comment><comment><USER7> I'd like to know this too.

Rock Solid Arcade I suspect at many points is outgrowing my cacheless hit the database on every page setup. I started out with a cron job monitoring top every minute, and many times the usage hits 50% - I'm using Django, so the GIL means that's at full capacity, but I have no idea how instantaneous that figure is.

I got some helpful advice on the Django chat room to monitor Apache, but really what I'd like is for some warning to be dumped to a log if a connection queue backs up for more than a second (i.e. the server is at full capacity). That'll be time to cache/upgrade. :)

</comment><comment><USER8> nagios scales, and is eazy. You can also write scripts so that if you daemon/application dies, it will be restarted.

</comment><comment><USER9> I used nagios at the last place I worked with a number of servers, and I was pretty happy with it, although I could very easily imagine something better.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks everybody. I appreciate all the good links. I'll go experiment a bit with them.

</comment><comment><USER10> Google Analytics

I believe using anything relatively more intensive is not worth the cycles. Even 'top' is taxing at times.</comment>


Not everyone likes Dropship - <AUTHOR> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110425/15541514030/dropbox-tries-to-kill-off-open-source-project-with-dmca-takedown.shtml

<comment><USER2> As far as I can tell, this story is suffering severely from the telephone effect.

Some points:

1) As I understand it, Dropbox didn't remove the file, they removed _public_ access to it. The file was still in the account, on attached computers, etc.

2) There was no DMCA takedown notice, there was an accidental notification sent to a user saying "we've received a takedown notice and acted on it". Dropbox didn't actually send anyone a formal takedown notice.

</comment><comment><USER3> Oh man can this die please... Why is techcrunch simply recycling a blog post, without taking its latter corrections into account.

<comment><USER4> I know - right? :-).

(wladimir wrote dropship)

<comment><USER5> Techcrunch/Techdirt simply recycling a misleading, provocative headline for pageviews? Color me shocked, _shocked_.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This article is garbage.</comment>


Dish used "small business" discount to save $3B at taxpayer expense - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/dish-used-small-business-discount-to-save-3-billion-at-taxpayer-expense/

<comment><USER2> Another way to look at this ...

Broadband is very competitive, therefore Dish could not simply pocket the $3B savings as shareholder profit, instead they lowered the price of their product and services.

The $3B was a subsidy to rural US TV viewers who are a substantial constituency, in particular for the US Republican Party.</comment>


How will self-driving cars handle the snow? - <AUTHOR> http://readwrite.com/2016/12/19/how-self-driving-cars-handle-snow-tl4/ <comment><USER2> They will drive slower (than humans that insist second by second to arrive faster).</comment>


Google defends its use of proprietary tech in Hangouts - <AUTHOR> http://www.techhive.com/article/2039820/google-weak-xmpp-support-capabilities-led-us-to-proprietary-tech-in-hangouts.html

<comment><AUTHOR> The stated reasons for dropping XMPP (federation) support in the new Google Hangouts are startling inaccurate and misinformed. As one of the XMPP Council members, I felt a rebuttal was in order: [https://plus.google.com/116276248303121270590/posts/ggNwh9eL...](https://plus.google.com/116276248303121270590/posts/ggNwh9eLYWu)</comment>


Ask HN: good resources to learn about building/deploying large projects? - <AUTHOR>

I have a bunch of questions about how to build and deploy large projects to production and I haven't been able to find good resources for answers. Right now I've been haphazardly checking engineering blogs and hoping someone talks about deploys, and reading http://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/12/12/staging-servers-source-control-deploy-workflows-and-other-stuff-nobody-teaches-you/. That's a great starting point but where should I look next? Where can I learn more about building and deploying large projects?
Is there a gospel for building and deploying systems? What's a "good" duration for end-to-end deploys? How do I make sure I don't break everything?
How do you swap the production code without dropping in-progress requests? What are the things I won't know that I don't know, if I've never done this before?
Thanks, Kevin <comment><USER2> This answer will vary depending on what you are building. Web app? Language/framework?

As far as not dropping in-progress requests, most web sites have multiple servers with an haproxy instance that redirects among them. You can deploy to only one box at a time, and haproxy can direct visitors to the boxe(s) that aren't in the middle of being upgraded.

There is no generalized answer to your larger question though. Many frameworks and architectures have different deploying methodologies because of their unique nuances. If you share what you're building on, I'm sure many folks here can direct you towards some best practices/how-tos.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sure, it's a web app deploying to AWS and using, at different times, Twisted, Pyramid, Ruby, redis, and some Java.</comment></comment>


Great Sci-Fi Technology: "Calliagnosia" from Stories of Your Life and Others - <AUTHOR> https://bookworm.club/2018/06/calliagnosia/ <comment><USER2> Can the time and memory concept in The Stories of Your Life move to LSTM/GRU or some new ANN?</comment>


Designing for a Responsive Web Means Starting with Type First - <AUTHOR> http://typecast.com/blog/designing-for-a-responsive-web-means-starting-with-type-first Making responsiveness only about grids, responsive images and media queries is a disservice to customers and brands. It needs to be about providing readable content for any device, and that means starting with type. <comment><USER2> This makes me think that for UX, it may be a good idea to take flat design to the nth degree in usability testing and use only text in the layout and see how users respond.

Thoughts?</comment>


Korean Star's Suicide Reignites Debate on Web Regulation - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/technology/internet/13suicide.html?ref=media <comment><USER2> Korea has something equivalent to the social security number called "Ju Min Deung Rok Jung Bun Ho", which literally means resident registered proof number. You need a valid number to register to any site.

Internet has been the medium for the Korean people to quickly organize protests against the government and the place where all rumors regarding celebrities start. The Korean government simple wants to have people reliable for the comments they make on the internet as well as find those people who organize protests. The government or the current president probably wants the latter while using the former as a strong case to do so.

[btw, I don't think Korean people glorify suicides as the Japanese do; I'm a Korean and at least the people around me and I do not think suicide is something to be glorified.]

</comment><comment><USER3> Because countries should always let the exception dictate the rules.

Ugh.

</comment><comment><USER4> It seems a little misguided to try and regulate the internet, since it's inherently an international entity. Even China, who's willing to sink a _lot_ of money and resources into the problem, is having a lot of trouble with it.

It also seems like the easy way out for South Korea. The real problem they're grappling is a long-standing cultural problem in which suicide and suicide pacts are glorified. Trying to come to grips with this and deal with it is a heck of a lot harder than blaming popular media and the internet.

<comment><USER5> The reason China's censorship works so well is not because it is so hard to bypass, its because the general populace doesn't understand or wants to take the time to understand how to bypass it.

Imagine if FOX was your only news source just because you had to go out of your way to get a black box and steal your neighbor's cable. (Maybe that's stretching it a little, but you get my point.)

<comment><USER4> I don't agree with this statement at all. China has a lot of highly educated (and in practice, unemployed) young people. Many of them are in IT. In my opinion, it's ludicrous to think that large numbers of people don't circumvent the great firewall routinely (perhaps even for simple privacy issues devoid of any seditious intent).

Look at America. Lots of people use privacy-enhancing technology, even in illegal contexts, without really understanding it or the issues that surround it.

<comment><USER6> Those people who are skilled enough to circumvent the censorship also know they could be summarily punished for doing so.

That is, the firewall/censorship is not designed to be unbreakable, but just to send a message: when you go around this, you are now breaking our rules, and we can get you at our option. This is effective enough to induce people to limit their curiousity. See for example James Fallows, who lives in China and is not just speculating on what's 'ludicrous to think':

"'The Connection Has Been Reset' - China's Great Firewall is crude, slapdash, and surprisingly easy to breach. Here's why it's so effective anyway."

<http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/chinese-firewall>

The punishment might include "re-education through labor" without any trial, or disappearing into detention, as with people who simply applied for protest permits during the recent olympics:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/21/sports/olympics/21protest....](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/21/sports/olympics/21protest.html?em)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The "crises" will continue until the web is regulated.

</comment><comment><USER8> They have social security numbers in South Korea?

<comment><USER9> something very similar to the idea, as neoxr mentions in another comment here.</comment></comment>


A 100-Drone Swarm, Dropped from Jets, Plans Its Own Moves - <AUTHOR> https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603337/a-100-drone-swarm-dropped-from-jets-plans-its-own-moves/ <comment><USER2> Kinda scary... I can imagine being attacked by these things</comment>


Sleep tweaks boost night owls' wellbeing - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/health-48558309 <comment><USER2> I've had sleep problems for as long as I can remember. I self-diagnosed Non-24 Sleep-Wake Disorder, where your body clock is typically slightly longer than a 24 hours, and so you feel tired later and later every day, eventually going to sleep is nearly impossible. It makes keeping to a normal routine extremely difficult.

The fix for me was morning blue light lamp, as soon as I wake up, for one hour. And 1.5 hours before bedtime, I take 500mcg melatonin. These 2 things worked like a miracle. I kept a log of doing these things, and the exact time I performed them, for a month. After a month, the habit was there, and I know have a normal sleep pattern, so long as I stick to the light and the supplement. It's had a huge impact on my life.

EDIT>> 500mcg, not mg

<comment><USER3> I'm in the same situation. What blue light lamp are you using? How did you settle on your current melatonin regime?

Also, any other advice that you may have would be appreciated, thanks!

<comment><USER2> This is the lamp [https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B079YBGPM5](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B079YBGPM5). The important aspect of it is to have it within 12 inches of your face when using it, but not directly in your eyes (can mess with your eyes). I usually have mine in front of my keyboard, tilted up, so the majority of the light is coming in from the bottom of my eyes.

As far as melatonin, I have to point out that I edited my post to say 500mcg (0.5mg) not 500mg. I've done some reading that the light doses work very well [http://news.mit.edu/2005/melatonin](http://news.mit.edu/2005/melatonin). I haven't really tinkered with the dosage much, because the dosage I started with seems to work well.

The last thing I will say is that keeping a log is important. I've never been one to keep logs for things, but I knew if I was going to fix this problem and make it a habit, I needed to stick to it rigidly for a month. That's what it took for the habit to form, and I'm glad I did it. Best of luck!

<comment><USER4> Assuming the screen to be 0.5 square feet, that is only about 465 lumens. LED bulbs for standard sockets are commonly available up to 4000 lumens, and I have a bigger one that is about 7000 lumens.

I have those all over my house.

My kitchen has 14 40-watt T12 bulbs, probably 2600 lumens each, which would total 36400 lumens.

<comment><USER2> Yeah I couldn't be around lights that intense later in the day. Same thing with computer screens...I have them dim and disable blue wavelengths around sunset.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This 9-5 mentality being imposed in a way that if your sleep pattern is an owl, you're kinda ostracized and viewed as an issue you need to fix, has been going on forever. When the crux suggestion from this `research` is to go to bed 2-3 hours earlier and wake up 2-3 hours earlier and presuming the person does not have DSPS (Delayed Sleep Phase Syndrome) or other genetic trait that causes this is, and always is, offencive.

The way we treat night owls is akin to mental health in the 40's.

Not everybody works 9-5, not every job can be fitted into a 9-5. But many of the jobs allocated 9-5 could equally benefit from flexi-time and have those who wake up early come in earlier and those who wake up late, come in later. Covering more hours, and cater for those who are equally not 9-5 people.

It's time work hours got some research, not the people being forced into this arbitrary cookie-cutter mentality.

Some companies already do flexi-time and cater for such people, but time and time again, the media and research go to mentality is in viewing such peoples as an issue in a way that parallels many forms of negative science we have seen historically upon many differences between humans.

People's sleep patterns are not unified, not even binary, and people should be able to find the sleep pattern that works for them and not be forced into all wearing the same dictated sleep pattern.

With that, the way to boost wellbeing of night owls is: 1) Stop treating them as an issue but an opportunity and embrace that diversity. 2) See point one and stop repeating the same mistakes with different categorisation.

<comment><USER6> I think calling this "offensive" is a bit silly. Pushing everything into the box of "marginalized minority oppressed by uncaring majority" is getting old. In our society, waking up early-ish is advantageous. And not just in terms of work. It's nice to be awake in the morning when everything is still. Mornings are peaceful and beautiful.

I've always been a "night owl" and I could come in at 10 or 11 and work until 6-7 if I wanted to - no one I work with cares as long as I'm communicative and get things done. But adjusting my sleep schedule and getting in around 8-8:30 (wake at 6:30-7) has improved my quality of life. I'm also most productive before noon.

Getting sun seems important. I have a Hacker News Health Theory (TM) about melanin content: why would human skin color vary so reliably based on distance from equator if sun wasn't really, really important? I think that, maybe, getting enough sun is much more important to our health than we realize.

<comment><USER7> You're teetering on the brink of an epiphany there with the phrase "in our society." Being a night owl wasn't a problem until we built a world that didn't include us. The problem isn't night owls. It's the insistence from others that everyone be exactly the same, inborn traits be damned. So yeah, it's offensive.

Also, imagine being someone whose natural body clock is a 3-5am bedtime and 12-2pm wake time. You've adjusted your clock by a couple hours, but some folks are being told to make 6-8 hour adjustments. And for what? To accommodate a refusal to accept that not everyone is the same.

<comment><USER8> > _The problem isn 't night owls. It's the insistence from others that > everyone be exactly the same, inborn traits be damned. So yeah, it's > offensive._

How is it "offensive"? No one is forcing you to live any specific way, but if you want to fit in with what "society" has deemed "normal", then you have to follow the norms and rules.

Thinking the rest of the world should cater to your personal circumstances is offensive. Why should they adapt to you, and not vice versa? Where did this entitlement come from, that not only should someone provide you with a job, but also that you should get to decide when and how you'll perform it? If the "real world" doesn't jibe with you it's your responsibility to find a place where you fit. There are lots of things I don't like about the modern rat race, and I adapt.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> | Wake up 2-3 hours earlier than usual and get plenty of outdoor light in the morning

| Eat breakfast as soon as possible

| Exercise only in the morning

| Have lunch at the same time every day and eat nothing after 19:00

| Banish caffeine after 15:00

| Have no naps after 16:00

| Go to bed 2-3 hours earlier than usual and limit light in the evenings

| Maintain the same sleep and wake times every day

So basically, stop being a night owl. Great advice.

<comment><USER10> Most people who self-apply the title "night owls" are probably artificially inhibiting their sleep by blue light exposure, so this advice is useful to many.

<comment><USER11> the distinction between larks and night owls is a robust psychological finding that predates iphones; there is some evidence to suggest it is genetic; and night owls represent a significant percentage of the population (about 20%). that isn't to discount the point about blue light exposure.

<comment><USER12> Night owls are absolutely real and they are genetically predisposed. In fact, night owls will always be night owls and there's really nothing you can do about it. Everyone should read Dr. Matthew Walker's book 'Why We Sleep'.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > _They focused on "night owls", whose bodies drive them to stay up late into > the night. The problem for many night owls is fitting into a nine-to-five > world._

An alternative solution is to go ahead and live your life on the 25 or 26 hour cycle that your "night owl" body demands. You'll need to be single (or partnered with a similar night owl), have light-proof curtains or blinds, and work independently (or remotely for an accommodating company). And probably you'll want to live in a major urban area so you have access to 24-hour restaurants, supermarkets, and other resources when your constantly shifting day/night cycle leaves you awake at night.

<comment><USER14> it looks like you can cut diabetes risk and mental health risk by switching [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-43711631](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-43711631)

<comment><USER13> Interesting quote from your article:

> _The paper 's authors ... said it was likely that people with late body > clocks were being harmed by having to adjust their habits to a "morning lark > world". Scientists say that about 40% to 70% of a person's circadian rhythm, > or body clock, is genetic. Part of it you don't have any control over._

In other words, the "night owls" might have health problems because of the effort and stress of trying to keep their body clock in sync with the rest of the world. If they could live a 25 or 26 hour day, they might be just as fit as the 24-hour "morning larks".

<comment><USER14> possibly yes, but how likely is that to happen? I'm actually a proponent of living in shifts with offices and shops open 24 hours and people being in "office hours" at different times. it would solve a lot of problems with traffic etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I found it also helps to go to bed before that late night "second wind" kicks in

<comment><USER15> True for me. I often get really sleepy around 9-10 PM. When I force myself to go to bed right then, when my eyelids are heavy, I usually sleep through the night (with perhaps a 15-minute semi-awake period in the middle) and wake around dawn feeling well-rested. But if I shrug off my drowsiness, I usually get a second wind around 11 that will keep me going until at least 1 AM, and then the next day I don't feel rested at all.

<comment><USER16> I have vastly different values but same effect. If I sleep when I am drowsy I sleep solid for 1 to 3 hours, then I am awake for sometimes 3 hours after that. If I sleep again it's solid until midday, which leaves me waking up at the same time as before except with 3 hours wasted awake in bed in the middle.

If I take the second wind I am awake until early morning and then out like a light for a solid 8 hours, again waking at midday.

I have tried dozens of possible schedules and I eventually revert to this if given time. When working a 9-5 it inevitably turns into an 11-7 and I am tired all the time regardless.

<comment><USER14> that reminds me: in the past humans had 2 sleeps and an awake period in the middle. you could try and get up and get some work done in that middle period? [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16964783](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16964783)

<comment><USER17> I did that for about 3 months this year. I would go to bed around 6, wake up at 10. Then I would eat, go for a walk, and work on my hobbies/side projects until about 3AM and sleep until 7AM. It was honestly a very refreshing way to live.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> One excerpt from the article [1]:

> Individuals were screened for no diagnoses of sleep or neurological > disorders via self-report and were not taking any medications that affected > sleep, melatonin and cortisol rhythms.

I'm really curious if insomnia or DSPD counts as a sleep disorder here.

I guess the core point of the study is, if you force yourself to be on a morning schedule for a few weeks and follow basic sleep hygiene, then it will work and you will feel better.

I don't know what to take away from this. I already follow their protocol, but my sleep onset is still naturally around 1:30am. For me, when I go to bed earlier, I fall asleep even later than usual, since I just doze for an hour and am even more awake. When I wake up earlier, I tend to fall asleep during the day. (I test negative for sleep apnea).

The comments here are pretty split between "I just tried getting up earlier and it worked great!" and "I do all of this and it doesn't work at all," so my experience isn't unusual. It reminds me a lot of comments on anti-depressant efficacy.

So I'll probably do the same thing I do every time a study like this comes out: Follow the sleep protocol more carefully for a few weeks, then feel discouraged when it gives no results, then feel even worse from the comments claiming that I am just being lazy. And then finally I will remember that the science on this subject is weak and incomplete, that morning people's unyielding sense of righteousness and morality is based on nothing, and that maybe someday we will discover universal methods of adjusting sleep schedules.

[1] [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S138994571...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389945719301388) and if you cannot access the full text, sci-hub.tw may be helpful

</comment><comment><USER19> Well, I don't think these are "simple" tweaks. If you are a single person and must wake up every day at the same hour, won't do anything at night. If you just have time to exercise at evening, you wouldn't exercise anymore.

</comment><comment><USER20> "Scientists studied 21 "extreme night owls" who were going to bed, on average, at 02:30 and not waking until after 10:00. "

I guess that makes me an extremely extreme night owl then.

</comment><comment><USER21> To the other night owls out there, I would love to know:

-Do you struggle to sleep every day? Or is it only as the work/school/lark-world responsibilities progress through the week?

-Would you characterize your difficulty as struggling to sleep or struggling to wake up, or both?

-How does this impact your days off (i.e. weekends), and what is the first and last day off typically like in comparison?

-Is this the kind of struggle that you manage, but it frustrates you, or has other effects, or is it something that regularly threatens to derail your life? (i.e. late for work or class, or other real-life consequences)

-Do you feel like it is something you will always live with, or do you feel that there could be a lifestyle/solution, either involving your change, or accommodating to your current behavior and/or natural inclination?

I'm a night owl, and I won't go into detail about my situation with hope to not impact responses too much, but it would help me (and hopefully others!) to understand just how similar/different I may be. Thank you!

</comment><comment><USER22> The only real advice here is:

\- Exercise only in the morning

\- Have lunch at the same time every day and eat nothing after 19:00

\- Banish caffeine after 15:00

everything else is "stop being a night owl".

<comment><USER23> "Exercise only in the morning" is terrible advice. I cannot wake up one second earlier than I must in order to get to work on time. If I followed that advice, I would never exercise. The best advice is to find time to exercise _every day_ , no matter what time that may be.

<comment><USER24> Don't want to? If we redefine exercise as part of the day's work, then is it better advice?

<comment><USER23> Not until I get paid cold hard cash to do it. ;-)

I'm not saying I don't exercise. I just do it in the evening after work, when I feel it provides a couple of benefits. (1) I do it consistently every day, because I feel more "up to it" at that time. (2) I feel that it helps relieve the stress of my work day, since focusing on my form and nothing else is almost meditative to me.

I just feel that making people think it's somehow better to exercise only in the morning will discourage some people from exercising _daily_ , which I feel is more important than the time of day.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Is there any research around that tests whether self-defined "night owls" are immune to the hormonal effects of sunrise and sundown (as visual stimuli)?

I once considered myself one, until I started actually rolling the blinds up in the mornings (Spanish blinds block all light) and staying away from blue light in the evenings. Being brought up in a cloudy, rainy town and having a very obstructed view of the outside from my bedroom window didn't help, I must admit.

Also I wonder if certain habits and behaviors, like dopamine-induced compulsive social browsing or gaming, food addictions, etc. play a role here.

</comment><comment><USER26> I am a night owl, and tried to shift the sleep cycle to earlier (get in bed earlier and wake up earlier). However, what I observed (when I went to the bed earlier) was that then I wake up very very early in the morning (around 5), but then after about an hour or two I became very sleepy again.

Is this supposed to happen if you try to shift the sleep cycle?

<comment><USER27> When you start to get enough sleep, it's normal to become biphasic. That is, wake up in the night and go back to sleep. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biphasic_and_polyphasic_sleep](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biphasic_and_polyphasic_sleep)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> My issue is I get a ton more work done at night when you don't have a million distractions going on: emails, meetings, loud noises, conversations, etc... All of that dissipates or disappears into the late evening - and focusing becomes easier.

</comment><comment><USER29> This article is kind of dumb, basically saying that you shouldn't be a night owl, but I will admit that my quality of life is improved when I'm in a natural rhythm of going to bed "on time" and waking up early-ish, getting at least 7 1/2 hours of sleep per day. Around 2-3 cups of coffee per day seem fine, anymore and I need to scale it back. One cup doesn't do it for me. I also now get to work early and don't stress if I'm occasionally late.

The early bird gets the worm, so no matter how much we'd like to adjust society to be accepting of different sleep schedules, early risers will always have a natural advantage.

</comment><comment><USER30> Not really sure about the sunlight in the morning. If you can force yourself to a early sleep (either by tiring yourself one day) or slowly shifting it early each day, you will be able to change your sleep cycle.

<comment><USER31> At least personally, I have found sunlight makes waking easier, smoother. So it's probably one factor out of several.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> these "tweaks" boil down to "stop being a night owl." If I could wake up hours earlier and make myself go to sleep hours earlier I wouldn't be in this mess, BBC.

</comment><comment><USER33> One item mentioned in the article that matches my personal experience is the importance of sleep consistency or regularity. Waking up at the same time and sleeping at the same time each night has been beneficial, even if those regular times are shifted from what the article suggests. There was a study that touched on this [0].

[0] [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-03171-4](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-03171-4)

</comment><comment><USER34> I personally enjoy being a night owl. I get plenty of excercise, sunlight, and sleep, and I've never had a problem at any of my workplaces for arriving late (say between 10 and 11) and then working late to compensate.

Furthermore, the article is common sense. Obviously, shifting my daily routine 3 hours would shift my daily routine 3 hours, and I'd eventually get used to it, but why would I want to?

</comment><comment><USER35> A stalk delivered me a child and in one single transformation, I turned from night owl into Super Lark!!

</comment><comment><USER36> I struggled with insomnia for about 3 years before finding something which worked for me: magnesium supplements. Learned about them through a random Hacker News comment.

</comment><comment><USER37> Can someone reply to this comment if they see it in a few weeks and see if it's been working for me? :D

</comment><comment><USER38> For me going to bed at 1am or 8pm works, but if I try anything in the middle, I just stay up until 1am.

</comment><comment><USER39> Anything to help STAY asleep in the night?

I've lost the ability to sleep in one sitting and it irks me.</comment>


Ask HN: Why do Haskellers discourage FP newbies from learning Clojure? - <AUTHOR>

I have noticed this pattern in IRC discussions on #haskell. Chime in as to why Haskellers have a low opinion of Clojure. <comment><USER2> There is a philosophical gap that is independent of typing. Clojure encourages functional programming, but does not require it. It is also littered with a lot of not perhaps arbitrary but definitely replaceable syntactic sugar geared towards short, clean and practical code. Haskell on the other hand is like an evolving paper on how to implement the world using typed functional programming. If two people figure out the same idea, in Haskell they will much more likely end up using the same syntax up to naming. It is the canonical language for concepts.

</comment><comment><USER3> It could just be biased because you're asking about Clojure in a Haskell room. It may not be that haskellers have a low opinion of Clojure so much as they have a higher opinion of Haskell.

</comment><comment><USER4> I assume you've asked them, but what did they say?

My guess: Haskell has a very strong academic background. I know it's very popular in the language design community, I mean, it's basically lambda calculus with a very advanced type system, and academic language designers love type systems. Clojure is dynamically typed and is has all the messy compromises of a pragmatic language -- that's my guess.</comment>


If you made a sphere of all the earth's water, how big would it be? - <AUTHOR> http://earthsky.org/earth/if-you-made-a-sphere-of-all-earths-water-how-big-would-it-be <comment><AUTHOR> In thinking of doing things that (don't) scale, these graphics make applying tech to water seem feasible — and worth trying.

<comment><USER2> If you made a sphere out of everyone on Earth, it wouldn't even show up on the picture.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's great.

Maybe the ants can help carry the water.

[http://clipart-library.com/clipart/8TxrE8Gyc.htm](http://clipart- library.com/clipart/8TxrE8Gyc.htm)

Bigger sphere of them than of us.

[http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=536123](http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=536123)</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What behaviour hacks improved your life? - <AUTHOR> <comment><AUTHOR> \- if it takes less than 5 min do it now

\- sleep on it

\- identify your cognitive distortions when you're upset[1]

\- assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don't (from Peterson's book[2])

\- when working on a task write down all the milestones. Strike through when you're done with one

\- in the middle of a bug switch to curiosity mode. Be genuinely curious why that bug is happening. Useful to avoid frustration

\- if you have to wash dishes and not in the mood, just start with the first dish

\- ask myself "What is the first thing can I do to avoid resentment?" in situations when resentment might occur

\- sleep 8h

\- regular exercise

[1] [https://www.zuzuconcept.ro/wp- content/uploads/2018/01/HO15_T...](https://www.zuzuconcept.ro/wp- content/uploads/2018/01/HO15_ThnkngAbtThnkng.pdf)

[2] [https://www.amazon.com/12-Rules-Life-Antidote- Chaos/dp/03458...](https://www.amazon.com/12-Rules-Life-Antidote- Chaos/dp/0345816021)

</comment><comment><USER2> Talk less, listen more.</comment>


US sends pre-emptive warrant to Ireland to stop Snowden flight refuelling there - <AUTHOR> http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us/us-sends-government-arrest-warrant-for-snowden-1.1453364 <comment><USER2> There was a funny line in The Social Network that went:

`Like my brother and I are in skeleton costumes chasing the Karate Kid around a gym.`

That's kind of what America looks like. Snowden has all these mighty military secrets, but at the end of the day they just look like school bullies who want to smack him around. What Snowden did is without a doubt a crime, but one that seems like it was necessary, and should be easy to resolve. The longer this draws on the more America looks like a misguided bully, forcing weaker kids to pick on the nerd. It doesn't help that the mood seems to be to string him up as a traitor in war time.

Edit: 'easy to resolve' sounds flippant, but it's being turned into the biggest manhunt on a global stage since Bin Laden.

<comment><USER3> I agree with everything but the concept that what he did "is without a doubt a crime." In fact, many people, including lawyers and constitutional scholars, have debate on the subject. The reasons they might not be a crime include: -Legal whistle blower protections -precedent of committing lesser crimes to prevent larger crimes -international case law around disobeying illegal orders -the application of reasonableness in the 4th amendment

Snowden is committing a crime no more than Daniel Ellsburg releasing the Pentagon Papers was a crime, and Mark Felt (Deep Throat) was a criminal for exposing FBI and presidential misconduct.

<comment><USER2> Ooh, that's interesting thank you. My knowledge of constitutional application is Not Great, so it's interesting it'd fall within that. I think it's possibly still a crime but one with a certain level of legal affordability, but I'm sure much smarter people than me are working on that definition.

I'd have said the last one (FBI & President) wouldn't fall under treason exactly, as whilst they were whistleblower leakers they weren't of a certain level of international security relations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I am from the US and hope someone out there tells us to go to hell. Until there is real resistance our leaders will continue to act like they own the earth.

<comment><USER5> Where is the USSR when you need one :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Our (Irish) politicians have run away from lots of hard decisions recently but I really wish they'd have the balls (population, economy, armed forces) to tell the US government to fuck off occasionally.

<comment><USER7> The Irish probably could tell the states to "feck off" and have the backing of the US public. What with every american clinging on like spider monkeys to the last few remaining irish genes in their gene pool.

<comment><USER8> US has other points of leverage on the Irish.

(How about we close this nice tax scam you got going...)

<comment><USER9> Serious question: just how do you figure the US can close that tax loophole (it's law, so not a scam)? Did you know that it only works when money is routed through the Netherlands? And from there to the Caribbean or elsewhere? You're stretching it, implying the US can sway lawmakers abroad.

<comment><USER10> haha, how naive.

<comment><USER9> Not so sure. Those tax breaks are designed to benefit the Irish economy. When your nation can't eat, would you side with a foreign government?

Also, if they toilet their economy, who do you think will bail them out? You're aware that they're part of the EU, right?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition_by_the...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition_by_the_United_States#Ireland)

Ah the US missed a beat, the Irish politicians would happily have him detained in Shannon and escorted on to a Hercules, by men wearing blindfolds so as not to see any evil.

</comment><comment> k-mcgrady >> "if he travelled via Shannon as part of his efforts to get to Cuba and was arrested under the provisional arrest warrant pending an extradition process by the American authorities in the Irish courts, he could apply for asylum while being held in prison here."

An interesting prospect but incredibly unlikely.

<comment><USER12> Non extradition due to death penalty might work anywhere in Europe. It might not if US says it won't execute Snowden (if they lie, then no one will ever be extradited on that basis again, as that would be illegal from then on).

<comment><USER13> I don't think the US have any interest in the death penalty for Snowden.

They'd much rather him rot without trial in Guantanamo for the rest of his life, as to serve a better lesson to anyone thinking of following his footsteps.

<comment><USER12> I don't think he could be extradited if he was going to not be tried either; that would also be illegal in the US as he is a citizen...

<comment><USER14> Oh, he would be "trialled", of course. With a special trial, that could last decades, time he gets to spend in protective custody, of course.

After all the bull*hit about "enemy combatants", my faith in the separation of powers in the US is quite nil.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It will be an interesting contrast to see if Ireland is equally willing to shelter live persons as well as they do corporations.

</comment><comment><USER16> I still don't get why Russia is not just putting him on military transport to Cuba. They should have "some" experience flying that route without US interference. Nobody would mess around with a military transport and getting him out of the country would probably reflect on Russia better than just harboring him around at the transit zone.

<comment><USER13> > _just harboring him around at the transit zone._

Russia are not harboring him because he's not in Russia, he's in an international transit lounge and therefore not actually in any country.

It has always shocked me that US airports don't have this concept, it must be the only major world transport hub that doesn't.

<comment><USER17> > he's in an international transit lounge and therefore not actually in any > country.

What would prevent other asylum seekers or refugees from doing the same? Leave a war torn hell hole and camp out at Stuttgart International, sleep on the benches and busk or beg to get a meal. The fact that this doesn't happens means there are other reasons and the transit lounge isn't a DMZ as you claim.

<comment><USER13> You must legally purchase a ticket that gets you to a destination you are legally allowed to enter. 99.9999% of airlines won't let you board a plane without that, because they foot the bill if you get sent back.

I've been in many international transit lounges "in" countries I wasn't legally permitted to enter (no visa).. but I had an onward ticket to a country I could enter, so I was allowed to do it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> On the 4th of this July the fireworks appeared as tears falling from our skies spirit sinking with the fading twinkle

On this 4th of July the fireworks could be heard bombs bursting against nerves and conscious in this land that has become so large in view so small in vision nothing but the feared and the fearing

<comment><USER19> No. Can we please stop this adolescent drama? If you think there's a better country, please, leave the US and go there. Do the rest of us a favor.

<comment><USER20> It's perfectly reasonable to enjoy most of the things about a country and still find issues with it. It's also perfectly reasonable to question and complain about stuff when you think it's wrong. Not doing that, putting your fingers in your ears and running away is arguably the worse crime.

<comment><USER8> Which is funny since many of the US wealthy regard their homes outsides the States as bailout refuges if the situation in the States gets hostile to them. (Which is probably a good insurance policy...)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> It seems the US bullying of other countries over Snowden is several times worse than it was for Wikileaks.

</comment><comment><USER22> So a diplomatic flight would be or would not be safe? Or does it entirely depend on how big you are? Does diplomatic immunity only exist on the grounds of an embassy and all points between simply make you fair game?

As in, whose plane would you have to be on to be safe? The Popes?

</comment><comment><USER23> I really don't understand the public outcry. In the eyes of all that matters, he broke the law. Snowden knew where he signed up to work. Noone with any amount of brain processing capability would be so naive as to think that sort of stuff wasn't happening via the NSA. I have worked for organizations that when I categorically disagreed with their business model and operating processes, I left. He had that choice. It was certainly not his job to hold the Agency accountable. His chosen method was certainly not the acceptable protocol. In fact, its highly illegal.

This does not mean that I agree with the US or any Gov't for that matter also breaking laws.

EDIT: "Why shouldn't I work for the NSA?" \- Good Will Hunting, 1997 [http://goo.gl/hjMHg](http://goo.gl/hjMHg)

</comment><comment><USER24> This made me think of a court case a few years back. The defendant was arrested for shooting a potato cannon (PVC pipe, BBQ grill lighter and hairspray for propellant). When the charges were read as using a dangerous weapon the defendant's lawyer replied that if a potato were a dangerous weapon then Ireland would be a superpower.

<comment><USER25> That's rather stupid. Generally, it is not the bullet that is considered to be the dangerous weapon, but the gun which fires it.

If the lawyer thinks a high-speed potato can't kill somebody, I suggest he go give it a shot (pun intended) and see what happens.

<comment><USER26> The bullet contains everything you need, not the gun. Lead and propellent, the gun is just a convenient tube and handle.

<comment><USER25> You're thinking of the cartridge. The bullet is just the projectile, and does not include the propellant.

<comment><USER27> You're all way over-thinking potatoes.

<comment><USER25> I don't think so. Any projectile of decent mass will be deadly when accelerated to high speed. There's nothing that magically exempts potatoes from this just because they're edible. You can absolutely kill someone with a potato gun. The prosecution in question may be wrong for other reasons (e.g. fired safely and not with any intent to harm), but "potatoes can't kill, because otherwise Ireland would be a superpower" is not the way to argue it.

<comment><USER27>
        "potatoes can't kill, because otherwise Ireland would be a superpower"
        is not the way to argue it.

I never made such an argument.

<comment><USER25> _You_ didn't, but the lawyer referenced in the original comment I replied to said essentially that.

<comment><USER28> Oh geez, can we get any more off-topic?

Stop being so damn pedantic and nitpicky, both of you. All of you.

<comment><USER25> Pedantic? Nitpicky?

A comment was made about a lawyer making an argument which, in my opinion, is a bad argument. I pointed that out. I'm not being "pedantic" nor am I "nitpicking" when I point out that a potato cannon _is_ , in fact, a deadly weapon and the lawyer's argument against it is stupid.

Now, I agree that the comment, and therefore the whole thread that followed it, was not really on-topic. But I'm not seeing this whole "pedantic and nitpicky" thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I guess they're getting afraid of this scenario, as well:

[http://www.thelocal.de/national/20130704-50697.html](http://www.thelocal.de/national/20130704-50697.html)</comment>