Inside the Booming Business of Adults Who Play with Toys on YouTube - <AUTHOR> http://www.mentalfloss.com/article/89957/inside-booming-business-adults-who-play-toys-youtube <comment><USER2> Sounds like a symptom of the Peter Pan generation.</comment>


Comparing AWS and GCP NLP API for Sentiment Analysis and a Case for Custom Model - <AUTHOR> https://engineering.wootric.com/building-our-own-sentiment-analytics-model <comment><USER2> What is transfer learning and why is better for customer feedback?

On a side note I'd love to see another head-to-head diagram of the transfer learning against AWS and GCP.

<comment><USER3> Transfer learning is the premise of learning from data in one domain, and then being able to transfer that knowledge to another domain. In this case, we leverage large existing text datasets to build an initial model, and then tailor that model to customer feedback and apply it to our specific problem (for this blog post, classifying feedback sentiment).

We chose to use this approach for customer feedback since it combines the benefits of a general model (large amounts of data) with the benefits of a domain-specific model (targeted to customer feedback). It looks like we were validated, as it outperformed Google NLP API and AWS Comprehend - both general models - on our set of customer feedback data.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm surprised AWS doesn't expose NLP services tuned for customer feedback type text data—-they surely must use/maintain models for this type of data internally given the Amazon store is a trove of customer feedback training data.

Separately, where does Azure fall into this space?

<comment><USER3> I would imagine that AWS Comprehend utilizes a lot of customer feedback when training its internal models. However, they do advertise Comprehend as a general purpose NLP service, so they may have taken steps to make the models generalize to the non-feedback domain. In any case, on our set of sentiment data for customer feedback, Comprehend is outperformed by Google's NLP API and our own internal model.

As for Azure, we actually did not factor their service into our comparison. This is definitely something to consider in future blog posts.</comment></comment>


Trump just took a step to slash Utah national monuments by 2M acres - <AUTHOR> https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/12/4/16733798/utah-national-monument-trump-bears-ears-staircase-escalante <comment><USER2> Right, to protect the Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears National Monuments (which are currently protected) 2M acres of land needs to be removed from the National Monument protective system and (presumably) made available for development and mining. Hard to believe that anyone would buy into that logic.</comment>


Ask HN: How to create a framework than an end product - <AUTHOR> "Stop thinking about creating the perfect end product and create a framework under which the right systems can emerge and continue to grow as we learn more."<p>Not sure where I read this but found it while reading about software architecture. It kinda stuck with me. Any other resources which helps gain more understanding on this approach and implementing it. Any products out there which does this better. <comment><USER2> I don't know of any products that were made by explicitly creating a separate framework for them first.

HN and Viaweb come to mind. But even those were made by creating a product in parallel with the framework.

If you like this kind of thing, though, you might like to read On Lisp. There's a free pdf copy floating around the internet.</comment>


Do we have free SSL certificate which won't expire in 3 months? - <AUTHOR> Letsencrypt.org provides free certificates which would expire in 3 months. Do we have some other free SSL resources which would not expire, like 1 year or so? <comment><USER2> According to CAB forum guidelines, Certificate authority cannot issue DV certificate more than 39 months validity and EV certificate for more than 27 months validity.

[https://cabforum.org/faq-about-the-baseline- requirements/](https://cabforum.org/faq-about-the-baseline-requirements/) [https://cabforum.org/wp-content/uploads/EV-SSL- Certificate-G...](https://cabforum.org/wp-content/uploads/EV-SSL-Certificate- Guidelines-Version-1.4.6.pdf)

So you can get DV/BV certificate for maximum for 3 years and EV certificate with maximum 2 year validity because most CAs prefer to issue certificate on yearly base.

</comment><comment><USER3> There are tools to refresh those certs automatically.

But you could check out AWS Route53 -- I think they provide free certs (non- wildcard).

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the advice. But AWS cloud will not work in my region -- China.

> There are tools to refresh those certs automatically.

I know these tools. But I have set it up every time. And it will increase the labour work if you have dozens of domains, dozens of servers. Really troublesome to maintain only for the certificates.

<comment><USER4> If the machine is running linux, try looking into automating the "certbot renew" command.

I have achieved this with an crontab on my servers that run on a day to day basis. This should automatically renew your certificates if they are close to expiry.</comment></comment></comment>


Negative Feedback Is Positive - <AUTHOR> https://davnicwil.com/negative-feedback-is-positive/ <comment><USER2> As long as it is somewhat honest or _qualified_ negative feedback this is true.

As someone who studied film, trusteothy sources of negative feedback can be extremely valuable and hard to come by. Many people will just tell you how well you did, while you might just need a honest judgment.

Taste however is different. You can e.g. make the best cli app in the world, you will find a ton of people who give you negative feedback just for it not having a GUI. This is why it is useful if you know your critics at least so much that you can judge where their feedback really comes from.

So the honest opinion of someone using CLI software for the past decade is more valuable if you're working on such a thing, than the honest opinion of somebody who dislikes CLI software altogether or has no idea at all. That doesn't mean these people cannot provide valuable criticism — only that it should be taken with a grain of salt.

<comment><USER3> People criticizing a good console application for lacking a GUI indicate need for such a GUI, this is not criticism per se. It is useful information too. But many developers just don't have necessary time or will to code it and this needs to be conveyed. Proper communication is the best thing humans ever developed.

<comment><USER4> > just don't have necessary time or will to code

Or the intention to begin with, which is the situation OP points out as non useful negative criticism.

But yeah, I don't see "request for gui" as a criticism for a cli application. More like a feature request.

<comment><USER5> Well it might be more than just a feature request.

Think along the lines of wireshark, you can separate out the underlying code to do the work in a library, then use that in a cli and gui. If you're working on a cli app yourself, that "feature request" might hit things you just don't have the will to do. I know me making any sort of gui is going to end up a tire fire, and the work to cleanly separate out the code from the cli to a library usable by both is also a bunch of work for what appears to be a at best nice to have "feature".

<comment><USER4> > you just don't have the will to do

Sure, will to do, is one thing. Consider I request the curl dev to make a gui for it. would you find it unreasonable because everyone is okay with cli ?

I just cannot justify any reason apart from the convenience of using gui to develop that.

> separate out the code from the cli to a library usable by both is also a > bunch of work

The time and amount of work is in my opinion not just about the amount of work, because if that was the case why develop even the cli and opensource it ?

Make a GUI is just a different beast compared to CLI.

<comment><USER5> > Consider I request the curl dev to make a gui for it. would you find it > unreasonable because everyone is okay with cli ?

Yes, as libcurl exists and gui's can be done by someone else more knowledgeable with them. Plus gui's for what exactly? The web? macos? windows? X? playstation? even asking for a gui is a bit vague and an incomplete request I would reject outright without at least going: i want this.

I'd solve this by going, sounds good, you're the best person for it so far and now have write access to create a branch and get us there with the itch to scratch it.

> Make a GUI is just a different beast compared to CLI.

Agreed, but the effort can be disproportionate to the gains the submitter might get. And if this is something i'm doing for myself, to be blunt, I don't got time for that kind of effort. And more bluntness, nobody could make me do it, my time is my own and I have to balance that against other things. If you ask for it you better believe I'm going to say its now on you to do as I have neither the skills nor desire to invest my own time on this. I'll gladly help you out getting there but that is about as far as I'm willing to go.

I feel that is fair. Others may disagree.

<comment><USER4> I think you are just agreeing with what I said.

> Plus gui's for what exactly

GUI is a huge separate feature request and not "criticism" per say.

> but the effort can be disproportionate

Hence the different beast.

Like I said, I just cannot justify any reason apart from the convenience of using gui to develop that.

<comment><USER5> > I think you are just agreeing with what I said.

Pretty much yep! I think we both agree asking for gui support is likely to get shot down by most maintainers. And not for any reason than its a big ask.

> GUI is a huge separate feature request and not "criticism" per say.

I've seen a lot of people even on HN complain about cli only things. I'm not sure everyone would agree its a feature request.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I heard a quote many years ago. I don't remember where from. But it was basically:

"Negative feedback is the best feedback because it helps you improve the things that annoy your customers that no one else is telling you about."

A lot of companies hate negative feedback though and get upset. But if I ever tweet something saying it's shitty or doesn't make sense. If they reach out I always try to give them more info and clear reasons why.

Most recently I complained about a survey tool because it asked a question but the design of the form didn't show an input field and I didn't know where to enter data. So I pressed enter wanting an error message or something. And instead I got taken to the next question.

Turns out it was a display issue in any browser other than chrome. But they reached out and I explained and they thanked me and said they will look into it.

It must be hard for people to filter through the negative stuff for valid criticism though.

</comment><comment><USER7> "Negative feedback" is _not_ positive when it's merely an insult.

Let me clarify:

"Your app is so slow it's proof you have absolutely no business writing software and evidence of the moral decay of the entire field of computing, if not humanity as a whole. Give up. You deserve a six-foot nap." is not merely an insult. It contains an actionable point.

"You have absolutely no business writing software. You're a monster. You do not qualify as human. I would like to see you in an immense amount of pain." is most definitely negative feedback, but it does not contain anything actionable. It has no positive aspect to it.

The fact unquestionably sane people can generate feedback of the second kind is one of the things to consider when accepting feedback.

<comment><USER8> > The fact unquestionably sane people can generate feedback of the second kind > is one of the things to consider when accepting feedback.

It's easy to drive people to (temporary) insanity, too.

A recent anecdote: PayPal sucks (as usual) and doesn't let me log in. They've been requiring me to change my password before because of some strange Californian paranoia, so I hope that'll help and reset my password successfully. I still can't log in. I'm looking for ways to contact customer service. It says "log in, then use the contact options to send us an email". It has a "can't log in? call us!" option, I call them, sit through an annoying 60 second phone menu, only to be told that they're not working right now and to call back on monday. I notice that their "password was changed" info wasn't sent from a no-reply-address, but some service-email, so I just reply, annoyed. I get an auto-reply, saying "to send us an email, please log in ...". Needless to say that I never heard back from anyone.

It's such a broken process by a global corporation and it was so annoying, that I was pretty close to just responding with insults, but I'm trying to control my emotions, and also I still need my PayPal account.

AliBaba/AliExpress is another example, they use (used? haven't tried in a while) chatbots pretending to be human support agents, and they're so bad at it that it's a) absolutely not helpful for most cases where you need support b) easy to spot. The insulting part is that the (clearly labeled) first response chatbot says "let me get you a human agent that can handle this", only to put you into contact with another copy of itself that asks the same questions. The part that really makes me want to scream at them: their bots have artificial "thinking time". They'll say "one moment please", have typing indicators, only to say "you're asking about '$keyword', right?".

Very strong negative feedback could just mean that you're _really_ messing up, or the way you collect feedback is broken. Have a form that only accepts 200 characters in the message field but only says so when you submit and resets the form? You won't get a lot of friendly messages from people that had just written long bug reports or messages.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> From experience doing a startup and seeking feedback on a new product, I think this is absolutely true. Some people here are saying the feedback needs to have substance or not just be insults, but even those are meaningful. Your job is to read between the lines. The real question you need answered isn't the same as the question they answer, so you always need to think about how to translate their answer into priorities.

Even no feedback is positive feedback, because it's telling you that people aren't in love with your creation the way you are, and you then need to find out why. When I created a web app, I solved the problems that I strongly felt needed solving, and then I found out that maybe 5% of my audience agreed with my choice of priorities, and 95% of them cared deeply about things I hadn't considered carefully.

There's a corollary for startups that negative feedback from investors is also positive. The second best thing an investor can do is say no (where the best is yes & a check). They hardly ever say no. They usually say come back with such and such improved metrics, and we'll talk again. When they say no, it gives you valuable information, and it releases you from chasing something that's unlikely to work out. When I was pitching, I was so thankful to the couple of investors who said no and gave direct feedback about why. That was some of the best feedback I ever got.

</comment><comment><USER10> As a game developer I don't really listen to feedback. Gamers' feedback tends to be very short-sighted and even harmful. If something sticks around as a common complaint I may consider it but even then it may not be a good idea (e.g. a feature that may seem obvious can mess with another planned feature in the roadmap or be automatically fixed due to reworked mechanics).

<comment><USER11> I've found that feedback from playtesting is always worth listening to, especially if it highlights issues (e.g. with game mechanics or balance) that weren't obvious to me as the game dev. This is an instance of the more general process of getting users who aren't the dev to help test a system, e.g. because they will take unexpected paths through.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Now someone please explain to my boss that "you don't listen" and "can you just do your job properly", when he doesn't lay out the correct requirements and expect us to read his mind is not proper "negative feedback".

<comment><USER13> If that helps, I usually draw a big picture, fill in all the details and show where inconsistencies, gaps and future landmines are. Then come up with few detailed suggestions, workarounds and/or hypothesis on these, all easy to answer with yes/no. Usually that discovers an entire layer of problems in the original problem statement and the cycle repeats.

Sometimes though they fail to even yes/no and just repeat what was said before. A little patience and time is required to bring that in their mind clearly.

I think an advice could be, don't bring emotions to the table and try to solve this bigger task of getting shit done in machine+human environment rather than locking yourself in a strict requirements bunker. Connecting ideas to reality can already be incredibly hard and more so impossible without your help.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Ask people something to the effect of:

 _How does this suck?_

The goal is to disarm people so they're able to criticize something without worrying about saving anyone's face. Separate people from ideas... as much as inhumanely possible to get honest feedback.

I must always remember also: don't fall in love with or lionize any particular idea, creation or plan because they're not my children and are ultimately stuff and/or configurations of concepts. In the bigger view, ego death and detachment are important because if someone lies to themselves, for whatever reason/motivation, they're going to lie to everyone else too. Single founder tend to have more "grand big idea" insanity that needs to be tempered with other founders, family, friends and/or users who aren't dripping negativity but who don't applaud them if they can't sing like those people who go to open mic nights and screech. Don't be that guy or that founder with a Jump to Conclusions mat.

</comment><comment><USER15> Any thoughts about the norm of "constructive criticism"? I think it's partly a good idea, because the feedback-giver can take a little trouble (propose improvements along with criticism) that will save a lot more trouble for the feedback-receiver. But also partly a bad idea, because I've seen people defend pointless bureaucratic procedures that shouldn't even exist, by saying "don't say our procedure is bad, say how we can improve it". So it seems that "constructive criticism" is partly a good idea and partly a kind of groupthink practice, but I'm not sure where to draw the line.

<comment><USER16> While I feel I only partially managed to capture how I think about it, because I surely have thought about it a lot, as I've seen places where critique flows like water - easily and without much strife to anyone - and places where any critique is/becomes either a disaster - or completely ignored!

\--- Constructive criticism as such might be a sensible ideal when giving unsolicited criticism, but it also terribly destructive as an expectation, or norm.

In many cases the call for constructive criticism is nothing else but a very effective form of censoring as t makes any criticism from anyone that hasn't got the necessary knowledge, or time that be able to find and elucidate the solution to be completely dismissible without consideration.

Not at all what one wants, unless you want to suppress "dissent".

Requiring only constructive criticism could perhaps acceptable as a very temporary intervention when all else have failed. In any other case it almost certainly devolves into _some kind of_ censure.

This does not imply that the one critiquing is free to do or say whatever they want, not at all!

Honesty, a constructive _intent_ , avoidance of ad hominems, engaging without prestige or appeal to authority, and a substantial amount of intellectual integrity is always going to have to be required of anyone giving or accepting critique - if it is to be truly useful.

Moreover, I would claim that sustainable and effective criticism in a professional setting must also be accompanied by an almost complete lack of subterfuge. Especially any kind of hidden attempt to cast yourself in a better light, or someone else in a worse.

Getting to be able to sustain effective criticism can lead to a higher ratio of constructive criticism, but I haven't seen anything suggesting the reverse to be true unless the basic values of honesty and integrity are given equal consideration and prominence.

Critique must be expected to sometimes be painful in some - often obscure - way, so what we can do improve how we handle it is most easily explained from the perspective of taking away what makes us fear this particular form of pain.

Sometimes fostering a good climate for criticism seem to be about almost everything but the critique itself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I would say "negative feedback is usually good news". Positive feedback is bad news. The vast majority of control systems in the real world are usually based on negative feedback, not positive feedback.

You only really need to provide "positive" feedback as part of stabilizing an unstable system - like countersteering when driving a car. And then if you do it properly it kinda turns into its "negative" anyway.

</comment><comment><USER18> A personal pet peeve of mine is that people sometimes ask rhetorical questions - rather than simply state what the problem is. Drives me nuts. For example: "Why doesn't this button submit the form?" vs "I don't think this button works". I see this all the time and still scratch my head.

<comment><USER19> There are downsides to saying "this button doesn't work" — there's a follow up question in some cases, which is "what makes you say it doesn't work?" Asking the question acknowledges that there may be a lack of understanding of the intent of the button. Maybe to you it doesn't work, but to the person who designed it, it is working as intended, and your mental model is the incorrect part. Asking the question as framed directly in the way you experience the world (action not leading to an expected reaction) makes the problem statement more clear.

<comment><USER20> What do you think is more reasonable? Asking hundreds of thousands of users to learn to give better feedback, or for hundreds of developers to learn better listening?

<comment><USER21> The problem here is a meeting of minds: The user can't possibly know what is expected behaviour, especially with the modern lack of GUI standards. A tester might be able to read a user manual, but the manual might be wrong. As dev, you're the vendor. Some maturity is expected and that you're able to figure it out.

What helps is reaching out to users earlier and agree on behaviour together. You know, using agility.

<comment><USER20> It's a pretty sophisticated skill to hear aggression in others and be able to hear what is causing them pain instead of just "I wanna fight." But aren't we problem solvers by trade?

Problems make people upset. If you can only treat polite customers you'd make a terrible health care professional or even plumber. Someone once gave me the advice that part of why developer salaries are so high is because they include hazard pay.

I suspect the same is true for plumbers. $300 to get my plumbing unplugged on a Saturday night can probably smooth a lot of feathers with his family. And that was a slight discount, probably because I was pleasant, instead of railing at his whole profession for a problem he didn't create.

It's hard to remember this sometimes, but I do think it provides some perspective.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> In systems engineering, negative feedback is viewed as one form of 'unexpressed system requirement' for that stakeholder. Surprise negative feedback can be even better, as it may be a sign that your system has a stakeholder you weren't even aware of but which you now are.

</comment><comment><USER23> I've known this for ages it goes without saying that in real design when you show your work to another designer they're meant to find the one thing that sticks out and the more brutally honest the better

</comment><comment><USER24> People will rarely tell you to your face that your "baby" is ugly. For actual babies this is a good thing, but in business this can lead to much wasted effort.

</comment><comment><USER25> Pay attention to negative feedback and solicit it, particularly from friends. Hardly anyone does that, and it's incredibly helpful."

— Elon Musk

<comment><USER26> Very good quote. However, I'm not sure that he practiced that enough, given for example his repeated online bullying of the diver (which should have been corrected after negative feedback).

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Here's what I've found as effective ways to give (and receive) negative feedback.

1\. TRUST - I'm part of a tight-knit group of bootstrapper/indie devs and a real aspect of how we're able to offer real feedback is that we have the backdrop of knowing each other in other ways.

If someone who I consider a fantastic developer and sent me a Christmas card last year tells me: "Mike, this makes no sense." take that a lot more seriously.

2\. DATA - as a human I've found that I'm often wrong, so I try to evaluate my own opinions against data. In the context of apps/sites this is often A/B tests or other quantifiable things.

3\. FEEDBACK NOT ACTION - People tend to offer feedback along with a kneejerk suggestion on what action to take to resolve it.

Example: I had a service that required users to OAuth (with a bunch of legitimately scary permission scopes) and also make DNS changes to enable it and was told repeatedly as feedback that it was "too much" and "people would never use it".

Their recommendation: shut it down.

The direction I took: go crazy building trust in the process.

The result: my most successful project to date with thousands of paying customers.

3\. SCOPE - feedback is often scoped improperly. Is someone asking for feedback about a startup idea: "Will this connect with people?" it's not useful to critique the fonts used on their homepage or something else. (both HN and I are too often guilty of this).

4\. BELIEVE FEEDBACK - one of the most important exercises I do for all my projects now is a "UX walk through" where I sit someone down and just try and let them sign up and work through the process of signing up for the service with as little intervention from myself as possible.

I find it incredibly painful.

Even interfaces that I think are incredibly polished and straightforward suddenly become opaque nightmares when presented to people that haven't seen them before. This is the "curse of knowledge" \- I'm too close to the process and can't see the issues clearly.

In these situations, it's incredibly easy to argue with people about it and say: "how can you not have seen that button?" or "You're not really paying attention" or something else dumb.

But if I'm able to make myself believe the feedback, not take it personally and really address the issues at hand I find I get fantastic results. Last time I did this I ended up scrapping months of works (painful), migrating to a new auth system (painful) and rebuilding the entire onboarding from scratch (incredibly painful), but the end result was a move from 30% successful user onboarding to over 70%.

Feedback works.

</comment><comment><USER28> Uh, this post sucks! Am I doing this right?</comment>


VW Redefines car with a 170-mpg diesel hybrid - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/09/volkswagen-l1-concept/

<comment><USER2> I'm sure the aerodynamic wheel fairings are really good for fuel efficiency, but I predict they'll be a lot smaller on any production car that comes from this idea. People do like being able to drive over speed bumps after all.

<comment><USER3> And they also look rather strange. Not a big deal, but it could keep people from buying it. I know I wouldn't want those things on my car, they look like something straight out of a bad sci-fi movie.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Interesting announcement, given the comments Audi of America's president made recently that only idiots would buy a gas hybrid.

For the average person, a plain old diesel is probably the best value at the moment. Eventually, though, I suspect that hybrids will converge on a Volt- style drivetrain mated with a turbodiesel. The same arrangement has been used on diesel locomotives for years.

<comment><USER5> To be fair, he didn't say that only an idiot would buy a gas hybrid, he said that the Chevy Volt was a car for idiots. Still a fairly inappropriate and, I think, inaccurate statement, but not in direct conflict with other parts of VW the way you might suggest.

The trouble with the idea that everyone is gonna use diesel is... what are we gonna do with all the regular gasoline? IIRC fractioning of crude oil produces a certain amount of diesel, a certain amount of gasoline, a certain amount of kerosene and so forth, so _somebody_ might as well be burning that gasoline.

<comment><USER6> How is the statement inaccurate? What is the value proposition for the Volt? $45,000 makes no sense, and even with the government subsidies, you won't come out on top. Most existing hybrids don't even make sense on cost basis.

<comment><USER5> The price isn't announced yet, so it's dumb to make pronouncements based on a rumoured price point. I've also heard rumours of prices as low as $30K, at which point it becomes pretty compelling.

Even if it is $45K I'm not going to deride everyone who wants to spend that kind of money on a fancy high-tech vehicle that under most driving conditions burns hardly any fuel while still being versatile enough to take anywhere as an idiot. Hell, you can spend twice that on a far less versatile Tesla Roadster and still not be an idiot.

<comment><USER6> "Henderson conceded the cost of building a Volt will be expensive, about $40,000 per vehicle. But he said the vehicle will qualify for a $7,500 tax credit, which will reduce the vehicle cost by that amount for consumers."

[http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/11/autos/volt_mpg/index.htm?pos...](http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/11/autos/volt_mpg/index.htm?postversion=2009081108)

Note that the figure is the manufacturing cost, not the price. The price will be higher.

Hybrids and electric cars are status symbols. The premium is more than you save in operating costs. At that price point, you can buy cars that are more effective status symbols, if that's what you're going for. Buying the Volt is a bit idiotic, and it'd be more idiotic without the subsidies that the rumored cost you cited includes.

The Volt is not fancy. It _is_ high tech, but the appeal of most high tech gadgets is from the experience of using them. Driving a Volt will be marginally different from driving a Chevy Cruze.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> _VW says the L1 is perfectly safe, with the driver and passenger safely ensconced in a carbon fiber safety cell and protected by head and side-curtain airbags. The front of the car features an aluminum crash structure._

Saying it is safe and passing NHTSA are two extremely different things. That is why the smart costs so much.

As a side note, some similar ideas have gotten street-legality by being officially motorcycles. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corbin_Sparrow>

<comment><USER8> Passing the NHTSA and being safe are two extremely different things, in that the former certainly doesn't mean the latter in terms of customer satisfaction.

Smart cars passed the NHTSA safety checks, but the NHTSA still brought out a dire warning due to it only receiving a 3-star (now considered rare for vehicles) in a passenger side crash. It passed, but I doubt anyone wants to know that it's an entire grade less-safe than nearly any other vehicle on the road when it comes to passenger safety.

I'd trust an 1L further than a Smart due to the ability for a large side impact zone relative to _any_ vehicle on the road while maintaining safety front and back. Like any car below a mid-size, I wouldn't buy it unless it had _at least_ 4-star minimum, and I'd seriously reconsider anything without a 5-star. If the 1L gets all 5's, I'd buy it without a doubt.

My concern with NHTSA tests is that they're performed using an 'average' car (IE mid-size). A mid-size with a 4-star fairs much better against a pickup than a compact with a 4-star, when in reality it shouldn't. It's just a simple matter of well, matter and velocity. Then you've got to consider material strengths, aluminum used in car bodies typically has to be twice as thick as required to match the strength of steel due to it being _too thin_. This means aluminum vehicle frames are expected to increase vehicle safety two-fold, and I believe if used in the same dimensions as steel it would be a seven-fold increase in strength.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Somebody got some numbers wrong: "20 kilowatts (26 horsepower); and 'Sport,' with 29 kilowatts (39 horsepower)". 20 kW == 0.26 HP, 29 kW == 0.39 HP.

<comment><USER10> I find it hilarious that two people responded with the exact same phrase: "Google disagrees"

We might as well automate this process!

<comment><USER11> Or, you know... read other comments before replying. My comment beat the other by an hour :)

<comment><USER10> Actually I think it was by a minute, not an hour. Not that it really matters now...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> And what are they going to do to get more diesel pumps around the good old US of A? And the perception of diesel as dirty in the good old US of A? And why does it seem like there's an unwritten law that any sufficiently fuel efficient car has to look like a robot turd?

<comment><USER13> Because we all know that Americans are the only people on earth who buy cars.

<comment><USER12> Diesels are already popular in Europe, so there's no problems there. I'm not sure about the rest of the world, but I suspect diesel is popular in most places outside the US. The US is the place built around cars, the US is the place that spends the most on oil, and the US is the place with an atypical dislike for diesel and a lack of diesel pumps. Thus for this car to make the biggest difference it has to become popular in the US. And while anyone who can read English can read Wired on the Internet, Wired is a US publication.

But other then that no, nothing US specific about this.

<comment><USER8> Here in Canada I see diesel nearly everywhere (certainly not compared to the UK and Europe where 3 or 4 fuel prices are listed on a sign, I have no clue why they don't do the same here besides corporations being as smart as a thanksgiving turkey), certainly in the GTA it's at every pumping station.

I've seen a fair amount of Jetta's around where I live carrying the TDI symbol, so diesels are definitely selling. I believe info about biodiesel is helping promote this, but I believe it will still be considerable time before the NA market is as accepting of diesel as the European market, which I find _seriously_ disturbing due to the fact that southern US has been perfect for diesels since their invention (high temperatures meant starting was never an issue in winter, and the higher fuel density meant that you didn't lose as much fuel to evaporation, but then fuel-efficiency is still a near alien word to many in NA).</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Pi vs. Oberon - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/12/02/pi_versus_oberton/ <comment><USER2> Too OberonStation costs nearly 180$</comment>


Wanker - <AUTHOR> http://mig.io/makes/wanker/

<comment><USER2> Pretty funny, but one second is far too short. This triggers even on a normal resizing. It should only trigger if someone is messing around for a few seconds. It's not much of an easter egg if anyone resizing their window gets it!

<comment><USER3> Definitely encourages premature notification.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> But…why?

Responsive design is my job and I love to see how others do it. Why obscure that good work?

<comment><USER5> Because the web was not meant to be squished apparently...

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Someone might re-size your site because the design forces them to.

I organize my windows so that my browser takes up the left half of my screen - so it's 960 pixels wide. Pretty big. I never make it any wider than this unless I'm looking at pictures, or forced to by a bad design.

This site exemplifies a bad design that would force me to re-size my browser. I had to make my browser wider to get rid of a horizontal scroll bar on a code block. Nobody reading code on a website ever wants to scroll the code window side to side!

Even though there was plenty of horizontal space for the code blocks to be displayed without scroll bars, this page's design favored blank space on either side of the code blocks over the code itself.

When I have the browser wide enough to display all of the code, it may as well be taking up my entire screen. The remaining horizontal space isn't usable for anything.

I see this problem with code samples on webpages all the time.

Web designers today seem to be operating under the delusion that their site will be the only thing on a user's screen.

</comment><comment><USER7> Make it show a "we're hiring great front-end developers" message and this is actually quite practical.

</comment><comment><USER8> This is pricelessly self-referential considering how many web people are, themselves, wankers.

</comment><comment><USER9> Happens a bit quickly but I guess you can't fault enthusiasm.

</comment><comment><USER10> Luckily they let you change the delay time.

</comment><comment><USER11> cute... definitely something to add AFTER you're done developing for your breakpoints, though ;)</comment>


Marketers' Fixation on the Millennial Generation - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/business/media/marketers-fixation-on-the-millennial-generation.html <comment><USER2> I may have missed the point of the article, but it seems like most consumer marketers have always been hyperfocused on (roughly) the 18-30 segment for various reasons. Some of those reasons would be flattering to people in that age range (more likely to be trendsetters, for example) and some would not be (more susceptible to marketing, or more likely to want to follow trends established by perceived trendsetters). But it seems like it's been this way my whole life.

Is the marketing focus on the Millenial Generation simply the fact that the age demographics that marketers have always been fixated on now roughly corresponds with the age range associated with Millenials? It seems that way to me, and if so the article may be conflating stereotypes about capital-G Generations with what consumer marketers have always done, which is to try to squeeze as much money as possible out of twentysomethings before they wise up to it.

<comment><USER3> Because that age group in the past 100ish years is the group that generally has the most disposable income, simple as that. However, that's probably not so true of the millennial's due to the poor economy for the past 7 years, high price of college education, and rather poor wages (and thus, less disposable income).

<comment><USER4> It's more than 18-30 year olds don't have fixed preferences yet. Most 18-30 year olds are discovering "their favorite" beer, brand of car, toothpaste, etc. Most 60 year olds, even though they have more disposable income, have more established brand preference. Hence, it makes more sense to market to the younger people, even if the older people actually spend more. The genius thing is to have a ladder of products and bring people in at the bottom -- say, a cheap Yaris or Echo to start, and then they move "naturally" upmarket as those cars themselves move upmarket (remember when the Corolla was a low end car? Now there are several models below it, if you include Scion, for new buyers). People also tend to move upmarket within the same brand, say up to a Camry, Avalon, Highlander, or even a Lexus.

(Obviously this varies by product/market, but generally for most consumer purchases it is valid.)

<comment><USER5> I'm a baby boomer, and a few years ago had to buy a new car. I was shopping for one of those entry level cars, and the marketing was millennial-oriented to the point of being comical. I literally ordered the cheapest model in the line, with zero options. As I signed the check, I asked the salesman: So, the marketing for these cars is all hip hop and millennial, but who is actually buying these things?

His answer: "Middle aged cheapskates like you."

<comment><USER6> This is a real problem for Toyota. They created the entire Scion brand to attract young people because the average age of a Toyota owner is getting pretty high. And what's happened? A lot of the Scions are being bought by cheapskate "oldsters" (like me) who know it's made by Toyota and want the low end. (Alas, I didn't buy a Scion this time around but I sure looked at them a lot.)

<comment><USER7> The only message I ever really got from Scion marketing is "CHEAP."

<comment><USER6> I don't know what are you are, but when I was 18-26 that message was very appealing to me!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Um, how is this news?

18-35 year olds have more marketeer-accessible expendable income (ie, most don't have mortgages, large family expenditures and haven't racked up medical bills), most are financially naive (made deliberately so by perverse educational systems) and most are socially aspirational. This isn't unique to millennials though.

<comment><USER9> Can you elaborate on how does the educational system influences personal finances, and what do you mean by that?

<comment><USER10> There is almost zero information provided on proper personal financial responsibility/management in formal education in the U.S. You'd get more information from the /r/personalfinance Reddit subreddit FAQ.

<comment><USER9> This isn't exclusive to US.

I remember having a class called "household" taking about an hour a week for a year or two in my primary education, where we learned mostly about cooking. Yes, I'm not joking. A class about finance could take the same amount of time, since apparently there is time available in the school schedule, and be very worthwhile.

<comment><USER11> Ironically, in the US that class was called "Home _Economics_ "

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> "The Ad Contrarian" blog talks about this a lot. Marketers are apparently obsessed with millennials, but their parents (and older) are the ones with the money who really buy things. For example, the people targeted by car ads constitute 12% of the market, the rest is people older than them. [http://adcontrarian.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-youth-car- delus...](http://adcontrarian.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-youth-car- delusion.html)

<comment><USER13> Sure, but the idea is the 18-34 set is developing brand loyalties, so when they actually _do_ have money the marketing will pay off.

Cars are a good example. I'm pushing 50, and when I go to buy another car I'll probably buy a Toyota, because I've had good luck with that brand. The other carmakers can spent a trillion dollars on marketing and it's not going to influence me in the slightest. But people who don't have any experience with cars beyond dad's hand-me-down jalopy are going to be more receptive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Wait, since when is 1980 in the Millennial generation? 20 years seems really rather broad to be dividing into generations. What does a 35 year old have in common with a 15 year old?

That makes me a Millennial and my wife from 1979 a Gen Xer. Oh, she's not going to like that one bit :P

And what ever happened to Gen X? They just seem to get universally lumped into the Baby Boomers now, if they get mentioned at all.

<comment><USER11> Baby boomers are on 55+ now.

Gen X is middle age now, and they eventually got low paying jobs working for the baby boomers.

Gen Y happened, but we were boring, so we got retroactively split up and rolled into Gen X and Millenials.

<comment><USER15> So... Ad researchers have rebranded Gen Y?? That's kind of funny.

(Also shows how much attention I was paying. I thought there were Boomers, X's, Y's, and Millenials)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> _24 /7 micropandering_

An alarmingly accurate characterization.

</comment><comment><USER17> I, for one, am just fine with marketers ignoring me.

<comment><USER9> But are you really ignored?

Quickly take a look around your office/home and take a look at the open tabs in your browser and count the ads _and the brands_.

<comment><USER18> What ads?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Though millennials are hailed as the first generation of "digital natives," the over-40 (and 50 and 60) sets have become pretty adept when it comes to smartphones and other devices.

I always find this condescending if not outright insulting. Did the flipping internet, smartphones and all the rest of it just spring fully formed into existence with the birth of the first millennial?

We didn't become adept, we invented it! /rant off

</comment><comment><USER20> Don't worry.

It won't be long before the marketers focus on us -- the marketers for arthritis, incontinence, gout, and erectile dysfunction medication that is.</comment>


Blackberry Reports a Surprise Quarterly Loss, and Forecasts Another - <AUTHOR> http://allthingsd.com/20130628/blackberry-reports-a-surprise-quarterly-loss-and-forecasts-another/

<comment><USER2> Surprise? To who?</comment>


We Don't Sell Saddles Here - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/p/4c59524d650d

<comment><USER2> Crickets...

I'll bite: I'm still not sure what Slack does, and more critically, how it does it. The wall of text that was linked was aimed at employee motivation (or maybe VC presentations), so it is not good at communicating with potential customers (what I assume is the goal now that there is a full launch). There were a lot of talking points, from revolutionizing company organization to telling companies that they don't know what their business is (based on the single example of Lululemon, everyone should sell horseback riding instead of just saddles). Maybe I'm being unfair because I didn't read the whole thing, but frankly, scanning it didn't find what I was looking for.

I am very interested in communication models. My company uses email, wiki, skype (IM&voice), and a virtual meeting service for internal communication. I would love to understand how and why Slack is such a revolution. Granted, I am not a manager or purchasing agent, so this is just intellectual interest. But I could find nothing about the actual product in the linked article or the slack website with a few clicks.

What I expected to see: a) a semi-technical explanation of what slack does, and b) a screenshot or 3.

<comment><USER3> There are plenty of screenshots all over the tour: [https://slack.com/is](https://slack.com/is)</comment></comment>


Is Neoliberalism Destroying the World? (CBC Ideas) - <AUTHOR> https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/is-neoliberalism-destroying-the-world-1.4839399 <comment><AUTHOR> Direct podcast audio: [https://podcast-a.akamaihd.net/mp3/podcasts/ideas- sYakMT5w-2...](https://podcast-a.akamaihd.net/mp3/podcasts/ideas- sYakMT5w-20180926.mp3).

Philip Mirowski, Anat R. Admati, Sam Gindin, Yanis Varoufakis and Bruce Livesey on neoliberalism.

54m36s runtime. Excellent content and production quality.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is meta, but I know you enjoy meta dredmorbius/Cat with the Glasses.

 _All the debates we have are internal debates._

We are Westerners. They have three schools of thought in politics. The Left, the Right and the Liberals. These may be compared to a three set Venn Diagram - related but different.

Everything we think is inside the three school paradigm - that is our Western Orthodoxy.

We have got something from the fundamentals right or we wouldn't be, and it's amazing this isn't stated for the bare fact it is more often - the largest and most successful human civilization in human history by every metric there is.

The problem is of course we are likely wrong about something that will prove our undoing. The question is: what are those things?

The natural tendency is to promote our preferred school over the others but this is a weakness. You can imagine the Romans or Chinese looking at their civilization's decline in retrospect - giving their just-so-story of why it happened. In most cases it is going to be blaming the usual suspects aka the failure modes of competing schools and that isn't enough to explain something systematic. I expect that Joesph Tainter's way of thinking is closer to the mark in getting to real answers - which should be possible.

This may not be a specific answer to the question "what will undo us?" but what jumps out at me is how all Westerners presume their school of thought to be a universal as the monotheistic religions have of their beliefs but there is nothing easier than to show Leftist/Rightist/Liberal dogma does not hold relevance in other times and places. Why didn't the Greeks invent the Industrial Revolution? Maybe they weren't looking for the kinds of answers that would have taken them to new forms of energy and transport because they placed importance on other things.

<comment><AUTHOR> What will undo us? Hygiene.

(The full answer is ... longer.)

<comment><USER3> I'll take a stab.

Two ways in which that could be so is -

Your society succumbs to accumulative negative side affects that lead to a civilization scale heart attack. Pollution, barbarians, (lack of) land reform, diversity zoo taxing coordination ability.

Your society is too rigorous at its maintenance - initially hypersuccessful but becomes overtaken by competitors that managed to bottle enough chaos to produce improvement without falling apart. Analogy being a very clean human would have an unhealthy immune system or homogenous microbiome - making them susceptible. China might be the archetype.

Were either of these what you had in mind? Both include predation but are almost at odds. The main idea might be that a society needs to exercise in many different ways to have a high adaptability score but not too much. This is in the zip code of what David Krakauer (complex systems theory) seems to worry about too. He seems to suggest that we should be teaching children and ourselves lots of useless skills (reading the classics?) because they could exercise our brains in productive ways - that the use of technology to replace human cognition can be a trap.

<comment><AUTHOR> Pretty close t what I have in mind. Threats may be exogenous (extinction-level asteroid strike, gamma-ray burst, ...), or endogenous (anthropogenic climate change, nuclear winter, ...). With time and scale, the latter seems to become more likely.

Many of these endogenous effects are essentially unforseen consequences, though there might be other descriptions which fit (denial / willful blindness among them). Almost all operate as _hygiene dynamics_ , that is, the failure to sustain or support vigorous, healthful function, not merely of individuals, but at a social or societal level.

The etymology, and specific recognition by the Greeks of _hygieine techne_ , "the healthful art", being notable:

[https://www.etymonline.com/word/hygiene#etymonline_v_16114](https://www.etymonline.com/word/hygiene#etymonline_v_16114)

Eventually, all creatures foul their own nests. Even with mitigations, this is inevitable. Some waste product or effect will prove limiting.

The effects also virtually always prove to be unintended consequences. See Robert K. Morton.

Excess cleanliness or vigilance seems to have several negative dynamics. Quashing internal ambition or creativity, as happenned historically with China, is one. Removing selective pressure, possibly another. Giving rise to pathologically reactive social security apparratus, as with police violence, ICE overreach, and excess NSA/CIA/FBI (or NON-US equivalents), akin to autoimmine disorders, another.

Competitive pressures are probably another dynamic, worth consideration. Thanks for mentioning them.

<comment><USER3> We could talk all day but sadly I must go to work to obtain those calories! ;-)

It's always fun talking with you though and I appreciate it.

I'll make one point though.

> Removing selective pressure, possibly another.

I think this one is underrated - there is a strong incentive for us to want to believe the removal of pressure is a good thing - then call that problem solved - it's a black box we no longer think about and close shop on that.

You may know of Mike Rowe - the blue collar jobs advocate.

I think he and David Krakauer are often saying something similar - which is that a loss of contact with the tools in our brains which solve certain problems can (sometimes) produce stagnation as individuals and society - <USER2> gets us flying away from Musk's 'first principals' beliefs.

The whole video is worth watching but this short segment illustrates the point:

[https://youtu.be/pi7h6nmkvAM?t=1900](https://youtu.be/pi7h6nmkvAM?t=1900)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/us/politics/supreme-court-civil-asset-forfeiture.html <comment><USER2> Civil Forfeiture is essentially "guilty until proven innocent." And I don't mean that hyperbolically, I mean literally if the state takes property or cash under Civil Forfeiture you have to prove your property innocent to get it returned (via expensive civil litigation).

That means that they can seize property or cash under a certain value with near impunity because the cost of recovering it is greater than the cost of the goods themselves. This makes it a fantastic tool against the poor, since they'll have no real remedies.

You only really started to hear about Civil Forfeiture once the police started going too far and taking things from the wealthy or powerful, but they've been at this for years, take vehicles from accused but un-prosecuted "drug dealers."

<comment><USER3> What's worse is they don't even need a shred of evidence to take your stuff.

In some states, having more than $10,000 in cash on your person is automatically considered "evidence of criminal activity". That means that the police, just by seeing that you have more than $10k in cash, can simply seize it and then force you to spend your time and additional money proving that the money didn't come from crime.

And, of course, every cent of the cash they take goes to their own department, so they are incentivized to look for cash during traffic stops just so they can literally commit highway robbery...

It's also not unusual for an officer to record that they found $15k in cash, only for the person they seized it from to call foul, stating that they had more. Since there is literally nothing protecting the citizen in this situation, they are left without any legal remedy, and the cop gets to pocket your cash for his own illicit purposes.

This is a system that encourages corruption with the justification of profit.

<comment><USER4> In some states it is illegal to defend against civil forfeiture practices using hidden compartments in your vehicle to store 100% legal property (e.g. cash, jewelry, confidential information)

<comment><USER5> Which states?

<comment><USER6> OH and CA both have laws on the books against creating (hidden compartment) or operating a vehicle with a hidden compartment if it's intended for something illegal. Drugs and guns is the common justification, but I wonder what would happen if you had say 15k in cash in a compartment.

<comment><USER7> Dont. Excessive free cash is very typically seized.

<comment><USER8> I don't think we have enough data to say it's 'very typically seized' - certainly it is at times, and in egregious and outrageous fashion, but I don't think 'very typically' is accurate.

I personally have on many occasions had well in excess of 10,000 on my person and have never had it seized.

<comment><USER9> And you were pulled over, and it was discovered?

I mean, even if you were, that constitutes X data points, which is hardly representative.

<comment><USER10> You're asking him to prove a negative. The onus should be on you.

<comment><USER11> Not at all - one can very reasonably assume that 'very frequently' means after it has been discovered during a traffic stop, in which case it is valid to ask how often djrogers has been in that situation.

<comment><USER12> A mostly unrelated and offtopic comment: It's been a misconception that the $20 and $100 U.S. Dollar bills contain some RFID-like passive tracking capability embedded within the "ribbon" security feature. If you want to have an expensive and uneventful couple minutes, put a $20 in a microwave for a few seconds to "disable" the chip, but be sure to have a cup of water around. The foil-beanie wearing crowd claims that the result of the microwaving, which burns Jackson's face, is proof. Nevermind the actual fact that a majority of the ink on the front of the bill is on Jackson's face, and that the ink contains metal used for pigmenting and other proprietary security measures which is likely the reason it smolders or catches fire first.

Anyways, the reason I bring this up is to highlight the paranoia of some that think that long-range RFID scanners can actually locate large stacks of highly valuable "untraceable" currency, which might be used by the highway patrol to identify potential targets to pull over for civil asset forfeiture reasons.

[https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cache-point/](https://www.snopes.com/fact- check/cache-point/)

<comment><USER13> The stacks of cash with the ribbon and magnetic ink can be scanned for. Think of those plastic and metal ribbon security stickers stores use.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> What bothers me about the article is that they say that the basis of the claim is the 8th Amendment ("excessive fines"). I hope that is not the only argument the lawyers made.

The problem with relying on the 8th alone is that the word "excessive" is imprecise, and there's good reason for the Supreme Court to defer to local legislatures to define what it means, except in extreme cases. Deciding criminal penalties are normally within the powers of the state.

I think the more important amendment is the 5th: ("nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."). This "takings" clause is what civil forfeiture is all about.

The 5th Amendment has been fully incorporated, and is binding on the states: [https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine)

In cases where there is no rational connection to a crime (and there are many such cases), the taking can in no way be construed as a fine.

If you look at the 5th and the 8th together to try to divine the intent of the founders, it's clear that they were trying to limit government overreach of exactly this kind. This case should be a slam dunk.

<comment><USER15> Mandatory disclaimer that I think civil forfeiture sucks.

While I agree with you personally, I think legally that would be very far from a slam dunk case.

The situation in this case seems similar to the one in Bennis v. Michigan, where SCOTUS already ruled that the civil forfeiture did not violate the takings clause of the 5th amendment. So the 5A angle seems like a risky argument.

On the other hand, the waters surrounding the 8th amendment are very murky. As recounted in the Indiana SC decision, their basis for determining that the excessive fines clause is unincorporated comes from the 2010 McDonald decision, a case that had nothing to do with the 8th amendment at all. It was only mentioned in passing, so this was not a holding but merely dictum. SCOTUS had previously said in dictum that the excessive fines clause was incorporated. So there hasn't been a full holding, plus two contradictory dictums in a relatively short period. That's fairly murky, whereas Bennis vs Michigan is basically clear with regards to the 5th amendment.

<comment><USER14> Good catch.

I just read the opinion in Bennis. The core of it is that the state may take property if the use of the property constitutes a public nuisance. If a ship is used for piracy or drug running, for example, then it can be taken.

In Bennis, there was a car jointly owned by a husband and a wife. The husband used the car with a prostitute. The wife didn't know. The question before the court was if the state's taking of the car violated the wife's 5th amendment rights, because she owned half of it and had nothing to do with the crime. Almost the entirely of the opinion concerned whether an innocent owner could have property taken if the property had been used to commit a crime by someone else. The court held that yes, it could, and that wasn't a violation of the 5th amendment.

Most of these civil forfeiture cases can be distinguished because the property taken usually wasn't used in the commission of a crime. People have had large amounts of cash taken from them even though they did nothing more than run a red light or drive too fast. In that case, the money can hardly been seen as having been an instrument of the crime.

It's unfortunate that in this particular case, the druggie did use his car to transport and to buy and sell drugs. This isn't the best case to challenge civil asset forfeiture generally. Perhaps "excessive fines" is the best they'll be able to do. Although if the court is really enlightened, they'll distinguish between an asset which is primarily used for crime (a crack house or a pirate ship) and one which is used only in passing (like this car).

<comment><USER15> Yea, I agree that in Bennis, the focus is more on the wife's innocence and how that should impact the case. Personally, I agree with Stevens in his dissent that it has a huge impact, as the majority's logic taken to its conclusion would justify all manner of absurdities. Stevens imagines the state seizing an airline's jumbo jet should a single passenger (unaffiliated with the airline) board it with drugs.

> Although if the court is really enlightened, they'll distinguish between an > asset which is primarily used for crime (a crack house or a pirate ship) and > one which is used only in passing (like this car).

Agreed. The connection between the cars and crimes in both of these cases in incredibly tenuous.

The Stevens dissent in Bennis really rips the majority to pieces. I'm hopeful Ginsburg and Thomas have grown more skeptical of civil forfeiture in the interim, though I do wish our state and federal legislators would be a little less useless and clean up the civil forfeiture legislation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> What I've learned recently is that most people only read headlines when it comes to Supreme Court cases, and the headlines are written to be intentionally misleading. Most Supreme Court cases have a lot of nuance to them that most people miss.

For example, in this thread, people keep saying that United States v. Ursery upheld Civil Forfeiture, but it did no such thing. The case was about whether CF is a criminal punishment for double-jeopardy, but it did not address the legality of CF itself.

In this case, they are also not directly deciding on CF. They are deciding on whether the 8th amendment applies to the States based on the 14th amendment. If they decide that it does, then the case goes back to the Indiana Supreme Court, who will have to decide if the fine is excessive, like the lower courts found.

But every other civil forfeiture case will still have to argue in a court whether the forfeiture counts as an excessive fine.

<comment><USER17> You seem to have a more accurate perspective on this case than most of the comments. Thank you for posting.

But I'm still confused on one point: It seems like the supreme court has _already_ ruled that the 8th Amendment applies to the states in Roper v. Simmons[0], Robinson v. California [1], and others. To me this pretty directly means that a state law dictating a cruel and unusual punishment is unconstitutional.

So if supreme court isn't deciding whether cruel and unusual punishments at the state level are unconstitutional in general (a previous ruling), and it isn't deciding whether this specific civil forfeiture was cruel and unusual (a decision to be made by the state court), what exactly are they deciding? Is there some unplugged hole in the middle, like whether any CF case (regardless of details) could be cruel and unusual? Or is there some other reason that the previous rulings don't apply here?

[0] [https://www.oyez.org/cases/2004/03-633](https://www.oyez.org/cases/2004/03-633)

[1] [https://www.oyez.org/cases/1961/554](https://www.oyez.org/cases/1961/554)

<comment><USER18> You can track the progress of the case through SCOTUSBlog [1] with associated filings like the writ of certiorari [2]. The precise question presented in this case is:

> Whether the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause is incorporated > against the States under the Fourteenth Amendment

[1] [http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/timbs-v- indiana/](http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/timbs-v-indiana/)

[2] [http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-1091/33939/20180...](http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-1091/33939/20180131162915070_Petition%20for%20a%20Writ%20of%20Certiorari%20Timbs%20et%20al%20v%20State%20of%20Indiana.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'm worried that because this is a case in which the defendant actually did deal drugs, the court will rule in favor of the civil forfeiture laws and the SC case will then be used as a precedent to justify broader use of civil forfeiture. But IANAL, so maybe the danger isn't as big as I fear.

<comment><USER20> You're correct that this isn't really the type of case that will set a precedent for the most troublesome applications of civil forfeiture. I wish cases like these [1] would reach the Supreme Court. In one of those cases, a man that had just won $50,000 in cash from a casino had it seized, even though he wasn't cited for a traffic offense or charged with any crime. It would be nice if legislators simply outlawed the practice, but the political will doesn't exist. A Supreme Court case where property was seized without any charges is likely the only way we will see any progress on civil forfeiture.

[1] [https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/03/12/...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/03/12/cops- use-traffic-stops-to-seize-millions-from-drivers-never-charged-with-a- crime/#32352dfdf54b)

<comment><USER21> If they just drop the case or the person wins in the lower courts and gets their money back then it will never get to the Supreme Court, they have to fight to keep the money (which they don't if it's obvious they'll lose) in order for it to reach the higher levels.

I've heard previously that they go so far as saying the charges are against the _property itself_ so the owner has no standing to sue the government which keeps them from ever determining the constitutionality of civil forfeiture.

<comment><USER20> _I 've heard previously that they go so far as saying the charges are against the property itself so the owner has no standing to sue the government which keeps them from ever determining the constitutionality of civil forfeiture._

This is generally how the cases are titled - U.S.A vs $200,000 US currency, for example. Here's a list of recent federal court cases where the defendant is "currency" [1]. You can also view publicly posted forfeiture notices, which give an indication of the magnitude of this problem, here [2]. But the owner can still attempt to get it back, it's just usually at a very high legal cost.

[1] [https://prnt.sc/jzcl8c](https://prnt.sc/jzcl8c)

[2] [https://www.forfeiture.gov](https://www.forfeiture.gov)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> It would be great to see the Supreme Court take up one of the more egregious cases involving huge cash seizures from people with no criminal record, and where there is no evidence that a crime took place. Unfortunately, most of those are eventually settled by the government.

In this case there is little doubt that the target was dealing drugs, prompting one judge to write that "one who deals heroin, and there is no doubt from the record we are talking about a dealer, must and should suffer the legal consequences to which he exposes himself." The only issue is whether the seizure was excessive, and there will always be judges who think that no punishment is too great for a proven heroin dealer.

<comment><USER23> Even if they have a criminal record, that isn't probable cause.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> The fact that this monstrosity of justice has continued, even under presidents such as Obama, make me so angry and upset. It's exactly what happens when you let the police do whatever they want, without someone to curtail their behavior. Unfettered power equals unfettered corruption, and the fact this keeps occurring in 2018 is astounding and upsetting.

<comment><USER25> Obama never showed any desire to curtail executive powers. In fact, he was championing exactly the opposite approach - that executive has the power to produce new regulatory legislation and ignore existing legislation they don't like, as soon as they perceive Congress does not do what they want it to do. No wonder Obama did nothing for civil forfeiture reform - that would be the exact opposite of his policy of infinite executive powers. His administration was not just ignoring forfeiture abuse - it was actively encouraging it, e.g. by means of infamous "equitable sharing" program, that allows the law enforcement to directly profit from seized property: [https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-04-11/obamas- do...](https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-04-11/obamas-doj-sets- back-justice-with-asset-forfeiture-program)

Saying forfeiture abuse proliferated "even under Obama" is like saying even under Rod Blagojevich corruption proliferated in Illinois. Not exactly a surprise.

<comment><USER24> You would think a professor in Constitutional Law would be eager to plug a whole that the police were taking advantage of, namely suing the money instead of suing the person. Yet all there was was deafening silence. So disappointing when people don't see things like this.

<comment><USER26> Obama eventually did plug the hole...

It wasn't that big of an issue until after the recession (i.e., during his second term), so it simply wasn't on his radar while he dealt with more pressing issues.

Moreover, civil forfeiture is allowed under federal law under very broad terms. It took quite a bit of time after it became an issue to draft a policy that would allow it to continue but end the excesses. Obama couldn't simply stop enforcing the law because the GOP and various state/local law enforcement agencies were prepared to sue in court to keep the gravy train going, and such a lawsuit would have kept the practice fully legal until long after his second term ended.

Indeed, Congress could have ended civil forfeiture immediately but simply eliminating the law allowing for it. But GOP members of Congress blocked every such attempt.

<comment><USER27> "Obama eventually did plug the hole..." citation?

<comment><USER26> [https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-prohibits- fe...](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-prohibits-federal- agency-adoptions-assets-seized-state-and-local-law)

<comment><USER28> That seems like _a portion_ of the hole, but probably not the whole hole?

<comment><USER26> He did what he had the power to do. Getting rid of the whole hole would have required Congress to cooperate, which was a tall order when one party vowed that it was its mission to guarantee his failure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Judges Barnes' Appeals court dissent is perplexing:

> "I am keenly aware of the overreach some law enforcement agencies have > exercised in some of these cases," Judge Barnes wrote. "Entire family farms > are sometimes forfeited based on one family member's conduct, or exorbitant > amounts of money are seized. However, it seems to me that one who deals > heroin, and there is no doubt from the record we are talking about a dealer, > must and should suffer the legal consequences to which he exposes himself."

\---

He's, of course, well aware that the Land Rover is worth far more than the maximum fine was for the crime, so that's not what he meant by "the legal consequences to which he exposes himself". The only thing I can figure that he means is basically "tough luck, forfeiture exists on the books, you've exposed yourself to it, that's your bad." But saying "the law allows it" is hardly helpful when the issue at hand is (apparently) whether or not the law is constitutional. The only thing I can think is he felt his opinion was on the narrow facts of the case and not the broader constitutionality, or that case law had already settled this.

<comment><USER28> This seems like judge-speak for "I can't relate to this guy and I don't have any sympathy for him, so screw him!"

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I'm always surprised that civil forfeiture isn't considered a violation of both the fourth and fifth amendments. The fifth amendment says "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation", and the fourth requires probably cause to seize property. Civil forfeiture is somehow allowed without due process or probable cause. And the money kicks back to police departments, which is a clear public use, and there is definitely no just compensation.

</comment><comment><USER31> I think I understand the logic of civil forfeiture, but what is the justification for seizing a $40,000 vehicle when the state has only proven (according to the article) that he sold about $225 worth of drugs? It says he plead guilty to one charge - was the other for a significantly larger amount, that he was perhaps convicted of? Based on the info presented in the article it would seem difficult to argue that he acquired the Land Rover with ill- gotten funds.

<comment><USER32> Article states that both the Land Rover _and_ the drugs were purchased using the payout from a life insurance policy. It is unclear whether any of the drugs were ever sold at a premium over the original purchase price.

As I recall, the whole concept of civil asset forfeiture was originally to discourage crime by removing the profit from criminal activity when the property was at hand, but the owner was outside the jurisdiction or otherwise unreachable. The long history of forfeiture is mostly seizing the property because the actual criminal was untouchable.

It has since morphed into cops acting as highwaymen to fund their activities beyond the bounds of their regular budget. In this case, the alleged criminal was actually charged, in custody, given due process criminally, and fined. The cops, not satisfied with the fines already levied, stole his car, too.

In my non-lawyerly opinion, if the Supreme Court would like for forfeiture to continue largely unchanged, they should reverse and return the guy's car, and cite so many case specifics that this would be practically useless as precedent. If they confirm, there is a chance that public backlash will eliminate forfeiture through legislatures. If they reverse on principles rather than specifics, that would set precedent easily usable by everyone better respected than a heroin dealer. I hope for the latter, but I don't think the current court has the right makeup to tear the filthy entrails out of forfeiture.

<comment><USER31> > Article states that both the Land Rover and the drugs were purchased using > the payout from a life insurance policy. It is unclear whether any of the > drugs were ever sold at a premium over the original purchase price.

Money is fungible, so I would be sympathetic to an argument that claimed he had made in the vicinity of $40k from selling drugs (which could not be confiscated for whatever reason, maybe he spent it all on drugs for his own use or something) and so it was justified to seize his car.

But from the way it's described, I don't see why the state doesn't think it can justify confiscating an arbitrarily large amount of property from a person who has committed an arbitrarily small drug crime. e.g. if this guy owned a $400,000 house and sold $20 worth of drugs out of it, can they take his house?

<comment><USER33> By my limited understanding, I believe that they could, as there is no limit akin to maximum fines with regards to civil forfeiture - as in this case, where the maximum of $10k was circumvented. Moreover, it does not require proof of guilt or a conviction, ripening its possibility for abuse.

<comment><USER32> Well, there _is_ a constitutional limitation on excessive fines and punishments. But the statutes typically don't specify.

They would allow seizure of one's shoes for jaywalking, and not just the shoes the offender was wearing, but all those in his closet, too. The laws as written are insufficiently protective against official abuse, so now that they have become routinely abused, it would be wise to revise.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Unfortunately, in the past, the SCOTUS tends to side with law enforcement on civil asset forfeiture cases. But since Justice Thomas has spoken against it, I am cautiously optimistic that this might be the time that they rule in favor of the citizen. Civil asset forfeiture has gotten way out of hand. We really need some sort of precedent to start curbing the flagrant abuse we are seeing all over the country.

<comment><USER35> My thoughts exactly. Thomas is, clearly, more on the law-and-order side of the current court, and his opinion (or the part of it quoted in this article anyway) sounded pretty negative on the practice, at least as it currently exists. It doesn't seem like he would have written in favor of taking the case if he wanted to stay with the status quo. But, I am not a lawyer.

<comment><USER36> To be fair, civil forfeiture is against the law, so being on the law-and-order side is a good thing. Law-and-order also means applying law and order to the government.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> It boggles the mind to think that forfeiture is alive and well today, some police departments even brag about the state-sponsored hooliganism they're committing, and the practice has never been seriously challenged in the Supreme Court.

This looks to be the defense:

 _The Indiana Supreme Court ruled against Mr. Timbs, on interesting grounds. It said the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of excessive fines did not apply to ones imposed by states._

From the 14th Amendment Section 1, it's disturbing that the following isn't obvious to any high school graduate:

 _All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._

Equally disturbing is the thought that Illinois might just win this case anyway.

It's interesting to consider what might happen if reason prevails. A lot of people have lost a lot of property over the years to to forfeiture. I can't imagine all of them will pass on the opportunity for compensation and punishment.

<comment><USER15> To start, I am totally horrified by civil forfeiture, so please no one construe this as defending it.

But our personal opinions aside, I don't think the Indiana Supreme court decision is really very surprising from a legal perspective. The eight amendment is selectively incorporated and the excessive fines clause is not incorporated. The 14th amendment gave the courts the justification they needed to incorporate parts of the bill of rights, but for better or worse, not everything in the bill of rights has been incorporated yet, and there is nothing the Indiana supreme court can do about that.

It would certainly exceed their legal jurisdiction for a state court to decide that a federal constitution amendment is incorporated.

And while I hope this case prompts SCOTUS to fully incorporate the 8th amendment, we should also be demanding more of our state governments. Federalism gives states the power. The power to do bad, but also the power to do good. Why is that we so often have to depend on federal courts to protect our rights?

Why don't the legislators of Indiana provide protections against excessive fines in their own constitution, and why do their citizens not demand it? We all want the SC to swoop in and save the day, but we should also face these questions and figure out what we need to do as a society to change this.

<comment><USER37> _The eight amendment is selectively incorporated and the excessive fines clause is not incorporated._

Interesting - what does "incorporation" mean in this context?

<comment><USER38> > The incorporation doctrine is a constitutional doctrine through which the > first ten amendments of the United States Constitution (known as the Bill of > Rights) are made applicable to the states through the Due Process clause of > the Fourteenth Amendment.

[https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine)

The linked document contains a table explaining which parts of the bill of rights have been incorporated.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I've said this before in another thread and I'll reiterate it...

A lot of Second Amendment advocates say we need the right to bear arms to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. Civil forfeiture is an excellent example of tyranny. If the Supreme Court decides it's legal, I better see an armed uprising.

</comment><comment><USER40> Can someone please argue the position of the side in favor of civil forfeiture?

<comment><USER41> Although I don't agree with it, I am knowledgeable about the side in favor of civil forfeiture. (I grew up in Indiana, and my dad was an attorney there.)

The "other side" says: Seizing Land Rovers from drug dealers helps fund underfunded rural police departments, and keeps them from having to raise taxes on law-abiding citizens.

I have no doubt that every aspect of this viewpoint is debatable. However, that's the viewpoint, per your request.

<comment><USER42> You could also charge a fee to everyone who calls 911.

Seriously though. The police are a service provider who are employed by and act on behalf of all citizens. If we want functioning law enforcement, we should be willing to pay for it.

We might not appreciate it on a daily basis, but functioning law enforcement saves individuals a _lot_ of money. Imagine if they didn't exist and everyone had to to organise their own security.

<comment><USER28> _Imagine if they didn 't exist and everyone had to to organise their own security._

In many locations this is effectively the situation. Police show up after crimes are over. Sometimes they help the victims of crime, sometimes they don't. The crimes that police interrupt are largely the victimless ones; after all there is no victim to report the crime so if they want to prosecute they had better catch the accused in the act.

Somebody will say that this only appears to be the case because police have already put lots of criminals in prison. Since there are few criminals remaining, we don't have to worry so much about crimes happening now. I can't agree, at least in USA. Our prison population is 4-5 times what it should be. If they imprison multitudes, they don't get credit for the possibility that _some_ of the imprisoned actually _should_ be imprisoned.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Cruel and unusual. It's not usual, because everyone has different stuff. Why should someone with a nice car be punished more than someone with no car? There is no justice there. It's cruel, because his car was for more than just the drugs. It's like chopping off someone's hand, because they stole with it- barbaric.

</comment><comment><USER44> As a poker player who routinely travels with thousands of dollars in cash, I really hope they fix this ridiculous situation.

</comment><comment><USER45> Feel like I should be hosting a reddit ama for this subject.

3x civil forfeiture victim chiming in.

3k 10k 48k

Never charged with a crime.

What would you like to know LOL.

<comment><USER46> Out of curiosity, why were you carrying that much cash anyway?

<comment><USER45> Lol I didn't exactly have a legal reason. But definetly very legal in many states today. Just an entepneur a little ahead of his time I guess.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17210880](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17210880)

This is even more egregious. He will probably get it back eventually through much legal maneuvering but it shouldn't be this easy to screw up some poor soul's life because of a few bad apples this law was enacted for, namely hard to impossible to prosecute drug cartels. These forfeiture laws are basically hammers turning every case into a nail, regardless of merit.

</comment><comment><USER48> >> I don't feel like much of a man, because I don't have a vehicle.

A bit off topic but someone should tell this guy that a LR doesn't make you more of a man, especially if you buy it using the life insurance of your father. The best for him would be to actually sell the LR(if he ever gets it back), buy car that he can afford and use the rest of the money to put his life in order.

</comment><comment><USER36> I feel this will be an easy one for the supreme court.

</comment><comment><USER49> The fact that Clarence Thomas, widely considered to be the most conservative justice on the court, is on the record as being against the constitutionality of Civil Forfeiture is a really good sign that this shockingly still-legal tactic's days are numbered.

</comment><comment><USER50> Can someone make an app that handles civil forfeiture appeals automatically?

Input the location and get walked through questions and have the paperwork filed automatically.

You could charge a percentage of the total value being claimed.

Similar to the apps to fight parking tickets.

</comment><comment><USER51> Police and criminals no different. Only that the police is the mafia running a legal protection racket. All incentives are there for civil forfeiture. what drives human actions are incentives.

</comment><comment><USER52> Does anyone here happen to know if China has an equivalent to the practice of civil forfeiture?

</comment><comment><USER53> Cruel but not at all unusual.

</comment><comment><USER54> Sorry for the long post, but I have to tell this story, as I saw 'civil forfeiture' up-front-and-center 25 years ago.

My college girlfriend and her family migrated from Mexico in the early 70's, worked their asses off and all became pretty successful. They mostly owned restaurants (pizza, not tacos), but other businesses, too. One of her brothers owned a chain of used car lots in Northern California. He was a hard-working dude, with a wife and two sons.

One of her brother's auto-detailers got busted for possession of a small amount of marijuana, which back in 1992 was actually a crime. The local cops claimed that the detailer was dealing for her brother, who was using his dealerships to distribute drugs and launder the profits. They seized his car lots, all the cars, his house, and froze his bank accounts. All total, the cops seized around half-a-million of cash and assets.

The DA refused to bring a case, mainly because (1) the detailer didn't even know her brother; he only worked at the shop for less than a month, (2) the detailer was busted for possession in his own apartment, no where near work, (3) the detailer originally said he sold drugs at the shop, however, taped interviews clearly showed the cops pressuring the detailer to say that; it was like watching a POW read a pre-written statement, and (4) there was simply no other evidence, nothing. The cops found no drugs and any of his lots or his home. The DA even criticized the local cops' behavior in his statement, dropping the case.

The DA dropped the case and said the local cops screwed up, so her brother should get all his assets returned, right? Wrong. His legal issues were just getting started. Looking back, it's clear the cops never had any intention of a criminal case.

Her brother sued to get his assets returned, but the system is all-in for the cops, and they know it. And they know how to work it. The cops' attorney would file for delays, demand ridiculous documentation, and just not show up to court appointments, causing more delays. For example, the cops' attorney argued about the value of the seized vehicles, and demanded that her brother have them appraised, however, he couldn't have access to the vehicles to do the appraisals because, after months of back-and-forth, it turns out that the vehicles were already distributed (sold at auction), just days after the initial forfeiture. It was even rumored that one of the cops gave one of the seized vehicles (a Mustang) to his girlfriend, less than a week after the initial forfeiture. Her brother also was not allowed access to his home where all of his records were kept, however, police were seen coming and going for months.

Oh yeah, remember how the DA never filed the case? That was another thing the cops' attorney argued - basically, since there was never a criminal trial, her brother was never found not guilty and thus the cops didn't know if he was a drug dealer or not. They claimed their policy allowed them to return assets to those proven not guilty in court. See how that works?

This whole back-and-forth process went on for over two years. I'm skipping A LOT of details. Finally, the police department offered $50,000, take it or leave it. Her brother's attorney advised he take it, noting that the situation would only get worse, the city was prepared to drag out the case indefinitely. He didn't get his house back, any of the vehicles, or his business - nothing. He took his money and moved back to Mexico with his wife and kids. He now owns a chain of restaurants - that's right, pizza. None of them even liked pizza. I always found that strange. LOL

Anyone who supports 'civil forfeiture' has simply never seen the effects on innocent lives. The defense I hear all the time is "Who cares? They're all drug dealers.", or "I don't believe it. Why would the cops seize assets from an innocent person?", and "What's so difficult about getting your stuff back, after it was seized?" But I saw a good man's life destroyed by this horrible policy. I buried my anger/frustration about this for years, thinking this bad policy couldn't possibly last, but unfortunately I was wrong. It's only gotten worse over the last 25 years. A lot worse.

</comment><comment><USER55> Can't wait for the 5-4 decision reaffirming civil forfeiture.

</comment><comment><USER56> John Oliver on Civil Forfeiture:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks)

</comment><comment><USER57> I'm calling it now: 6-3. Thomas, Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan in the six.

Thomas has made his position clear about this in the past, Roberts sensibilities are often libertarian, and the others are liberals.

<comment><USER58> Wouldn't liberals be pro-forfeiture?

<comment><USER59> No? "Liberal" doesn't mean "pro-government". What definition are you using that suggests they would?

<comment><USER58> Are conservatives pro-government?

<comment><USER39> Define "pro-government".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> I am appalled at the opinion of Judge Barnes:

 _"I am keenly aware of the overreach some law enforcement agencies have exercised in some of these cases," Judge Barnes wrote. "Entire family farms are sometimes forfeited based on one family member's conduct, or exorbitant amounts of money are seized. However, it seems to me that one who deals heroin, and there is no doubt from the record we are talking about a dealer, must and should suffer the legal consequences to which he exposes himself."_

This sort of intersection between hard biological reality on the one hand (in this case, predictable consequence of highly addictive drugs), and the hard- nosed moralizing of a judge, reminds me of something Robert Sapolsky has been trying to impart about what we should give consideration to when looking for the ultimate sources of culpability when biological factors are involved, and whether or not we ought to see negative social behavior as a crime or a disease. Sapolsky has written a recent book about this topic, _Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst_.

<comment><USER61> ...but he's talking about a dealer, not a user?

<comment><USER60> He _was_ a user, though! And presumably became a dealer as a result (although this is not clear):

 _Mr. Timbs's habit started with an opioid addiction and progressed to heroin. He used his Land Rover to get drugs and, on at least two occasions, to sell them. The buyers were undercover police officers._</comment></comment></comment>