What American Startups Can Learn From The Cutthroat Chinese Software Industry - <AUTHOR> http://www.fastcolabs.com/3005191/what-american-startups-can-learn-cutthroat-chinese-software-industry

<comment><USER2> The cutthroat attitude may be good for businesses, but this arrangement sounds miserable for users:

>Platform-to-platform in China is war, and it is fought viciously and bitterly. If you have a Gmail account and send an email to, for example, NetEase163.com, which is the local web dominant player, it will most likely go to spam or junk folders regardless of your settings. Just to get an email to go through to your inbox, the company sending the email needs to have a special partnership.

</comment><comment><USER3> "With monetization offsetting some of the cost, the team estimated they could bootstrap their way through the first year. ""

This is not bootstrapping. They are still taking millions in investment and it still requires a lot of connections in China to raise that kind of cash at anything approaching a good valuation. I'm guessing this guy is funded by people abroad.

My experience with Chinese startups is that they are management-driven, taking money from insiders and developing complex management structures built on cheap programming labour. So you get a team of twenty people that end up doing a worse job at product development than two or three programmers in California, while spending a lot more money in the process.</comment>


Exposed Adobe Login Search - <AUTHOR> http://rbrenton.com/projects/adobeleakoct13/

<comment><USER2> Can you add a feature to get your password hash and hint sent to your email?

<comment><AUTHOR> I removed them from the database already. It's just storing if they where there or not now. That would have been a good feature though.

<comment><USER3> So if it says "No password hint found. No password hash found." is that because you've removed the hashes and the hints? Or did you store the information as to whether they existed before removing them?

<comment><AUTHOR> That means they were missing from the original data. I kept whether they existed or not.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


My Inbox Is Not A TV - <AUTHOR> http://myinboxisnota.tv/ <comment><USER2> I'm really interested in Lamson and Zed Shaw continues his impressive output, but this service seems fruitless. I can unsubscribe from any reputable company's mailing list. Most useful alerts already come in both HTML and text variants. If I really don't want the mail, I click "report spam". Gmail has already "solved" the spam problem for me anyway.

Why would I use this really?

<comment><USER3> It's also solved the images thing too, letting us choose what we see outside of simple text.

These people think subscribing to a service makes things easier on us, when in the end it's just making things more complicated, and honestly it's likely wasting more time too. And that's assuming middle-man service doesn't go belly up sometime in the future and force us to manually resubscribe to everything all over again.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Does this guy ever sleep?

<comment><USER5> I feel like I have a good sense of who Zed is and what he does; from that information, I would come to the conclusion: no.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Is this really a "problem"?

I get several HTML emails every week from companies that I've subscribed to and I really like the way they display the information.

This seems to cater to people who install ad blockers and flash blockers, but do those people pay for anything? Ever? How is this service going to make money?

<comment><USER2> "It is another demonstration of the Lamson Project and is free for now."

I don't think it is about making money. I think it is about fame: <http://www.zedshaw.com/blog/2009-07-13.html>

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Wow, this does sound like a good idea for all those marketing people omitting the plain-text variant for their HTML mail.

It usually goes accompanied by text saying 'It seems you are not using a modern e-mail client to view this message, you can view it here --> link to marketing agency.

<comment><USER8> One of my bugbears is agency created emails that are sent direct from the agency servers or include agency links for tracking. My relationship is with your business, keep them out of it (or at least out back where I can't see them).

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Mailinator.com already does something similar. It creates a random email ID on the fly and lets one use it too - to verify email IDs.

</comment><comment><USER10> "Lets" not "let's."

</comment><comment><USER11> Wait, what?

After reading the article yesterday, I was convinced that it was just a joke.

<comment><USER12> The article was a joke promoting inbox-as-TV. That was a teaser parody for this project, which is inbox-as-not-TV.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Uh, my email client already does this? (Gnus + w3m)</comment>


Homeowners Have Had It Good. Too Good, Says the Tax Bill - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/business/economy/tax-bill-housing.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&mtrref=t.co&gwh=684FEB0FCFA4F3B420942F15F4C91A02&gwt=pay <comment><USER2> It would be extremely interesting to see if there was any analysis between how many people actually own homes versus renters in the U.S.</comment>


U.S. banks launching answer to peer-to-peer payment app Venmo - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-banks-payments-zelle-idUSKBN1931C2 <comment><USER2> Zelle's features have existed for months, just without the name. (ClearXChange is another participant in the existing system.)

Note that it's best to do the initial signup using email address. not phone number... Chase, for one example, fails to complete the setup connection by phone number if you've chosen not to publicly associate your phone number with your account(s)... and fails with a uselessly cryptic message.</comment>


Ask HN: jQuery for Large Applications - <AUTHOR>

I have been using jQuery since a year and a half now and I really like the simplicity of it. But I normally use it for DOM manipulation.<p>What would you use for full fledge javascript applications like New Twitter, Gmail, etc. <comment><USER2> You're likely over-considering the scale of your application if you're worrying about whether or not jQuery is adequate for the job. The biggest sites on the internet often depend on jQuery and its a very proven solution. Either you're designing an over-complicated behemoth if you're worrying about jQuery, or you're worrying about a non-issue.

jQuery is still just fine for large-scale applications. You can organize the code any way you have to. Its just Javascript after all.

If your app gets so large that multiple people are doing Javascript though, what you need to do is work on what is considered the boring stuff like version control policies, build processes (look at stuff like Sprockets (<http://getsprockets.org/>) for some inspiration for instance.

Other than that, jQuery is likely to be a fantastic choice in virtually any front-end engineering that you do.

</comment><comment><USER3> My project is using jQuery right now but I don't know how scalable it will be long term. Are large volumes of users a concern with jQ? \- - - - - - - - -

Forgive my elementary level question. I'm not a programmer, I'm just trying to learn about what my contracted coder is doing.

<comment><AUTHOR> No. I mean to say, jQuery is good at DOM manipulation but a large Javascript Application involves alot than just DOM manipulation.

So is it better to write naked javascript or use any other framework?

I read some where people using YUI, Dojo Toolkit, etc.

<comment><USER4> _So is it better to write naked javascript or use any other framework_

Naked Javascript can exist alongside jQuery, and jQuery can exist alongside other frameworks as well, so if there is something that jQuery will make easier, use it. If there are things that plan Javascript can do just fine, use that. Choose the best tools for the job, I say.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I would use both jQuery and Underscore.js.

</comment><comment><USER6> jQuery will act as more of a tool rather than the core for your application. It gets done a lot of things fast and efficiently. Your application design will decide how it performs on user's browser. Performance and resource wise I find jQuery very satisfactory.</comment>


Show HN: ASCII webcam viewer (Chrome only) - <AUTHOR> http://ascii.odchazel.com/

<comment><USER2> That's much more defined that I imagined it would be. Hauntingly so.</comment>


Morgan Beller, the 26-year old woman behind Facebook's Libra - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/20/facebook-libra-partly-created-by-female-engineer-morgan-beller.html <comment> Sushi-san Why does she need to be listed as a "female engineer" instead of an "engineer"?

<comment><AUTHOR> Where does it say she's an engineer? She's not an engineer as far as I understand, she was a VC and in corporate development...the biz and strategy side.

<comment> Sushi-san The caption of her picture says, "Facebook Vice President David Marcus is the face of the company's Libra digital currency, but the original driving force was a 26-year-old female engineer named Morgan Beller."

<comment><AUTHOR> Just a mistake then. Nowhere in the rest of the article does it say anything about her being an engineer.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Google Cloud Vision API changes the way applications understand images - <AUTHOR> http://googlecloudplatform.blogspot.com/2015/12/Google-Cloud-Vision-API-changes-the-way-applications-understand-images.html?m=1 <comment><USER2> On the front page - [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10664554](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10664554)</comment>


Ask HN: Best AWS crash course or tutorial? - <AUTHOR> Cooking myself a crash course for my employees, want to guide myself with something... <comment><USER2> No affiliation, acloud.guru has amazing AWS courses, often on sale on Udemy. I paid about £10 a course some time ago and found it very useful.

</comment><comment><USER3> Slightly self-promotional, but [https://github.com/open-guides/og- aws](https://github.com/open-guides/og-aws) has been helpful to a lot of folks.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm currently doing this course to complement my knowledge of dev/architecture on azure. Seems pretty good so far and free if you don't want a cert.

[https://www.edx.org/course/aws-developer-building-on- aws](https://www.edx.org/course/aws-developer-building-on-aws)

</comment><comment><USER5> You might find this helpful. I'll probably use it for review myself, before I take the certification test.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19557489](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19557489)</comment>


Your First VC Meeting: Expect Straight Talk - <AUTHOR> http://getventure.typepad.com/markpeterdavis/2007/09/expect-straight.html In my last post, Give Striaght Talk, I explained that you need to be honest and direct when communicating with a VC.  In that first meeting (and at any other time) you should also expect straight talk from the VC.  To be clear, by 'straight talk' I mean blunt, direct and candid questions and comments. <comment><USER2> > few (if any) will want to waste time with indirect questions.

They will nearly all, however, waste time with indirect answers.

</comment><comment><USER3> Expect straight talk from VCs? Like this: <http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2006/01/the_top_ten_lie.html> ?</comment>


Night-Mode/F.lux for Mindfulness. Reduce stress as you work. - <AUTHOR> https://lumiate.co <comment><AUTHOR> Just launched the Beta version, adding auto-update features on Sunday</comment>


British nuclear archive files withdrawn without explanation - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/23/british-nuclear-archive-files-withdrawn-without-explanation <comment><USER2> I don't remember when I read about this previously but apparently this happens a lot. Something is opened to the public, forgotten about, quietly pulled.

<comment><USER3> Moral: copy it all.

<comment><USER4> Which of course is what every state actor will have done as soon as it was released. Which points to this being a reorganisation or representation rather than an edit. If it were an edit then the rational way to do it is silently with a document collection update designed to hide the changes from detection via metadata. So, you accept that the other state actors out there have what you leaked in error, but you hope that they haven't noticed, and you remove the possibility that someone will alert them to the information independently.

<comment><USER5> Money's actually on error, I bet you someone just closed the data down without realizing it.

<comment><USER4> Yup, makes sense for sure... if it's cock-up or conspiracy, it's always cock- up.

<comment><USER6> Best way to hide a conspiracy..</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


UPS now delivers packages to USPS PO Boxes - <AUTHOR> http://upsmailinnovations.com/ <comment><USER2> USPS has been accepting FedEx, UPS, etc shipments for _years_ at no charge. All it takes is an add-on piece of paperwork with your box application. You then have your shipments sent to the street address of the P.O.</comment>


How to Read Self-Help - <AUTHOR> https://tjcx.me/posts/more-from-self-help/ <comment><USER2> My main objection to these types of books is how overly verbose they tend to be. With a few exceptions, this category of book is built around a nucleus of few possibly valuable pearls of _wisdom_ , and then 300 pages of filler is added. Usually lots of anecdotes ("Let me tell you about my friend Alice..."), checklists, and needless exposition.

If this really is _wisdom_ , it does not follow that it takes 300 pages to communicate. But I suppose the propounders have to make a living somehow.

To be honest, I don't object to buying the book if it's really got some good wisdom, but I would be more likely to if they shipped with some sort of executive summary.

<comment><USER3> > If this really is wisdom, it does not follow that it takes 300 pages to > communicate. But I suppose the propounders have to make a living somehow.

The article makes the point that the wisdom really does take much longer to communicate - a nugget of wisdom like 'accept yourself' seems trite when taken alone, but the examples (presumably filling the other 300 pages) are what makes the advice actually sink in.

<comment><USER4> The Enchiridion is like 60 pages and contains the wisdom a lifetime.

<comment><USER5> And many read it and can't digest it, let alone put it into practice.

A couple of very capable people I know can hear the story of something that happened to someone, and they get glazed eyes and can only say "Huh?" Then I rephrase it as "Imagine you were _______ and then _____ happened and afterward you were _____" and they're like "Well why didn't you just say that?"

Or the exact opposite.

Or like me. Give me an anecdote about something and I'll "Huh, interesting." Tell me about the reason you found it interesting, and I'm way more interested and engaged. Relate it to an event in my own life and now you've got me. But don't ever try to frame it that way for my wife, she'll get bored after the first five words.

It's not the message, it's what the listener gets from it.

<comment><USER4> "It's not the message, it's what the listener gets from it."

I begin to think that if you don't understand the advice, you simply don't need it _yet_.

<comment><USER5> I've sen quite a few quotes around that very point, similar to "You'll get the teacher you need when you need them" or

"You'll read it again and understand it on a whole different level" or

"The people in your life are there because you need them now. Don't mourn the loss of an acquaintance, it's because you don't need their lesson anymore"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm a fan of some self-help books. However, a major aspect that this article misses is that self-help is not a purely mental & cognitive activity. In my experience, the best books are pathways to action - they are like recipe cookbooks, where you actually have to try out the thing in order to experience a change. Neurosurgeons don't get their wisdom by reading - they practice, watch other people, assist, perform, and train. They learn by training. Self- help is the same.

Evaluating self-help books by what we understood by reading it is like trying to feel full and satiated by reading a cookbook of recipes. The cookbook and self-help book is there to be acted on.

</comment><comment><USER7> The thing I dislike the most about self-help/self-improvement books (example: Getting things done, by David Allen) is that they spend a lot of the book trying to convince you that their method work.

What I'm saying is: I already bough a copy of the book, you don't have to convince me anymore. I already gave you my money. Just explain me the stuff.

</comment><comment><USER8> The best "self-help" books I've read are the ones that are able to formulate known insights that I already had, but put in much better words than I could have done myself.

</comment><comment><USER9> I recognized only one book from his initial list: Quiet by Susan Cain. It's a good book. It is not, nor does it claim to be, a self-help book.

The same can be said of Gladwell's books.

There's a bit of strawman stuff going on in the article.

</comment><comment><USER10> I recommend the podcast "By The Book" if you're fascinated by/interested in the self-help book genre. The hosts select a self-help book, try to live it to the letter, and report their findings.

<comment><USER11> Thanks for the heads up. Checking it out atm and it seems valuable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> If we're talking about books that contain a lot of wisdom,Imight suggest reading 'letters to a young poet' by Rainer Maria Rilke. It left a lasting impression and I get back to it from time to time. Anyone that wants to get a teaser can watch: [https://youtu.be/F5tZ8X-EnAg](https://youtu.be/F5tZ8X-EnAg)

</comment><comment><USER13> Our culture and our algorithms value quantity. It's the same reason why so many YouTube videos are now mostly fluff. We assume a video greater than 20 minutes or a book that's over 100 pages is worth something. But a simple essay or booklet can be worth their weight in gold.

</comment><comment><USER14> The article says that good self-help that leads to wisdom is obvious but hard to imply.

The natural corollary of that is that you probably already have the necessary wisdom in your head (because it's obvious). And thus, if you're debating between spending two hours reading a self-help book and spending those two hours doing basically anything else, the latter is likely the better choice because there is at least some chance than in those two hours you will apply some wisdom or otherwise enrich your life.

The reason self-help books are bad is not because they contain bad information. It's because reading them burns time that could otherwise be better spent.

<comment><USER15> Just because something is obvious once shown to you doesn't mean it was immediately present in your mind beforehand, so being made aware of it can still be valuable.

But agree that there's diminishing returns from these insights and focusing more on the specific details of your life is usually more impactful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Self help that you read and learn is just knowledge; self help that you live and breathe is understanding. Moving from knowledge to understanding is difficult: you can tell a kid that the stove is hot but they just don't get it until they're burnt.

I think sometimes the problem with reading self help is it prescribes too many changes and people become overwhelmed. Learning to understand incredibly simple, trite things like self-acceptance can take a really long time. Simply knowing that you should accept yourself is not enough--ask any depressed person. There is a lot more work to be done before you can fully understand that notion.

</comment><comment><USER17> In my opinion, the medium is the problem. It's easy to read advice. It's hard to know how to apply general advice to a concrete situation. For that, you need to be in a live conversation with someone wise or knowledgeable.

</comment><comment><USER18> So... now we have an article that helps you read the books that help you...

<comment><USER19> It's just guides all the way down...

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I think that's the first time I have seen the social validity person be someone I know. I always assume its boilerplate photos. Way to go Mehul!

</comment><comment><USER21> There is also Jordan Peterson, who blurs the lines between self-help and textbook-based knowledge</comment>


Show HN: Boomla – A free website for everyone – simple UI, JavaScript back end - zupa-hu https://boomla.com/blog/show-hn-boomla-website-builder <comment><AUTHOR> Good luck. I like how you don't have any trackers on your site (according to my browser bar at least, didn't actually look into it). I'm sure you could use that as a selling point somehow.

<comment> zupa-hu Haha, thx! :) I do send some usage analytics data back, like, when you edit your site, that you used a specific feature. Is that okay in your world? To make it better I need to know what features people use..

<comment><AUTHOR> I do the same thing on my projects, just handling metrics and analytics totally internally.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> Saw this from the early adopter thread. Looks really well build.

How much time dedicated over the decade+?

What are your thoughts on how well these kinds of tools generate html? Brings me back to Dreamweaver.

<comment> zupa-hu Thanks!

Depends on which part you mean, the platform, the drag&drop UI or the WYSIWYG editor. In the case of Boomla, you can write code on the platform and fully generate the result yourself, so that way it is up to you. As for the drag&drop interface, because it manipulates the underlying data structures and the final code is handcrafted by whoever wrote the code, it also tends to be as good as you want it to be. That leaves the WYSIWYG editor. Slate and ProseMirror are completely changing the game here, as they use a normalized data structure instead of working with the less structured HTML directly. They still have some rough edges but they are already amazing.

Time, wooh. I'd guesstimate 30k hours.

Would you maybe help kickstart a Show HN thread next time with an upvote? I'm struggling with this, that would help a lot. My email is in my profile (or you can reach me via the website..).

</comment></comment><comment> zupa-hu Hi HN, author here. As I'm just showing this to the world, I'd really love to get some feedback.</comment>


Genetically modified bananas that are rich in pro-Vitamin A - happy-go-lucky http://www.newsweek.com/scientists-orange-bananas-vitamin-uganda-633136 <comment><AUTHOR> This article completely ignores the impending doom of Panama Disease[0], to which even the Cavendish is no longer resistant. If this new hybrid adds a newfound resistance, it should have been mentioned.

[0] [http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-35131751](http://www.bbc.com/news/uk- england-35131751)</comment>


Y Combinator Challenge #5 - Enterprise Software 2.0 - <AUTHOR> http://astartupaday.wordpress.com/2008/07/25/y-combinator-challenge-5-enterprise-software-20/

<comment><USER2> Perhaps we could assume by now that anyone who wants to read all 30 of these has subscribed via RSS? I'm generally the last to jump on the "hey, let's stop putting TechCrunch stories here because we all read it anyway" bandwagon but this is one big series, so the daily postings are getting a bit obnoxious.

<comment><USER3> I like them...

<comment><USER2> That's why Al Gore invented RSS feeds.

<comment><USER4> Hey guys - while I kinda dig getting a little traffic after a good year+ of toiling in obscurity, I totally understand if you'd prefer to keep every post off Hacker News. Anyone who wants to subscribe can do so here: <http://feeds.feedburner.com/AStartupADay>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I admire the effort as a constrained writing exercise.

But, I would rather see one article about an idea the author cares enough about to implement, than see 30 thinly-developed "thinking out loud" pieces.

Maybe fans of this series could submit/upvote the best one, or two, or small N... but not all 30.</comment>


Linkception, sharing links and text like never before - <AUTHOR> http://linkception.co hi, this is a new idea i came up with what do you think? http://linkception.co <comment><AUTHOR> what do you think of it?</comment>


Anyone interested in Scala technical discussions?  Do you know of a good forum for that purpose? - <AUTHOR>

The papers here look quite interesting:
http://www.scala-lang.org/docu/papers.html <comment><AUTHOR> Two papers that look particularly good:

<http://lamp.epfl.ch/~phaller/doc/haller07coord.pdf>

[http://lamp.epfl.ch/~emir/written/MatchingObjectsWithPattern...](http://lamp.epfl.ch/~emir/written/MatchingObjectsWithPatterns- TR.pdf)</comment>


Heroku's New Dev Center - <AUTHOR> http://devcenter.heroku.com/

<comment><USER2> I appreciate that they've got more and more content and need to scale the interface complexity to handle it.

But I am a little sad to see the old help pages go. There's something wonderful about a single list of articles down the left, and you click one and read it. It's just... minimal, in the best sense of the word.

The new Dev Center reminds me of MSDN... and hours of misery trolling through overly verbose articles about all kinds of crap.

Part of me wonders if limiting yourself to a really simple structure for your help system isn't a GOOD thing. It forces you to keep the content really simple and to-the-point, because you simply don't have space to rattle on and create a confusing web of documentation.

Just a thought.

</comment><comment><USER3> They didn't manage to keep their existing URLs working. E.g., <http://docs.heroku.com/background-jobs> used to exist (it was cached as a search result by Google), but it now redirects to <http://devcenter.heroku.com/background-jobs>, which merely says "Page Not Found" (which should be a 404 error but isn't) and only suggests "Loading..." because the author failed to handle progressive enhancement (the menu on the left is non-functioning, for the same reason). I know these guys aren't claiming web development as a competency they sell, but I wouldn't release in a state like that.

</comment><comment><USER4> These little balls are a bit hard to hit. What's wrong with ordinary tabs?

</comment><comment><USER5> Hmmm, didn't there use to be info about their node.js support? Trying to figure out the current status and how to mess around with it.

</comment><comment><USER6> Beautiful.

</comment><comment><USER7> I always think Heroku has the best looking website(interface) in the industry(hosting company), now it's getting even better!

Nice work.</comment>


Talking Discourse: An Interview with Jeff Atwood - <AUTHOR> http://blog.bitnami.com/2014/02/talking-discourse-interview-with-jeff.html <comment><USER2> Seriously, at this point, any of the major interpreted backend languages (PHP, Ruby, Python) are capable of pretty much the same thing. The claim that a language is more loved by its users or has a better community is nonsense. Until you can prove that with numbers, it's just useless banter.

</comment><comment><USER3> Is this a typo:

 _So it 's a pretty good blend of technologies. You know we're trying to get out of the – what I call the MySQL and PHP ghetto, you know, where that's just sort of the de facto standard. Not because it's actually any good but because well it's installed everywhere so that's what I call server herpes. Every server has it. So if every server has it then that's what you gotta use. But we're trying to sort of break that paradigm up a little bit and say, "Hey, Discourse is so good." It's a little bit like VisaCalc. I mean you got – that's kind of a strong comparison but it's so good you want it on your server, even if it requires Ruby and Postgres and Redis and things that are good, you know? Things that are modern._

I'm assuming he said VisiCalc?

<comment><USER4> Yes, that was VisiCalc. Thanks for catching that!

<comment><USER5> Another typo: the link to the source is to "gethub.com/discourse". Funny thing is when I clicked it I assumed GitHub was having another outtage until I scanned the Url more closely.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I love how PHP is mentioned in one paragraph in a long interview, yet gets two bullet points and the title here at HN. Hate much?

<comment><USER7> In defense of the PHP devs here, I think calling PHP "server herpes" was sort of asking for it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> So it's ok to rewrite titles now?</comment>


The world's most super-designed data center – fit for a James Bond villain - <AUTHOR> http://royal.pingdom.com/2008/11/14/the-worlds-most-super-designed-data-center-fit-for-a-james-bond-villain/ <comment><USER2> Reminds me of the caverns level from the old N64 Goldeneye game.

<comment><USER3> I was going to post this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I wonder if it's agreable to work in an office which is filled with fog and only has a limited number of light beams through that fog.

<comment><USER5> Good question. It makes you wonder what the electronics in that room think, as well.

Granted that's not the data center itself, it's in an adjacent human-friendly workspace, but even those computers can't be too wild about mist/smoke.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is what happens when you let the tech staff design the data center ;-)

I bet they have awesome laser tag breaks.

</comment><comment><USER7> I want my data stored there. Now the data can have as enjoyable a living and working environment as I have!

</comment><comment><USER8> Reminds me of Cryptonomicon.

</comment><comment><USER9> I wouldn't call it "super-designed".. they just repurposed an old, previously- designed space.

<comment><USER10> ... to be super.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Wasn't this a User Friendly story arc?

</comment><comment><USER12> I want one....

<comment><USER13> You're in luck, there's a deep shelter tunnel complex under the heart of London, below the underground, up for sale right now, complete with generators, artesian well, room to sleep 8,000 people...

<http://www.agoravox.com/article.php3?id_article=8756></comment></comment>


Two Experiments Show Fourth Spatial Dimension Effect - <AUTHOR> https://gizmodo.com/two-experiments-show-fourth-spatial-dimension-effect-1821739488 <comment><USER2> Interesting. But they make an experiment that simulates a 4 dimension system in the real world (each use 2 connected system of 2 dimensions).

This is not an experiment that shows any of the extra dimensions. (Yep, probably the real world is not 3D [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_dimensions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_dimensions) )</comment>


Should Ireland fuel its power stations with wood shipped from Australia? - <AUTHOR> http://theconversation.com/should-ireland-fuel-its-power-stations-with-wood-shipped-from-australia-121923 <comment><USER2> What is this, the 1800s?</comment>


SQL in CockroachDB: Mapping Table Data to Key-Value Storage - <AUTHOR> http://www.cockroachlabs.com/blog/sql-in-cockroachdb-mapping-table-data-to-key-value-storage/ <comment><USER2> Have been following Cockroach for a bit now, looking forward to it. One of the things I like about Cassandra's CQL is that it doesn't let you shoot yourself in the foot. You have to opt-in to doing conditionals that require range scans, you have to provide the PK (or indexed column) for every query, etc. Will Cockroach will do similar in forcing the users to select their data in a certain way that is performant (or at least require opt-out to do full scans)?

<comment><AUTHOR> (I work for CockroachDB) This is something that we're definitely interested in. We haven't decided yet exactly what form it will take, but we plan to offer some way to ensure that the DB will return an error instead of silently falling back to an extremely inefficient query plan.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I wonder how this compares to FoundationDB's architecture, which also had an SQL layer on top of a K/V store, and was reportedly slow at SQL queries.

<comment><AUTHOR> (I work for CockroachDB) Our architecture is broadly similar to FoundationDB's, although in our case the separation between the layers is not as strict as I believe FoundationDB's was. This will allow us to improve performance by distributing parts of the SQL processing down to the nodes where the data lives, instead of doing all the processing on a SQL node that is distinct from all the data nodes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> That's cool, although I'm mostly interested about how they are going to do distributed JOINs</comment>


Adventures in Bitmasking - <AUTHOR> http://www.angryfishstudios.com/2011/04/adventures-in-bitmasking/

<comment><USER3> I use a more adventurous approach:

1\. Create a general compositing system(paste and offset any number of images) for each tile.

2\. Subdivide tiles with corners into 16 subtiles, one per corner.

3\. Run some brute force logic(also based on bitmasking) to create the composite information for each tile.

4\. Cache the result with a key of some kind, so that we don't have to do the full composite for every tile every time it's changed. (Extra credit: Maintain a fixed-size cache and flush less-used tiles to keep memory usage down.)

The result: you can do any kind of corner or intersection with a minimum of unique art assets, which has benefits in making it easier to see the tiling in action. For corners there are only two basic kinds of algorithms - <USER2> corners(border ends at the edge of the tile) and outside corners(border slops over the edge).

If you need other types of algorithms(e.g. applying alpha-transparent borders, or making double-sized images auto-tile) you can plug them into the compositor too. You can even combine these algorithms by adding more data to the tile - e.g. a "tall" (walls/solid objects) and a "blend" or "background" layer(underlying terrain).

If you want to break some new ground, try this: Make the 3D version, and create a Minecraft with beautiful "auto-smoothing" behavior.

</comment><comment><USER4> Even though HN has seen enough of my site in the last couple days, I also have a little tilemap demo using the two approaches shown here (4-bit and 8-bit). I initially wrote the 8-bit version (I had to make a lookup table mapping the 256 possible neighbor combinations to the 48 unique tile types for each type of terrain) and it looks like this: <http://a1k0n.net/jsrpg/>

But eventually rejected it for being "too blocky" in favor of the 4-bit version which has a smoother demo: <http://a1k0n.net/code/jscroll/b/>

The tilemaps are autogenerated as well: <http://a1k0n.net/jsrpg/tiles.gif> and <http://a1k0n.net/code/jscroll/a/t.gif>

</comment><comment><USER5> Maybe it is just me, but wouldn't it have been useful to start with the goal to reach?

</comment><comment><USER6> Isn's this pretty close to the marching squares/marching cubes algorithm?

<comment><USER7> No, the marching cubes algorithm has a very specific meaning, because it's patented. It builds a 3D surface from a 3D grid (each grid cell is either 'filled' or 'empty').

<comment><USER8> IANAL, but I think the Marching Cubes patent has expired now since it's been 20+ years since both filing and issuance: <http://www.google.com/patents?vid=4710876>

<comment><USER7> Oh, good riddance. It always seemed like such an obvious patent.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


LibriVox hits 100 Million downloads, looking for a PHP Dev  - <AUTHOR> http://librivox.org/2012/04/05/100-million-dowloads-and-a-mellon-foundation-grant/

<comment><USER2> Congratulations on the landmark download. Seems like a very laudable service.

With that in mind, may I make a suggestion re: your PHP position? I totally understand the below-market pay you are offering (35-50 USD/hr); after all, you are a non-profit with a limited budget, and there are other rewards for working for a non-profit. Nonetheless, it will likely prove very difficult to find a qualified developer at those rates, particularly once willing to work with PHP. And yet, you are requiring 5 years of development experience. Do you really need someone with that much experience?

If I were you, I would consider lowering that requirement to 2 years at the most. There are probably some well-qualified PHP devs just starting out who might like to work for you, and who would be perfectly capable of meeting your requirements (btw, this does not include me, since I haven't done significant work in PHP since 2003).

Finally, if you choose not to lower those requirements, you might want to ask yourself why a developer with 5 years of experience is willing to work for pay so far below the going rate. Unless he/she is a philanthropist whose life mission is to spread the use of audio books, I'd be willing to bet that this applicant is a very poor developer. Wouldn't you rather have a talented, eager developer with a year or less of experience?

Normally, I wouldn't take the time to write this kind of missive, but I appreciate your work and ideals and just want to alert you to going labor market conditions.

tl;dr: it's a hot job market for developers, so you might want to re-consider your hiring requirements.

<comment><USER3> Unless I'm doing my math hugely wrong, $50/hour is a little over $100k/year. That doesn't seem particularly low, at least not in my area.

<comment><USER4> $100k/year with no benefits and a relatively short fixed term, plus the overhead of setting up the contract and having the space/equipment to fulfill it (admittedly those are minor in this case.)

In my experience for good contract work like this the prices start around $50/hour (at least in big cities in the US), and tend towards 75-100.

I'm not saying that _this_ should cost that much, just taking a stab at the rates I usually see in the DC area.</comment></comment></comment>


Little UI Details - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/i/moments/880688233641848832 <comment><USER2> Great list, but Twitter is really not the best platform for this kind of content. Some of the screenshots have such bad compression artifacts that it's difficult to make out the before/after changes. For example: [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DDf7ef1XkAMh3Gp.jpg:large](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DDf7ef1XkAMh3Gp.jpg:large)

This is a much more readable version (though doesn't include the handy CSS annotations):

[https://codepen.io/tyrellrummage/full/ZJPXgy/](https://codepen.io/tyrellrummage/full/ZJPXgy/)

<comment><USER3> One of the benefits of using Twitter to publish these tips is having the constraint of 140 characters. This forces me to be creative and simplify the tips down to something that is super digestible. I publish tips regularly and Twitter makes it really easy to share them.

<comment><USER4> So set yourself a 140 character limit when you write a list on your blog? In this case though, I really wish there was more substance to the list, because I'm finding it a little difficult to see what exactly he means. As another commenter here said: _" I wish the author included more info explaining their reasoning."_ which, of course, doesn't work in a 140 character limit.

My personal opinion is that for-twitter content has always been sub-par compared to for-blog content, at least in my experience, and Twitter is really just useful for sharing links to other content. But that's just my opinion based on my experience. Obviously your experience is very different from mine! Luckily we have a good mix of content, so we can both be happy.

I also find Twitter incredibly difficult to find things on, so unless I happen to check it at exactly the right time (when you post it but before other people I follow post too much), there's a big chance I'll never see it[1]. I also find the way the replies are threaded difficult to navigate.

[1] On HN, popular things stay at the top of the list for a few hours, so the chances of me seeing things here are much higher and obviously submissions like this one mean that I _do_ see the twitter content.

<comment><USER5> _I 'm finding it a little difficult to see what exactly he means._

You're replying to the "he" who wrote the tips :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is a great guide/collection! It does a great job for those who know the basics to step up the game, thank you so much.

However, something notable that IMHO is missing is accessibility. This is clearly a DESIGN guide and should NOT be treated as a UI/UX guide. Some of the color in the page for instance don't pass the WCAG 2 AA guidelines, which is a really flexible one, let alone the WCAG 2 AAA (a more strict one). The mid- gray text over white background looks great; but it's quite bad for reading.

<comment><USER7> I was going to comment on much the same thing; I had to adjust my monitor angle a few times to find a sweet spot where I could actually see what the guy was talking about. Also, a fixed font size in the age of responsive design is a huge no-no in accessibility; as well as, general UI/UX.

<comment><USER8> So then what is a better "when in doubt" guideline?

<comment><USER9> For what it's worth, Google recommends using pixel units for font sizes: [https://developers.google.com/speed/docs/insights/UseLegible...](https://developers.google.com/speed/docs/insights/UseLegibleFontSizes#recommendations)

I personally use a base font size in pixels and use em units to increase or decrease relatively.

<comment><USER10> I don't want to start a flame war of any kind here but I did want to state that I very much dislike googles designs, I find their UIs very hard to navigate and generally 'displeasing' to the eye.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> There's also Little Big Details ([http://littlebigdetails.com/](http://littlebigdetails.com/)) which does something similar.

<comment><USER12> Wow, this is a total antipattern: [http://littlebigdetails.com/post/164521719457/invision- blog-...](http://littlebigdetails.com/post/164521719457/invision-blog-when- you-read-an-article-on)

I want the title to tell me _which_ article I might want to return to, not _that_ I should.

<comment><USER13> Clever or novel often gets precedence in many of these UI collection blogs. It's easy to get caught up in busy-work with design, possibly more so than with programming.

That's why I like UI changes that come with a/b test results. Although sometimes it's hard to measure the right metrics with this stuff, especially when it's entirely qualitative or highly abstract like emotional gratification.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Some of these seem a bit arbitrary. I wish the author included more info explaining their reasoning.

I'd be amazed in all these examples pass a basic accessibility checklist. It's fine to want to add in small design details here and there, but don't sacrifice accessibility to achieve that goal. Personally, I found a lot of the examples a bit difficult to read.

</comment><comment><USER15> I love that these facts by Steve Schoger were collected and shared by ... Senior Designer at booking.com

Has senior designer at booking.com seen booking.com?

</comment><comment><USER16> Tips mosyly priviledge prettiness over usability. E.g. advice like "mix background hue into grey text" is why we have so much unreadable, non- contrasting text.

<comment><USER16> I guess I have an axe to grind because, as a colorblind person, I often feel like "designers" just wish I didn't exist, like user needs are an inconvenience and not _the whole point_. /Rant

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Lot of gems there, however:

 _" A subtle link for negative secondary actions often works better than a big bold button"_

Careful with that one. "Better" and "negative" are in the eye of the beholder. Take it too far and you're into dark patterns or at least a confusing UI.

</comment><comment><USER18> Mostly good, except the button examples at the end. It is completely backwards to recommend buttons that don't even look like buttons _and then_ add gray text to make them look even less available!! A list of buttons is just fine.

<comment><USER5> No, you want the primary action to look clearly like a button and the others to look like secondary links to minimize cognitive load. A list of button-like shapes that do wildly different things is not good UX.

<comment><USER18> There is a lot more "cognitive load" when I wonder why something that I need is apparently disabled, or when I can't even _find_ an option because it is being presented in a way that doesn't remotely resemble something that should trigger an action. Consistency counts too.

If a button is "dangerous", it can be dealt with in other ways, such as:

\- More space from other buttons

\- An ellipsis "..." to indicate to the user that a confirmation will appear (making it more "safe" to experiment with the button)

\- Adding an icon and/or color

<comment><USER5> _> I wonder why something that I need is apparently disabled_

That is also bad. It's not a choice between two bad things.

 _> I can't even find an option because it is being presented in a way that doesn't remotely resemble something that should trigger an action._

Then we should not do that either! One solution is obvious links, which are known to trigger events, for secondary and/or tertiary actions.

The list of buttons in the examples is not good.

\- More space doesn't address the problem (and after some amount of space it stops being a single "list of buttons" as opposed to multiple buttons strewn across the interface).

\- An ellipsis does signal a confirmation, but that is not the problem being addressed.

\- The buttons already have different colors in the "before" images. That is how the problem is presented.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Nice. But of course, next year the rules will be completely different.

<comment><USER20> I don't know. The specific examples are obviously adapted to current-day webdesign styles. But the general guidelines and direction to take on improving details on today's webdesign styles seem to me exactly the same as webdesign 10 years ago (weight, colour, shading, hierarchy, white/spacing, balance, affordance, it's all there).

There's only maybe one or two examples that wouldn't be applicable 10 years ago because we didn't use those stylistic elements. Like putting a coloured line at the top of your page for a splash of colour. That wasn't part of the shiny-button web2.0 style back then :) _However_ , I remember reading design- tips back then and "add a splash of colour" was definitely part of the tips, just used a different trick to implement it that fit the design of the era better (use coloured headings, for instance).

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I love these bite-sized tips! Are there more of these somewhere?

</comment><comment><USER22> A lot of great little tricks are included here, many that I never noticed until this pointed them out and now I can think of multiple places where specific things are in use. Bookmarking this for future design work.

</comment><comment><USER23> This was really awesome. The design improvements are so clear, but I would've _never_ come up with them myself.

</comment><comment><USER24> At our firm we had used a few of the examples set out in this article. We stumbled upon them by trial and error. It is good to see them formalised here.

</comment><comment><USER25> Is there something like this for the physical world?

<comment><USER26> Perhaps 'The Design of Everyday Things' by Donald Norman?

<comment><USER27> Very much so!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> _Proceeds to copy all of these into sideprojects_

</comment><comment><USER29> Very nice, thanks Steve!

</comment><comment><USER30> Is to note with some of this is required for the "flat" design. Even DOS/Windows 3.0+ haver better usability than today flat screens.</comment>


Formula 1 gets radical new rules for 2021, plus a budget cap - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/cars/2019/11/formula-1-gets-radical-new-rules-for-2021-plus-a-budget-cap/ <comment><USER2> The budget cap will be largely ineffective as there are numerous exemptions[0] and starts in 2021 but a large bulk of development will happen in 2020.

[0] [https://www.forbes.com/sites/csylt/2019/11/01/the-18-billion...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/csylt/2019/11/01/the-18-billion- exemptions-from-f1s-budget-cap/)</comment>


16 Linux Server Monitoring Commands You Really Need To Know - <AUTHOR> http://h30565.www3.hp.com/t5/Feature-Articles/16-Linux-Server-Monitoring-Commands-You-Really-Need-To-Know/ba-p/1936

<comment><USER2> Very, very nice collection. Thanks.</comment>


Crashing, Burning Planes Don't Stop Passengers from Grabbing Their Luggage - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-04/crashing-burning-planes-don-t-stop-passengers-from-grabbing-their-luggage <comment><USER2> This has been a big discussion point everywhere - about shocking this behavior is and how people's lives are at stake. But let me offer an alternate perspective, and maybe some insight into their behavior.

If you lose your ID or any other official documents in India, everyone knows how much of a hassle it is going to be to get these documents reissued. Of course the possibility of bribes to move the papers. Insurance claims for lost baggage? I wouldn't rely on it. It might take them a while to save up to buy whatever they might have in their bags too. Laptops, tablets etc. They probably don't earn that much to begin with. This is probably what ran through their minds.

Yes, lives are more important in the end and every second counts in such a scenario. But as an individual they might think - hey, it takes a few seconds to grab my bag and jump out. That would save me SO much trouble. Unfortunately that's what everyone thinks and in the end everyone goes for their bags and waste precious time.

<comment><USER3> It seems like a more effective social fix for this would be to ensure that any survivors of a plane crash are immediately met inside the terminal by representatives of the airline, doctors, and members from the national consulate, who give complimentary toiletries, changes of clothes, spending money, etc. and fasttrack any requests for replacement travel documents.

Such a system would be beneficial for other reasons as well: in many recent plane crashes, survivors have ended up wandering the area, which leads to a lot of unnecessary stress for loved ones searching for them, administrative hassles for airlines and first responders, and difficulty for accident investigators. If there was a clear protocol for where to go, who to receive, and what you'd receive in the event of a crash, people would be a lot less nervous about their belongings.

<comment><USER4> >Such a system would be beneficial for other reasons as well: in many recent plane crashes, survivors have ended up wandering the area, which leads to a lot of unnecessary stress for loved ones searching for them, administrative hassles for airlines and first responders, and difficulty for accident investigators. If there was a clear protocol for where to go, who to receive, and what you'd receive in the event of a crash, people would be a lot less nervous about their belongings

In light of this, the phenomenon of passengers grabbing their luggage makes objective sense, and has changed my view of people trying to take their carry- on with them.

FTA:

>> The main reasons passengers gave for grabbing their bags was money, wallets, or credit cards, followed by work materials, keys, and medication

The individualism 'above' (no particular effort on the part of airline, airport or first responders to create an environment to receive and help crash survivors) informs the individualism 'below' (one should grab one's documentation, money, means of communication etc because no immediate means of support otherwise exists). Note to self, ALWAYS grab luggage from plane wreckage.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Oh, there's much worse problems at least when it comes to fire alarms in apartment buildings -- people simply refusing to leave their home.

I live in a (modern, 4-floor, built in 2008, steel and concrete) building with 145 apartments. We have about 2 or 3 fire alarms a year because late-20s professionals don't understand that pouring oil into a pan heated on high for 20 minutes does nothing but generate a massive amount of smoke. Though in 7 years, we've had 3 actual fires. One serious enough to pop the glycerin disk of a sprinkler head (and cause ~$1M in water damage from the ~5000 gallons it pumped out before it was turned off, compared to about $20-30K in fire damage).

I am the building's "unofficial first responder". I try to find it, so I can direct fire fighters to it when they arrive 8 minutes later, in the hopes of it being dealt with before a sprinkler head pops and makes the lives of many of the units' neighbors miserable for the next few months (because water damage and related insurance claims). Once, management was still here, and we used the skeleton key to access the unit and I actually put it out myself with an extinguisher (and killed the breakers to the stove). As I'm running through the hall, I have to tell people peering out their doors to "get out now, fire alarm", and that no, they can't take the elevator (because they're now parked) and they need to take stairs.

When there are firefighters going into the building, with hoses, and putting up ladders, you have people in neighboring apartments watching... from the windows inside their apartments. Until the fire department knocks on their doors and screams at them, through a megaphone, to get out.

Management commented to me that during the fire alarms with actual fires (which granted, were small), ~30% of people (~80-90 people) refused to leave. That's a hell of a potential burden in the event of a serious fire to put on the firefighters.

<comment><USER6> > people simply refusing to leave their home.

This is the same in offices, in my experience. Our shared office building has a horrible fire system, and gets about a half dozen false fire alarms a year. My coworkers think I'm crazy for always going directly outside when the alarm starts blaring.

Sooner or later, one of those "false alarms" is going to be real and people will still be sitting at their desks while the building is really on fire.

<comment><USER7> This reminded me of 9/11\. I thought I heard that people in the second tower were being told by an official to stay at their desks. Why the heck would anyone advise people to remain with that huge and severely damaged building burning so close by? Just looking out the windows would have made me want to get far away from there. Did they really advise people to stay or is my memory faulty?

<comment><USER8> After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, it turned out, in hindsight, that the best course of action was for people to say where they were. That memory and lesson was not lost by 2001.

"Altogether, six people were killed and 1,042 others injured, most during the evacuation that followed the blast."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombin...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It's game theory and herding in effect. We all know it'd be most helpful to the group to abandon our luggage and exit single file. We also know no one else will do it. Plus, we witness examples and use those as justification for similar behavior.

There have been studies done that show if you're in the middle of a crisis with bystanders, it's important to single them out and call for their direct responsibility:

"You in the green shirt, call the police now!"

Otherwise, responsibility distributes evenly among the group with no one player having enough impetus to affect change.

<comment><USER10> I could imagine myself saying "You in the green shirt, leave your damn luggage and exit the plane!" but I have no idea how effective that would be.

<comment><USER9> Less effective when your own luggage is in your hands... :-P

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> [WARNING: armchair psychology]

People can act bizarrely in a crisis. In situations like this where there is panic and the adrenaline starts pumping, rational thought gets tampered down and instinct and training takes over. Which is actually a great survival mechanism, but we don't really have any instincts, and very few people are actually trained for emergencies like this. What we _are_ trained to do is not forget our luggage when leaving the plane.

Assuming this is the case (see above warning), no amount of fines or prosecution will really help, because we're dealing with people's subconscious. People won't internalize that negative reinforcement unless it actually happens to them, and how often are people in plane crashes? Maybe having plane evacuation drills would help, but I don't know how practical that is.

<comment><USER12> > Assuming this is the case (see above warning), no amount of fines or > prosecution will really help, because we're dealing with people's > subconscious.

Yeah, that also bothered me about the article. I don't think anyone in a crisis is going to think, 'if I grab my bag, I will be fined' — and I don't believe that the money recouped from fines will do anything to compensate for lives lost, anyway.

Rather, I think that folks are going to feel, 'my life, and everything I have is in danger, I must rescue myself and my things or perish!'

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> If airlines had a clear policy that they would compensate for lost luggage in emergencies I think this would be less common. When a small handbag can be worth $1000 and it takes you 5 seconds to grab it, it's an easy choice to take it vs leaving it to burn and not knowing whether you'll be compensated.

<comment> white-flame It's hard to compensate for things like your keepsakes, favorite items, and personal media & contacts in your devices. There's also the fear of being stuck somewhere without ANYTHING that makes people grab what they can, to at least have a change of clothes and their toothbrush or whatever.

<comment><USER14> I agree that I don't think it's so much compensation. It's more like "But it's just a little bag and it's right here with my wallet and phone and medications. If I leave it I'll be at this random airport with absolutely nothing."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> > _The main reasons passengers gave for grabbing their bags was money, > wallets, or credit cards, followed by work materials, keys. and medication._

Maybe the reasonable thing is to require small separate handbag with all the valuables.

And there are more things which prevent fast evacuation. Are we going to ban them as well?:

\- catering trolleys

\- less mobile persons

\- high heels

</comment><comment><USER16> This is a classic tragedy-of-the-commons problem. From one individual's perspective, you think to yourself that grabbing your bag only takes 1 additional second, and it's pretty unlikely that you'll get hurt just because of that additional second. Compared to the upside of not losing your precious belongings, that seems like an understandable cost-benefit analysis.

The problem is, you aren't just delaying yourself by 1 second, you're also delaying the other 100 people behind you by 1 second. And if you multiply the risks involved by 100, the outcome of the cost-benefit analysis changes dramatically.

We could yell at people for being too dumb to do the "right thing", but let's be honest, this isn't the kind of issue that will filter down to everyone in society. Unless it makes the front page of NYTimes or CNN, the vast majority of people will never get to hear your moral lectures and explanations. And airlines don't want to unduly alarm their passengers on the vast majority of flights which won't have problems, so they aren't going to spend too much effort on this either. The best solution here is some simple technology. Equip all the overhead bins with central locks, so that once a switch is flipped, it's impossible for a passenger to get them open. This way, people won't even have the chance to grab their luggage, and we wouldn't have to sit here having this discussion.

<comment><USER17> >The problem is, you aren't just delaying yourself by 1 second, you're also delaying the other 100 people behind you by 1 second.

Except for most people, it doesn't take an additional second. Past experience in crowded areas with narrow aisles and few exits tells you that you're going to be standing around waiting awhile for a chance to move. What else are you supposed to do, flail your arms, scream, and panic? Trample the people ahead of you? Fling your bag randomly, hitting someone else and causing a trip hazard?

All our lives we are taught that in an emergency you should remain calm and collected and exit in good order.

Of course you shouldn't waste time going back for unimportant things or things that are hard to get to, but if your bag is right there and you can pick it up in the same motion as standing up, that seems perfectly reasonable, rational, and logical. Or if you're standing around waiting for your chance to exit, it makes sense to pick it up.

The article uses hyperbole like "Materialism has been winning out over self- preservation", "when it's your money or your life, money wins", and "leave your bags behind. Yes, all of them. Laptops and purses, too." But urging people to panic and act counter to everything they've ever been taught and everything that they've experienced in life, especially in the middle of a stressful emergency, doesn't really make sense.

As others have said, fining people for behaving the way that they are supposed to behave does not make sense. Intercepting people and delaying the evacuation to remove their things does not make sense. What would make sense would be to improve egress routes if that is a problem. More exits and wider aisles would be a lot easier than trying to force everyone to act irrationally and counter- intuitively during an emergency.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> The crew announcement should offer a $5000 bonus for everyone who leaves without a bag. Even if they don't have one.

It would be much more effective than the threat of a fine.

<comment><USER19> Slow clap as everyone stops to slip all their small valuables out of their bags and into their pockets.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Alternative: shoot out the overhead bins around the plane like a ejector seat, everyone gets their stuff when they get off. Now you got people scrambling to get off the plane to get their stuff. win-win.

<comment><USER20> aww man i was thinking about this more, and its going to take a really big compressed air tank to shoot out the bins. But good thing there was that recall of millions of airbags, we can just use those instead of wasting them.

win-win-win

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Are handbags, like those ladies are carrying in the picture, supposed to be left behind? I have a hard time imagining women would ever leave something like that behind even if you "fine" them.

At that point, a compromise is needed... probably smaller bags and packs that fit under the seat should be allowed and should be incorporated in the safety tests, but certainly opening up the overhead bins in an emergency should definitely be fined.

<comment><USER14> Yes. They're most certainly supposed to be left behind. That picture makes it pretty clear that even those smaller bags have plenty of opportunity to tangle ip with people and slow down an evacuation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Yes this is terrible and avoidable, but it's also an extremely uncommon event. The amount of lives saved by properly educating against this is basically negligible.

</comment><comment><USER23> The issue is people simply don't trust the airline to take care of them. Typically airlines place lots of limitations on losses and make it very difficult to get compensated. Lost identification usually involves fees to get them replaced. Some might argue, quite correctly, that you are making a choice between death and inconvenience but many would not assume they are going to die and weigh up the risk vs return accordingly.

</comment><comment><USER24> My rationale: Make sure to have IDs, CCs, etc. on you. Grab your small bag from under the seat. Leave the overhead closed. It should be locked automatically as suggested in the article.

</comment><comment><USER25> The reason this happens is because it's hard to know the boundary between a minor problem and a major situation, and people tend to have a lag in their estimation of severity of the situation. Kinda like a car engine with a turbocharger has turbo lag.

People end up not wanting to make a stupid mistake where they leave their passports, money, laptops behind just because of a false alarm.

If they knew what they know later, they'd act differently. But in the moment, it's hard to predict if it's going to be a big deal or a minor thing.

</comment><comment><USER26> There are multiple reasons for this behavior

Most of these reasons are listed in these set of storified tweets [https://storify.com/AnonDesi/conversation-with-peegeekay- mad...](https://storify.com/AnonDesi/conversation-with-peegeekay-madnavin- antaryaami-ga)

I urge everyone to please read the tweets in the link I posted, as it gives you a totally different perspective as to why people behaved this way.

One other reason, is the fact that a plane flying from India is filled with people who speak at least 10 to 15 different languages (native langauge).

Its possible that those who didnt get the passenger safety instructions in the language they are comfortable with, just didn't even know what to do under such distress!

<comment><USER27> The tweet storm provides reasons (loss of passport/ID very severe problem, specifically for migrant workers in Gulf states), but not valid ones.

These are, however, good reasons to carry your passport on your person, and not in a huge suitcase in the overhead bin.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Have to wonder how much of it is cultural. Flown alot in China and I can only imagine it being worse while here in Japan we'd politely try to figure out who went first while burning.

Really the endpoint is the same. Humans panic.

</comment><comment><USER29> This is one of those scenarios where of course airline people know how to do things. But you cannot expect the consumers of your service to have the same level of fluency. Does everyone on the entire aircraft acknowledge and believe that evacuating the aircraft in 90 seconds is the number one goal?

I would say no. Despite it being somewhat logical, I think it is unreasonable to believe that people are rational agents and won't act emotionally in a state of emergency.

So don't get upset that people aren't following your directions.

<comment><USER30> I think it would help if people knew _why_ 90 seconds is the goal: because the real danger in a plane crash isn't the crash, it's the post-crash fire. I'm speaking generally of course. For something like Sioux City for example (total loss of hydraulics/controls), the crash is obviously catastrophic. But even in that case, the post-crash fire added to the death toll significantly.

I don't think passengers realize this. No sane airline would ever mention it in a passenger briefing. Can you imagine? "P.S. If we crash, get off right away or you'll be burned alive." Never gonna happen. But it's the truth, and it's why getting the f* off the plane as fast as humanly possible after a crash will save your life—and the lives of all the people who can't get off until you do because they're stuck behind you.

That's the other thing I don't think people realize. Grabbing your bag may take you two seconds, big whoop. But what if two seconds is the difference between life and death for the person thirty people behind you in line out the door? You just killed that person.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> So get rid of overhead storage. Or have the overhead compartments automatically lock down in an emergency as suggested.

I can't honestly say I wouldn't grab my backpack from the floor, if the situation allowed, but I am fairly convinced it won't be delaying my departure from a burning aircraft. The 82 year old lady in row 8, who had to be wheelchaired onto the plane or perhaps the mother/father trying to juggle one or more screaming children might be a more serious concern.

</comment><comment><USER32> _" The possibility of a huge fine "would stick in their mind" and cause passengers to leave their bags as directed"_

I'm not sure. There are psychologists who claim that people who have to disembark start their "leave a plane" program, and that includes taking ones luggage, because that program has worked well for them zillions of times.

Chapter 7 of the referenced [https://app.ntsb.gov/doclib/safetystudies/SS0001.pdf](https://app.ntsb.gov/doclib/safetystudies/SS0001.pdf) gives that theory some credence. Quote:

 _" Of the 419 passengers who reported that they carried on bags, 208 (nearly 50 percent) reported attempting to remove a bag during their evacuation. The primary reason that passengers stated for grabbing their bags was for money, wallet, or credit cards (111 passengers). Other reasons included job items (65), keys (61), and medicines (51). Most passengers exited the airplane with their bags"_

So, urges that normally are top of the list (don't lose your wallet or keys) seem to get precedence over a directly life-threatening but unfamiliar one (you're in a burning plane)

Given that, I doubt a technical solution such as a huge fine will have much effect.

</comment><comment><USER33> I have some perspective in having been in an emergency landing (fortunately less fiery than the 777 event). Our plane was in trouble so the flight attendants had plenty of time to go around and confiscate our shoes, remove everything from under the seats, make sure our pockets were empty, check our brace positions, and switch passengers around (this was 25 years ago so I was put in the emergency row as I was strong enough to open the over wing door).

It's a long story but the relevant parts are:

1 - I broke the rules and pocketed my passport with 200 US dollars folded into it. Which meant when the plane was on the ground and they were figuring out what to do with all these passengers I was able to get out, get someone to let me _back onto the plane_ for my stuff, and get myself on another flight. I'd do that again, but I would _not_ bring my phone (too dangerous when whizzing down that slide).

2 - Most people don't realize that the flight attendants are mainly there for safety and all that drink crud etc is just to keep the swells distracted and under control. I think the very safety of flight and the rareness of incident means people don't bother to consider what they'd do in an accident and so kid of go into autopilot.

There were many years when I worried what to do about my computer, but these days everything is backed up into the cloud so I can afford to lose it in a fire.

BTW despite all the excitement the amount of view was minimal and I (as a total non-expert) think they could have skipped the evacuation. I have read that the FAA is satisfied if you slide down and break your ankle -- but don't burn to death.

<comment><USER34> > Most people don't realize that the flight attendants are mainly there for > safety

Airlines like to say that safety is priority but then dress their attendants in high heels and tight poly-cotton skirts.

On the occasions that I flew with UK armed forces, the 'flight attendants' wore stout boots, flame-resistant olive drab coveralls and gloves. Depending upon aircraft, some wore helmets too. I had no doubt they were there for my safety, there was even a story at the time about a helicopter crew throwing an Admiral out the door of a helicopter in an emergency.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> A slow passenger is only a problem because of the low number of exit hatches. The bottleneck is the number of exits, not the slow passenger.

<comment><USER35> manual upvote (site won't let me upvote normally, this is probably frowned upon, but then you should let people upvote normally)

<comment><USER36> Please don't do this. You can't upvote until you reach a certain (rather low) karma threshold.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> k-mcgrady There is a video on a BBC story [1] about the Emirates crash landing. First of all the video is appalling - everybody is going for their bags in the overheads instead of moving to the exits and it looks way more chaotic than it would if they followed the procedure. Secondly, and even more shocking, is that some idiot videoed this. Considering the fireball this plane became soon after everyone got off the delays all of these people were causing to the evacuation is incredibly dangerous. Particularly for crew members who are going to be last off. I feel like there needs to be a pretty heavy punishment for anyone who comes down that slide with a bag.

[1] [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36977903](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36977903)

</comment><comment><USER35> (In this article): The same people who are condemning taking your bags, citing it as an impediment to evacuation, are suggesting an additional movement restriction, passenger bag checks at the exit.

Personally, I think treating this issue in a black and white manner is a mistake. I think that each individual's judgement should be better respected, acknowledging the limits of central control.

</comment><comment><USER37> Why not design a process that is fast enough _and_ assumes people will take their bags? Ex: quadruple the number of exits.

</comment><comment><USER38> Pretty much every time I board a flight I just look for the closest exit, then go back to reading.

Then I have a vision of scrambling over the tops of seats to get out of a crash incident. Luggage isn't a part of that vision.

Then I go back to reading.

</comment><comment><USER12> > "Smoking is not allowed because it can jeopardize the lives and the health > of other passengers and the lives and health of the crew," she said. "And > carrying your bag could have the same consequence."

No, smoking is not allowed because people like to have an out-group they can hate, and it is currently politically-correct to hate smokers. Inhaling a little smoke on a plane ride is annoying (so, too, body odour …), but it doesn't negatively impact anyone's health. So-called 'secondhand smoke' is junk science, pure and simple: no more factual than phrenology.

</comment><comment><USER39> Proposal for a new FAA rule: all luggage taken from the plane during an emergency evacuation will be destroyed. Incentives matter.

<comment><USER15> Great, now passengers will get their luggage, unpack it, and stuff valuables into their pockets.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Yesterday, I sat in an exit row on a plane. I remember looking at my bag at my feet and deciding to grab it in an emergency so that other people won't trip on it on their way out.

<comment><USER41> If it's stowed properly under the seat ahead of you, it's not in the way. If it's not stowed properly, then you're already breaking the rules.

<comment><USER40> It's a laptop backpack with straps that can move around a bit. All it takes is someone to hook a toe on a loop, and then that person would go headfirst down the slide.

<comment><USER42> One of the first things crew does after emergency is to make sure that the exit rows are clear. If your bag does move around during the crash landing and blocks exit, it will be removed out of the way</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ocean fish could disappear in 40 years  - <AUTHOR> http://www.news.com.au/world/ocean-fish-could-disappear-in-40-years/story-e6frfkyi-1225868059675 <comment><USER2> >THE world faces the nightmare possibility of fishless oceans by 2050 unless fishing fleets are slashed and stocks allowed to recover, UN experts warned.

An important lesson from the Canadian cod collapse is that when populations drop below a critical threshold, the stocks _never_ recover.

<comment><USER3> That may be due to the cod being an apex predator. I.e. has the total biomass of the region collapsed?

However this is a classic Tragedy of the Commons example and the fact that Canada dithered long enough for it to reach what looks like a point of no return is sobering (I was living in the Boston area in the dozen years leading up to Canada's closing of fishery and remember reading articles about this). Some governments are simply not going to handle this well for the regions of the ocean they economically control, and plenty of the ocean (although I don't know how much of it is how productive) is beyond those areas.

All that said, we're likely to see a continuation of farm raised fish replacing wild catched. Something akin to this happened thousands of years ago as we converted to agriculture.

<comment><USER4> If we're gonna farm fish, we best do it right: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EUAMe2ixCI>

<comment><USER5> Couldn't watch the talk at the moment (bookmarking for later), but additionally (saw this on HN a few months back):

<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/18/garden/18aqua.html>

<comment><USER3> _Very_ cool; I've mused about raising catfish in the basement before, but obviously you can go a lot further, more diversified and more full cycle.

Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Make sure to watch the film The End of the Line: <http://endoftheline.com/> \- which explains the Canadian Cod collapse,the current state of affairs, and potential solutions.

Also take the time to watch some of the recent TED talks from Mission Blue which offer a good outline of the state of the ocean's and potential solutions.

<http://www.tedprize.org/mission-blue-voyage/>

</comment><comment><USER7> In my country for long there were no such problems because the government imposed the proihibition of fisherman to go out to get some kinds of species during their mating and growing time. That way fish was allowed to reproduce and grow. Every time the fish you're eating has eggs a few dozens of new fishes could have been spared if the reproduction was allowed to take place. Also sometimes the nets used to catch the fish are too tight not allowing baby fishes to get out.

The problem with the law was that it was in reality imposing a time of starvation every year to the fishermans and their families, while the same species could be bought at the markets imported from other countries. The measure was one of the first to be abandoned when the political regime changed.

I don't really know what is the possibility of fishing companies to cycle between the fishing species during the year to let the other species grow, but that still seems like an alternative to me.

I also think that a fish diet is much more healthy than a meat diet, so a danger like the possible extinction of fishing species shouldn't be taken lightly just because we can get the proteins somewhere else.

<comment><USER8> The issue with having individual fishing companies determining policies is that it invokes the tragedy of the commons. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons>

This is addressed in part by the Law of the Sea Treaty, but this only addresses waters out to 200 nautical miles. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_Sea_Treaty>

Living resources past this zone are free game. If any fishing companies pull out of a region to allow the populations to grow, it only opens up opportunities for other companies to come in.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> when there's every incentive to take all you can before everyone else does, this is bound to happen. as someone has already said, this is a repeat of the tragedy of the commons

we need a system of property rights for the seas, rights to fish at certain places and times, that create incentives to not overfish and to protect this valuable resource.

If you own the rights to a stream of income, you don't have the incentive to gut it and sell whatever you can sell now before everyone else.

Agriculture is impossible without property rights also. Why would you plant and take care of plants if anyone can just take what they want?

<comment><USER10> I see your point, but the difference is that land is fixed and generally easier to enforce authority over. International waters are outside normal jurisdictions by definition, so how do you grant and enforce property rights in non-coastal fisheries?

Say you want to divide up Atlantic fisheries for this purpose, trying to balance the demands of 40 or 50 countries that operate fishing fleets is going to be a nightmare. If you go just by coastal size, where do you draw the line over which countries are allowed to participate? Developed countries with better fishing and food distribution industries, like Canada or the EU, are going to claim larger chunks based on the size of their existing economy, whereas poor countries on the west coast of Africa that don't have blue-water fleets are naturally going to object that they're being cut off from future access to resources.

<comment><USER11> That's the great thing about marine sanctuaries. You agree upon a region in the middle of the ocean to declare off-limits for fishing. The fish population of those regions repopulates the rest of the ocean, and you have the best of both words. Unrestrained fishing, and stable fish stocks. You can even find perpetrators using satellites, which helps with enforcement.

The hard part is agreeing upon regions both large enough and spanning enough biomes.

<comment><USER3> I think the really hard part is enforcement. E.g. see the Cod Wars (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars>) which were between two relatively developed and sophisticated European countries.

It could get much messier, e.g. imagine the USNavy trying to enforce restrictions in the open seas on trawlers from the PRC.

I'm not sure how useful satellites would be at finding perpetrators for the purposes of enforcement, at least not without sending a ship to confirm details.

<comment><USER12> "As a result, a fleet of Royal Naval warships and tug-boats were employed to act as a deterrent against any future harassment of British fishing crews by the Icelandic craft. The conflict involved several cases of vessels ramming each other."

Was that all it took to have a conflict classified as a war back then?

<comment><USER13> It was a definite case of Great Britain stepping way over its bounds as a nation and bullying a much smaller nation with a navy of much smaller proportions over a resource the British themselves had destroyed around their home Island.

Very bad episode, and really reflecting bad on the security council as well, which should have stepped in. Of course th e British had considerable clout politically as well.

If it hadn't been for that NATO base who knows what would have happened.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm conflicted -- I enjoy eating fish because of its health benefits but I don't want to contribute to over-fishing. What's the ethical and healthy thing to do? Tofu all day every day?

<comment><USER15> Our ancestrors did not eat meat or fish every day, today's vegetarians do not eat tofu everyday either. The goal is to be complete in nutrients: you won't be much wrong if you associate cereals, legumes, fresh vegetables, fruits/dried fruits (to get glucids, fibers, proteins, vitamins and minerals) and possibly some dairy products/eggs for lacking nutrients. Think of the traditionnal associations (rice and beans, couscous, houmous and bread, fallafels and pitta ...) and try to be diverse and curious. Cooking is a form of hacking !

<comment><USER16> Who were your ancestors? How far back are you talking about? Hunter-gatherers? I think you'll find that people ate pretty much everything edible around and that meat was a highly desirable food and eaten whenever possible.

<comment><USER17> You're right - meat was highly desirable food and eaten whenever possible, HOWEVER - up until the 19th century, unless you were in the very small percentage of rich/privileged, you got a chance to eat meat once a week - tops. And in the agricultural societies, commoners wouldn't even get to eat steak and all the nice parts - when a cow was slaughtered, all the premium parts went to the lord.. all peasants got was some entrails to put in soup.

It's only when the 20th century rolled around, and meat became cheap/available everywhere, that people started eating meat once a day, leading to a spread of all kinds of diseases, heart attacks, cholesterol, cancer, etc.

<comment><USER16> > you got a chance to eat meat once a week

Really? Is that true? What groups are you talking about?

> It's only when the 20th century rolled around, and meat became > cheap/available everywhere, that people started eating meat once a day, > leading to a spread of all kinds of diseases, heart attacks, cholesterol, > cancer, etc.

Ok, interesting hypothesis. So assuming this is true, people in 1830 ate less meat and had less heart disease than people in 1930, right?

What if I told you, in the US, the opposite is true? That, on average, people ate more meat in 1830 and had less heart disease than people in 1930?

If people aren't eating meat, what are they eating? grains? sugars? How would you create a study to test your hypothesis than meat consumption causes heart disease? Has this been studied? What were the results?

<comment><USER18> _What if I told you, in the US, the opposite is true? That, on average, people ate more meat in 1830_ Then I would ask you what your sources are.

 _If people aren't eating meat, what are they eating? grains? sugars?_ Vegetables, fruits, legumes, whole grains, nuts, etc. Most people in the US who eat tons of sugar are not vegetarians.

<comment><USER16> > Most people in the US who eat tons of sugar are not vegetarians.

How do you know this? Have you studied the sugar consumption of vegetarians?

<comment><USER18> Since most people eat too much sugar (the _average_ American eats 20 teaspoons of added sugar each day), and only about 5% of the population is vegetarian this seems common sense to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> A recent WWF report says tuna (bluefin) could be wiped out by 2012.

<comment><USER20> Not really an issue, the world is ending by 2012 anyway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'd assume this is slightly sensationalist? As in not all species of fish and areas are fished simply because of depth, remoteness and species unsuitable for eating.

<comment><USER10> The article is very shallow, but th problem is very real. the economist has had some very good coverage on this if you want to cruise their website for it.

 _The main scourge, the UNEP report says, are government subsidies encouraging ever bigger fishing fleets chasing ever fewer fish, with little attempt made to allow the fish populations to recover. The annual 27 billion dollars in government subsidies to fishing, mostly in rich countries, is "perverse," Mr Sukhdev said, since the entire value of fish caught is only 85 billion dollars._

This is the key issue. Being European, I remember since the 1970s that western European nations, particularly Spain, started ranging further afield because they had fished out most of the waters around their own coasts. The result was 'fishing wars' where trawlers would damage the nets or otherwise interfere with boats from competing nations, which resulted in a few diplomatic incidents. Now Euro fishermen catch way out in the mid-Atlantic, and indeed there have been clashes between Euro and Spanish fishing vessels.

Property rights are offered by some Economists as a solution, and I can see the logic of this; on the other hand I am unsure about the probity of just handing people property title for no value, and I'm uncertain about how these can be properly enforced in international waters anyway, absent solid maritime treaties. So in the meantime we have this idiotic subsidy system, which doesn't benefit anyone except the manufacturers of fishing vessels and equipment.

<comment><USER13> > there have been clashes between Euro and Spanish fishing vessels.

Spanish fishing vessels are not Euro fishing vessels then ?

<comment><USER22> The way there economy is going (or not going) they won't be for long

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> stop eating fish. support no fishing zones. support desert based salt water fish farms.

</comment><comment><USER24> I love sensationalist titles. Bluefin tuna are not the only fish in the ocean.

</comment><comment><USER25> So now it's a race with those Himalayan glaciers. Which will disappear first? ;)

<comment><USER25> Amazing - even just joking about green scaremongering gets you downvoted.

<comment><USER26> You made it abundantly clear that not only didn't you read the article, you're not the least bit interested in learning new facts, just in labeling any concern about the environment as "green scaremongering".

<comment><USER25> Actually, it's quite possible to entertain an idea, accept, and joke about it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> At a certain point economics would dictate that fish farms would be cheaper than commercial fishing due to scarcity. Plus you could probably charge a premium to gouge the hippies for their compassion, desire for 'clean-water' fish, saving the planet rhetoric, and whatnot.

<comment><USER28> Farmed fish eats fish. For each kg of farmed fish, you have to catch two to five kg fish in the ocean. Some of this is fast-growing and might be ok to harvest in large quantities, but most of it, we don't know.

Farmed fish also spreads disease and destroys the local ecosystem. Chiles coastline is in pretty bad shape because of extremely large scale salmon farming.

<comment><USER29> Can it be done sustainably? Can a complete ecosystem be established where the feeder fish don't have to be harvested from elsewhere?

<comment><USER28> I don't know, but usually, nature is better at creating ecosystems than we are.

<comment><USER30> That doesn't mean it is better at creating food for us.

Sun -> algae -> small fish -> medium fish -> fish we eat.

Very doable, the problem comes in dealing with the waste.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> > THE world faces the nightmare possibility of fishless oceans by 2050 unless > fishing fleets are slashed and stocks allowed to recover, UN experts warned.

I dislike the rise of sensationalism and exaggeration in the media quite a lot. I dislike the rise of sensationalism and exaggeration in the United Nations even more.

<comment><USER32> It's not sensationalistic. You know damn well they're talking about edible fish that we're accustomed to eating now. You're just being intellectually dishonest.

<comment><USER31> > It's not sensationalistic.

The thread title was "Ocean fish could disappear in 40 years" - the first line starts with "THE world faces the nightmare possibility of fishless oceans by 2050..." That's sensationalism.

> You know damn well they're talking about edible fish that we're accustomed > to eating now.

Actually, the thread title - "Ocean fish could disappear in 40 years" made me click on it, because I thought it was about ecosystems getting destroyed by oil spills, or pollution, or something. And then the article was just about overfishing. And it exaggerates the chances.

> You're just being intellectually dishonest.

C'mon now, that's totally unnecessary - nightmare scenario of fishless oceans is sensationalism. There's an important point there, but the hand-wringing is a bad trend in my opinion. Exaggerating the effects of terrorism, pollution, fishing, copyright infringing piracy, and so on - it's a bad trend in my opinion. And if you disagree, why not be civil about it? "I don't think it's too sensationalistic because x, y, and z..." would work.

<comment><USER32> But the point is that it IS a nightmare scenario, since the situation is virtually unrecoverable. Ask any marine biologist about the chances of restoring any ecosystem of such dynamics past a point of no return (I work with them, so I HAVE asked).

Again, you're making a huge fuss out of something that is a technicality, because it IS a nightmare scenario, it IS coming, and for us as humen beings it's as disastrous as claimed.</comment></comment></comment></comment>