'We were shocked': RAND study uncovers income shift to the top% (cont) - <AUTHOR> https://www.fastcompany.com/90550015/we-were-shocked-rand-study-uncovers-massive-income-shift-to-the-top-1 <comment><USER2> [https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/](https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/) \+ globalization.

Money creation favors people closer to the the printer. People that can take a loan at 2% - which are generally wealthy people already. In the meantime working class has to compete with cheaper labor from poorer countries, while the capital owning class is pocketing the difference and enjoys cheaper goods.

Before capital owners had to pay a decent wage to workers in USA. The products made in US were more expensive, but the workers were compensated well so generally could afford it.

Now manufactured goods are cheaper, so people can still afford TVs and phones, but their purchasing power is lower in respect to things like services, housing.

This BTW. benefits software engineers that can plug themselves into high margin, low-labor operating capital, enjoy higher wages and rather easily join the capital class themselves.

Fundamentally labor increases profits linearly and capital increases profits exponentially. Without something to bridge the gap, exponential function will always eventually overtake the linear one. This happened many times before, and unfortunately the bridging was usually very destructive (wars & revolutions).

<comment><USER3> Except financial capital isn't getting a greater share of GDP than it used to: [http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/03/26/thomas-piketty- say...](http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/03/26/thomas-piketty-says-labors- share-of-income-is-declining-but-is-it). The decline in labor share of income has come entirely from increased income from land and rents.

[https://www.vox.com/2015/4/1/8320937/this-26-year-old- grad-s...](https://www.vox.com/2015/4/1/8320937/this-26-year-old-grad-student- didnt-really-debunk-piketty-but-what-he)

> Rognlie finds that when you account for depreciation properly, the capital > share's increase has been entirely about housing.

The part that you're forgetting is that capital accumulates, returns to capital go down. There is a ton of capital sloshing around the economy right now looking for marginal returns.

<comment><USER4> > The part that you're forgetting is that capital accumulates, returns to > capital go down.

How does that help labour?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Shocked, really?

>...even he was surprised by RAND's findings. In fact, he says that before the report was completed, he had done his own "back-of-the-envelope math" and wound up underestimating by a good 40% the degree to which workers' incomes have failed to keep pace with GDP. "It's startling," he says...

...except this [0] graph has been floating around for years, and the 40% failure to keep pace is visible plain as day on it. I'm glad there's more comprehensive research about it, but come on - this isn't even remotely groundbreaking. You'd basically have to be living under a rock for any of this to come as a surprise. There were even protests about it a few years back - what were they called? "Occupy Main Street" or something?

[0] [https://i.redd.it/szwd5045fzl51.png](https://i.redd.it/szwd5045fzl51.png)

</comment><comment><USER3> How does the math work out here??

The total income of the top 1% is $2 trillion: [https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income- tax-...](https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax- data-2018-update)

Meanwhile, there are 130 million full time workers: [https://www.statista.com/statistics/192356/number-of-full- ti...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/192356/number-of-full-time- employees-in-the-usa-since-1990/)

The chart in the middle shows that top 1% incomes would drop by half in the counter-factual scenario. If you redistribute that to 130 million full-time workers, that adds $7,650 per worker across the board. So how can you get $30,000 more at the 25th percentile and $40,000 more at the median?

The basic problem seems to be that the study assumes that taxable income should scale with per capita gdp growth. But it ignores that there are a bunch of other things in GDP besides personal income, and the proportions of each component can change over time: [http://lmi.mt.gov/Portals/193/xBlog/uploads/2016/10/26/GDPvs...](http://lmi.mt.gov/Portals/193/xBlog/uploads/2016/10/26/GDPvsIncome_800px.png)

There are a lot of things included in GDP that are not taxable personal income: social security contributions, net government transfers, etc. The RAND study looks at just taxable personal income. So if nothing else changes other than the fact that the government prints a bunch of money to pay for welfare benefits, or if the income from rents skyrockets, or if benefits grow faster than wages, or if corporate profits sit undistributed (all of which are true) the share of total GDP going to median income earners will go down. (Note they do include investment income and distributed corporate profits.)

The study's problem isn't methodology, per say. It's overlooking that there are other things in GDP besides taxable income to the bottom 99% versus the top 1%. The article draws the conclusion that reductions in the percentage of the economy going to the median earner means that they instead went to the top 1%. Obviously that's false because the money could go somewhere else. Under the RAND model, both shares could even go down, because a larger share of the economy is comprised of GDP components that aren't taxable personal income.

<comment><AUTHOR> > _There are a lot of things included in GDP that are not taxable personal > income: social security contributions, net government transfers, etc_

This is not true. The GDP numbers specifically exclude social security and other money transfers, specifically to avoid the problems you've stated.

[https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/082415/are- social-s...](https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/082415/are-social- security-payments-included-us-gdp-calculation.asp)

 _" No, Social Security payments are not included in the U.S. definition of the gross domestic product (GDP). Social Security payments are transfer payments, which are not included"_

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

 _" For the purpose of calculating gross domestic product (GDP), government spending does not include transfer payments, which are the reallocation of money from one party to another rather than expenditure on newly produced goods and services"_

The main difference between GDP and Gross National Income, is that GDP doesn't include income from foreign sources, and going to foreign destinations. But this doesn't make a significant difference in USA.

 _" For instance, the U.S. GNI for 2018 was about 20.7 trillion, according to the World Bank. The GDP in that same year was $20.5 trillion, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Affairs_"

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Absent a countervailing force, capital tends to accumulate. These results should be no surprise. So, what now?

<comment><USER7> Specifically? The US federal reserve maintains low interest rates, allowing oligarchs to borrow against their pre-existing conditions of prosperity. This in turn allows them to inflate USD and buy an alternate currency with higher interest rates, things like gold, bitcoin (stores of value that are hard to take via force, but are ultimately functionally useless). USD simultaneously inflates and deflates, leading to a near-useless currency. As a result the US balkanizes into 2 nations, one allied with Russia, Christianity, & Gazprom, one allied with China & Europe. The oligarchs will misjudge the transition and the world will be thrown into war & chaos. Understanding the enormity of the mistake, the world will be forced to either unite or die. It's unfortunately where we really, really seem to like to move ourselves, not as a whole, but as individuals, and we like to pretend like our daily decisions aren't causing this. If yours must be the glory, then mine must be the shame; you want it darker? We kill the flame.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> RAND has produced some very high quality research over the course of its existence.

Unfortunately this study, if Fast Company's clickbait article bears at all on the actual research, is not part of that canon.

The phenomenon that the study talks about, rising productivity with stagnating wages for the great majority of people since about 1975, has been discussed at length in academic economics for at least the past decade.

In the early days, of course, there were the usual attempts to say "nothing to see here": faulty methodology (no), confounders (yes, mainly a bigger percentage of women in the workforce, but adjusted for), it's a business cycle effect and will correct itself, there's no such thing as income/it's too hard to measure precisely, but-but-but "stable income shares" is one of the great Kaldor's stylized facts, blah blah blah.

The objections got increasingly more feeble and desperate as time went on, you will note.

TLDR: RAND has discovered something everyone else has known for decades.

<comment><USER9> I think it's good to see them bringing it to light in as dramatic a way to get as much attention as possible, especially among those who are not too aware.

It's just fine for people to think the trend is newly discovered, it would acually help if it got viral attention.

I think a good effort was made to only include solid representative figures for comparison, nothing nebulous or significantly questionable.

At least these are some new good baseline numbers and qualified experts even if they had originally underestimated the magnitude of the cascading wealth removal.

Since the mid 1970's this has been forseen.

You could sketch it out on the chalkboard with mathematically minded associates.

America was never going to be the same.

21st Century wasn't going to be pretty.

This was across the board.

>RAND crunched the data in all sorts of ways, and the basic pattern held true for part-time workers, entire families, men and women, Blacks and whites, urban dwellers and rural residents, and those with high school degrees and those with college diplomas. "There is no way of slicing the numbers where people come out ahead,"

The damage is much worse than it looks numerically.

It had to be for them to even do a study.

In hind sight they are now _adjusting_ for inflation as usual, but there is no accurate accounting for currency devaluation, internationalization, commodity flow, and resulting after-tax purchasing power. These are more nebulous, but if they were factored in it would look way worse not better.

That's what we found shocking.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!</comment>


Show HN: Lama – Open-Source Python Droplr Alternative - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/emre/lama/

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi folks!

I'm from Python Istanbul community. One of our leading members (@emre at github) build a python package named "lama" which actually does the same thing with Droplr's screen sharing part, using Imgur.

Since Droplr started to take money from the base plan Lama is a very close alternative to it. And it's free in all meanings. Written in Python and you can install it using PIP.

I created the [http://github.com/f/lamahelper](http://github.com/f/lamahelper). It's a mac client for Lama. I'm not a Cocoa guy; if you want to improve it feel free to contribute :)

Sure, you won't have lots of features of Droplr; like custom domain or custom logo. Or sharing text, etc. But it's one of the best alternatives in screenshot sharing. :)

Hope you'll like, and thank you github.com/emre for this useful tool :)</comment>


L.A. keeps building near freeways, even though living there makes people sick - <AUTHOR> http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-freeway-pollution/ <comment><USER2> The article quotes Mayor Garcetti as saying that "improving air-filtration, building design and tailpipe emissions" may be better than zoning restrictions.

The article is properly scathing about the building of apartments with balconies and sliding doors not more than 100 feet from _very_ busy freeways. But, it does not follow up on Garcetti's point: we need to be more aggressive in curtailing vehicle pollution. That's the root cause, after all.

As their particulate graphs point out, vehicle pollution has an 80/20 quality. A few vehicles cause a disproportionate amount of pollution - they cause the spikes in the graphs. This is also evident from driving around. You can clearly smell, and see, when you are following a badly tuned truck, or almost any 1970s and earlier car.

<comment><USER3> In Germany, we did exactly what you suggest and banned all the old and badly tuned cars in the inner cities, with significant success ("Umweltplakette").

Edit: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low- emission_zone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-emission_zone)

The concept is used in many other European cities, too.

<comment><USER4> Unfortunately (in this case) the US seems to have a much greater sense of individual right rather than collective right.

My right, and that of my family, friends, and community, to clean and pollution free air seems to be less important than someone else's individual right to drive the vehicle of their choosing and maintain it as their means allow. I know some States have emissions testing etc but that is not universal across the US.

I assume the assumption has always been that the market will slowly correct the issue and the fleet will change accordingly. But CAFE laws are of course a politicized issue.

<comment><USER5> IIRC emissions testing is similar to building codes in that you are only tested against the year the car was manufactured in most cases.

So a 1970 car will still pollute as much as a 1970 car.

<comment><USER6> >IIRC emissions testing is similar to building codes in that you are only tested against the year the car was manufactured in most cases.

As I understand it older cars have higher allowable emissions, but the state has lowered those limits over the years.

>So a 1970 car will still pollute as much as a 1970 car.

In CA you are not required to get emissions testing for any car older than the 1975 model year. It used to be any car older than 30 years, but in 2005 they decided to leave it at 1975.

To the larger point, yes, older cars can be registered with emissions levels consistant with a well-maintained car from that year. Though the net effect of the rules is to take more older cars off the road, since much of the time when you fail emissions testing it's cheaper to replace the car than to fix it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Related: the Princeton study that concluded that reducing congestion near toll booths lowered birth defects for nearby residents

> We find that reductions in traffic congestion generated by E-ZPass reduced > the incidence of prematurity and low birth weight among mothers within 2km > of a toll plaza by 6.7-9.1% and 8.5-11.3% respectively, with larger effects > for African-Americans, smokers, and those very close to toll plazas.

[https://www.princeton.edu/~jcurrie/publications/Traffic%20Co...](https://www.princeton.edu/~jcurrie/publications/Traffic%20Congestion%20and%20Infant%20Health.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER8> An acquaintance of mine is a realtor and he noticed a seemingly higher incidents of sickness associated with people living close the highway. He believes he sold more houses around the highway where one spouse got sick and died from cancer, and the surviving one was selling the residence than in other parts of town.

</comment><comment><USER9> Will electric cars change the health issues related to living near freeways? I know we are a long way away from replacing most of the vehicles with electric.

<comment><USER10> Perhaps, but it looks like there are significant tradeoffs:

[http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/electric-car- particulate-m...](http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/electric-car-particulate- matter/)

Summary: Electric cars are much heavier, and therefore generate more brake dust, tire and road wear (and therefore constituent particulates), etc.

Edit: Downvote all you want, guys, but here's the source:

[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231016...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135223101630187X)

<comment><USER11> Brake regeneration is a large part of the braking force for many EVs when the brake pedal is pressed, so the brake pads in some EV cars are actually smaller than their gas siblings.

Brake regeneration also avoids using the brake pedal altogether in many cases because an EV slows down significantly when the gas pedal is released.

With electric power, smaller brake pads, and less need to use them, I'm surprised the article believes there is only a 1% reduction in overall particle pollution for EV's vs. gas cars.

Plus, a typical EV is a small and modern 0-2 year old car compared to the gas vehicles out there, such as a 7-year-old, inefficient, v8 engine SUV.

<comment><USER12> A big factor is that gasoline engines don't release all that much particulates.

<comment><USER11> "Electric-powered vehicles, of course, have no exhaust emissions. However, because they're 24 percent heavier on average, the study found that EVs shed more particulate matter from tires and brakes, and also kick up more particulate matter from road surfaces."

If the brake pads are smaller and aren't required to slow down in many cases, the EV should win, especially when the average EV on the street is likely similar in weight compared to an average non-EV vehicle.

As far as kicking up existing particulate matter, EV's shouldn't be penalized for kicking up dust on the road which came from others cars, which are almost entirely non-EV cars and 18-wheelers.

I bet there are other more significant factors to derive impact on pollution from EVs than brake dust, such as the source of electricity used to charge them.

I'll try to look at the study later to see how the 1% difference between road pollution between gas and EV vehicles was calculated.

<comment><USER13> > "However, because they're 24 percent heavier on average, the study found > that EVs shed more particulate"

That's a pretty misleading statistic too. EV's are 24% heaver _than the average subcompact_. But most people are already driving cars significantly heavier than the lightest subcompacts.

According to the EPA, the _actual_ average personal vehicle weight was 3,977 pounds in 2012. That is heavier than most EV's -- it's heavier than any Chevy Bolt, Volt, or Nissan Leaf ever sold.

For example, a 2017 Volt is lighter than a similarly-priced 2017 Avalon, even though the Volt has a 18.4kWH battery in it, does 53 miles zero-emission electric, and gets an extra 15mpg when using gasoline.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Because in that country, the pricetag is more important than health. I wonder if there will ever be a tipping point for this type of issues.

<comment><USER15> It's so amazing how much shit people are (apparently) willing to eat (or maybe simply have no clue about due to lack of education due to lack of money).

I know of more than 1 study which has proven serious adverse health effects for people living near traffic axis. It's so obvious: constant noise keeps your stress level high 24 hours a day, and air pollution adds damage to the brain, lungs, cardiovascular system, etc.

<comment><USER16> Let's not mistake necessity for willingness. Most people live where they can afford.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Having lived in and now moved out of LA, I can't really think of anything that would make me want to go back. The air quality is an issue, as are the terrible commutes (which can only be avoided by living within a few miles of where you work — not easy when more than one person in the household works).

</comment><comment><USER18> An LA real estate person once told me that San Fernando Valley prices for homes _really_ close to (but south of) the 101 freeway are higher than prices of homes far from (but north of) the 101 freeway.

Prices seem to be driven less by smog and more by neighborhood quality. In the SF Valley, locations south of the 101 tend to have better schools, less crime, proximity to the hills and west side, etc. The 101 itself seems to serve as a barrier between good neighborhoods and less-good ones.

Perhaps something similar can be noted in San Francisco, again, around the 101 freeway, where it divides the Mission District from Potrero Hill. I mean, the wind is very often out of the west, blowing that smog up across Potrero Hill.

</comment><comment><USER19> Cars are the real "American carnage". There were 40,000 deaths from traffic accidents in 2016. MIT estimates another 53,000 from traffic pollution[1]. That's more than 5 times as many as the number of homicides.

[1] [http://news.mit.edu/2013/study-air-pollution- causes-200000-e...](http://news.mit.edu/2013/study-air-pollution- causes-200000-early-deaths-each-year-in-the-us-0829)

</comment><comment><USER20> I'll be moving to LA soon for work.. Are there any areas anyone can recommend that have a lot of trees/plant life/parks? I also appreciate farmers markets and a health food store. I'd like to not be too far from e.g. Santa Monica or Northridge

<comment><USER21> I would, but you named one place in the valley and then Santa Monica, so I have no clue where you'd actually be working => can't recommend an area.

<comment><USER20> Doh, need to get more familiar with the area.. I will mostly be working in Santa Monica

<comment><USER21> Venice, Marina Del Rey, Culver city areas are all not bad. Santa Monica is one of the most expensive areas in the country, though, so just be aware of that. Venice cheaper, but since it's LA, that's still gonna be up there in terms of rent/housing.

I can't give any more info, since I personally stick to downtown, hollywood, silver lake, and north hollywood (in other words, far away from the west side).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> They could tear out the freeways and let people be free to live anywhere.

</comment><comment><USER23> The buildings are "permanent," but the auto emissions will greatly reduced and gone in 20 years once electric cars become mainstream.

</comment><comment><USER24> Musk's got it in the bag anyways with his boring company.

<comment> surrey-fringe Please don't post trollish comments on HN. I don't like it when you do that.</comment></comment>


One shot of gene therapy and children with congenital blindness can now see - <AUTHOR> http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/10/25/1.shot.gene.therapy.and.children.with.congenital.blindness.can.now.see

<comment><USER2> Somewhat misleading headline. The kids didn't get their sight entirely restored by a long shot. Still, big breakthrough and worthy of an NEJM paper.

\---

Leber's congenital amaurosis (LCA) is a group of inherited blinding diseases with onset during childhood. One form of the disease, LCA2, is caused by mutations in the retinal pigment epithelium-specific 65-kDa protein gene (RPE65). We investigated the safety of subretinal delivery of a recombinant adeno-associated virus (AAV) carrying RPE65 complementary DNA (cDNA) (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00516477 [ClinicalTrials.gov]). Three patients with LCA2 had an acceptable local and systemic adverse-event profile after delivery of AAV2.hRPE65v2. Each patient had a modest improvement in measures of retinal function on subjective tests of visual acuity. In one patient, an asymptomatic macular hole developed, and although the occurrence was considered to be an adverse event, the patient had some return of retinal function. Although the follow-up was very short and _normal vision was not achieved_ , this study provides the basis for further gene therapy studies in patients with LCA.

<comment><USER3> The abstract you posted is the same one that I linked to below. This is an NEJM paper from 2008.

The article being discussed in the story at hand is from this week's Lancet. In this week's story, some of the children are no longer legally blind, can play, and can participate in the classroom without visual aids. Some report seeing their parents' faces for the first time. This is a very impressive result, and will be transformative in the lives of these children.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I really thought this was going to be one of those linkbait stories about some underqualified guy who wrote a paper that isn't peer reviewed about amoebas, so the author forms a tenuous connection between the paper and some future possibility of a treatment.

But I'm impressed, this seems like a major step, and I'm sure it's going to impact the patients' lives dramatically. I really hope the changes to their condition last.

</comment><comment><USER5> It's annoying that they don't mention whether it's theoretically possible for this treatment to apply to other diseases and/or impairments.

<comment><USER3> Here is an article visible if you are at a university: <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18441370>

In brief, this is a disease caused by an effective deficiency of a protein. It is theoretically possible to apply similar methods to other diseases of genetic deficiency. Other approaches are promising for diseases of overabundance or adverse gain of function mutations.</comment></comment>


Desegregation Plan: Eliminate All Gifted Programs in New York - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/26/nyregion/gifted-programs-nyc-desegregation.html <comment><USER2> This is a classic example of banning the symptom in lieu of curing the cold.

I volunteer in New York's K-5 public schools as a 1-on-1 tutor for children a bit behind their grade level on reading. These are smart kids in crowded classrooms with insufficient resources addressing their needs. Needs like mild hyperactivity, hunger, needing someone to talk to about the financial stress they know their parents are under, lacking a home internet connection, _et cetera_. These kids are also concentrated around black and Hispanic communities.

These are solvable problems. Classrooms could be made less crowded. Funding could be increased. The small number of bad teachers could finally be held accountable. School lunch expanded. Mental health resources provided to students. Subsidies for households with young children at home.

But instead we get treated to a fight on racial battle lines from a mayor who thinks he's running for President.

<comment><USER3> > These are solvable problems. ... Funding could be increased. ... School > lunch expanded.

On the subject of school lunches, it's not really a matter of increased funding. It is deciding to tackle the problem.

Chicago Public Schools serves free breakfast and lunch [1] to all students (not just low-income) using the exact same funding sources that NYC and all other school districts use. They are completely open about how they did it [2]. They completely eliminated the practice of heating up frozen meals, renovated school kitchens and started cooking from scratch and buying directly from farmers.

If only they put this much effort into the rest of the school operations...

[1] [https://cps.edu/About_CPS/Departments/Pages/MealRates.aspx](https://cps.edu/About_CPS/Departments/Pages/MealRates.aspx) [2] [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I_IRmST0zFCtdok10VnSBMMJ6Rv...](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I_IRmST0zFCtdok10VnSBMMJ6RvOPV-Z/view)

<comment><USER4> > They completely eliminated the practice of heating up frozen meals

This is a thing in US schools?

FFS. This puts conversations I have on here about cooking in context, if children are pretty much forced to eat that stuff.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> One thing that is interesting, is that people of Asian origin are increasingly being lumped in with white people. Whenever, you hear about lack of minorities in a certain field, people of Asian origins are inevitably excluded from the analysis by being put in the category of "whites and Asians".

Right now people of Asian origin, are by and large liberal and support Democrats over Republicans. But if Democrats, keep pursuing policies that disadvantage their children, do not be surprised, if in the near future, you see Republicans making large in-roads with people of Asian origin.

<comment><USER6> Ultimately so much of success comes down to culture and values and this is why you see groups such as Asians, Jews and Mormons succeed. No amount of programs to try and achieve equitable outcomes will overcome what can be achieved due to culture and values.

<comment><USER7> I'm perplexed thinking why you were downvoted. Do your downvoters think that our genetics determine most of the outcomes?

Also, b4 anyone claims it, wealth does play a role, but looking at how lottery winners fare, I would stick with culture and values having a more fundamental, causal impact.

<comment><USER6> My guess is that the existence of groups that have an excellent track record or producing highly successful individuals creates bursts the privilege narrative and causes cognitive dissonance and downvoting.

Jews were slaughtered by the millions in Europe and had most of their possessions and capital stolen from them and yet after their ordeal was over, they recovered and many built all that they had lost again from the ground up, many of them many times over. Plus, look at the number of noble prize winners, 20% of whom have been Jewish.

The Chinese came over to the West coast in the US and were the very definition of a marginalized community, yet they've done remarkably well. Those that have time to apply the strong values around work and building up intergenerational wealth in a country that respects property rights have absolutely flourished. These days, many of those that aren't well off are typically those that are recent immigrants that fled a countries where they did not have the opportunity to build wealth so they are starting again from the bottom.

Mormons were persecuted and moved westward trying to find a place where they'd be left alone and they've done remarkably well for themselves in and around Utah.

It goes beyond those groups. The Quakers in New England did well. Many of the Italian and Irish immigrants that came to the US and settled in the Northeast United States have done quite well for themselves despite being second class citizens in the US upon their arrival. One of the best examples showing that culture and values matter is that black immigrants out-earn US-born blacks.

Culture and values matter. It's what leads parents to have books in the house, what leads them to get their kids reading books, what leads them to be involved in their children's schooling, what leads them to join the PTA, what leads them to teach their kids about money and savings, what leads them to maintain a nuclear family instead of splitting up into single-parent households, what leads them to teach pro-social pro-cooperation values like not coveting what others have, forgiveness and hard work, and lastly what leads them to eventually have families of their own and pass along all the culture and values to their kids that their parents taught them. Rome was not built in a day.

Yes, wealth plays a role, but something lead to that wealth creation in the first place and lead to that wealth persisting across generations instead of it all being gone by the third generation that inherited it. Plus, most of the wealth held by individuals in the groups above weren't earned all by one massively successful individual. Most of it was build upon incrementally by each generation that passed along not only wealth, but the culture and values that built that wealth and that will allow that wealth to be built into an even larger pot for the next generation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I was in the G&T program as a child. (It was called AT for "Academically Talented" at the time.) As the program was run then (in California), I would spend one afternoon per week studying Greek mythology or similar useless subjects, but it was a welcome diversion. I ended up testing out of high school 2-1/2 years early due to boredom. Both of my kids were also in the program, but it is even more useless today than it was in the past. What I observed is that the schools (in California) do not seem to like the "segregation", so they do not fund the program. They put a whole lot more money into the "mainstreaming" programs to bring academically disadvantaged people into the regular classrooms.

As a parent, I feel regret for not getting my kids into a private school so they could reach their potential. My older son also tested out of High School. My younger son simply dropped out. Both of them have a tainted view of higher education because of their experience in public schools.

</comment><comment><USER9> Surely the solution couldn't be lifting up impoverished students instead of pulling those who succeed down?

As an Asian, this pisses me off. If you work hard and get high test scores, you should be rewarded.

<comment><USER7> Crabs in the bucket culture.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The goal is admirable, but the means de Blasio has chosen is unfortunate. I went to a gifted talented school in Virginia. On one hand, it was odd to miss out on being with "normal" kids. On the other hand, it was nice to not be with the "normal" kids. My friends and I did a robotic float for homecoming our junior year and an art/drama geek was elected homecoming queen. Getting into MIT or Caltech got you far more attention and profile than being on the football team. It was a completely unique experience that was really fantastic for a lot of people.

</comment><comment><USER11> The entire purpose of primary education should be to identify, support, and challenge gifted youth. With the boundaries of human knowledge reaching the limits of human understanding, more than ever before we need the "outliers". Easily 90% of kids in any given school (including my own kid, unfortunately) couldn't care any less about getting proper education. Those that do care are truly precious, and they are currently badly screwed by the public school system even _with_ the "gifted" programs in place. And among those who care, there's a small percentage of truly, staggeringly gifted kids. Those must receive disproportionate attention and support. We cannot afford them getting disillusioned and throwing in the towel.

</comment><comment><USER12> A lot of negative reactions here. There's gifted and there's gifted. Should Hunter College Elementary School which requires off the chart scores being eliminated? No. Do somewhere between 10 and 20% of students need to be pulled out into separate programs? Also no.

The cutoff for district G&T programs in NYC is currently 90 percentile. For reference 90th percentile on the SAT in a nationally representative sample is 1290 / 1600.

Sorry, but I don't think at that point we are looking at special needs that come with extreme precociousness.

<comment><USER13> That 90th percentile doesn't guarantee a slot in a G&T program. It's kind of an elaborate system, but depending on what district your child is in or what school you're considering, the effective cutoff can be much higher. For example, my son's program only admitted children with either a 98 or 99 when he got into it 4 years ago. In a district like ours (District 3, which is basically the Upper West Side), a score of 90 won't get you a spot anywhere, unless...

...you have a child with a 90 with a sibling already in a program. If one child tests into a program, then later siblings are given preference over children without a sibling in the school, as long as they have a score over 90.

<comment><USER12> > but depending on what district your child is in

Which just goes to show another way that the system in NYC is totally screwed up. We all live in the same city, under the same law, and pay the same tax rates, so why is the city carved up into tiny little zones that have such a big influence on which schools kids go to? We aren't talking about hour long bus rides here, but mere blocks.

Let's combine the catchment districts of 199 and 191 and send students to each randomly. Why not?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Maybe I am missing something but this sounds like a way to reduce inequality by pulling down the people who are doing well?

Any policy that feeds on jealously and resentment - powerful and volatile human emotions - is unlikely to produce actual results imo (which is the point presumably).

</comment><comment><USER15> I can't see this possibly working. It would really just fuel even more segregation by having those students go to private school.

<comment><USER16> As long that it's done with all deliberate speed [1], white parents will be fine. /s

More seriously and with less snark, as long as our schools are separate, we can't have true social justice. That was at the heart of the Brown v. Board decision. It's sad that even after more than 60 years our schools haven't lived up to the spirit of that decision.

[1]: [https://americanhistory.si.edu/brown/history/6-legacy/delibe...](https://americanhistory.si.edu/brown/history/6-legacy/deliberate- speed.html)

<comment><USER17> They already are.... 75% of the current public system is minorities.....

The whites and asians (which for some weird reason, are not considered 'minorities') have already left the system altogether...

I predict the next step is going to be to forbid private schooling altogether, or require minority quotas in private schools....

<comment><USER18> Probably at that point the parents who can are going to send their kids to private boarding schools internationally. Depending on where you live currently and what country you send them to boarding school is price competitive with local (good) private schools...

<comment><USER19> Maybe they are price competitive, but they have the disadvantage of separating the kids from their parents. Most parents I know are pretty attached to their kids. I know I'm attached to mine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'm amazed to read that the mayor has the power to enact something like this. Where I live we have school boards who have nothing to do with city government. I thought all of America was that way. Why would people expect that they mayor knows anything about education?

<comment><USER12> It's a special New York State law that allows for mayoral control of the schools. It has only been in place since 2002. In the local context it makes sense because the mayor is the only municipal position that is prominent enough to sometimes escape control by the still powerful political machines.

<comment><USER19> That's interesting. I've never lived anywhere big enough for machine politics. Around here the school board is populated by moms who are interested in their kids' education. Maybe too specific to _their_ kids, but at least they aren't using the school system to further ambitions for higher office.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > The panel wrote that "high-achievement students deserve to be challenged," > but in different ways.

One could argue that bad public schools with bad teachers and less capable colleagues are a challenge of sorts.

My takeaway for stories like this is that "progressive" ideas continue to inch closer and closer to the dystopia of Harrison Bergeron.

It's a shame that this line ended up at the very end of the article (which most people won't reach):

> Still, the report said, a system that relies heavily on sorting students > according to academic ability "is not equitable, even if it is effective for > some."

Handicapping people for the sake of equity. What could possibly go wrong...

</comment><comment><USER20> Great, make the "gifted" kids even more likely to be bored and disengage.

</comment><comment><USER21> From what I understand, the trend in gifted education nationally has, for some years, been away from segregated schools and programs in favor of modified curriculum in mainstream classrooms, which often involves applying the individual curriculum adaptations often used in gifted classrooms to the whole student population.

If this is what eliminating New Yorker existing segregated gifted programs means, that may not be a bad thing.

</comment><comment><USER22> How could anyone possibly support this policy?

<comment><USER23> Context: wealthy white parent of a public school student living in NYC. I do not subscribe to the "equality of outcome" goal that some other folks in the thread have imputed on the supporters of this move. I haven't had time to make up my mind on this. However, I can definitely understand the motivation, and I can picture being in support.

So here's the background, as I understand it: one really important question is whether the G&T program actually provides any better education to the kids that are in it. Many people feel it doesn't. It doesn't have its own curriculum, except the citywide program, where they just tackle material a year earlier than usual. The district-wide G&T programs -- which comprise the vast majority of the system -- just leave a little more up to teacher discretion than mainstream classrooms.

So the question then becomes, what is the actual value of the G&T programs (other than the citywide one)? People do not believe that white and asian people are intentionally segregating themselves from black and hispanic people for no other benefit. However, that is the most obvious effect. And as we all know, the purpose of a system is what it does.

From the perspective of that systems engineering-style thinking, unless a positive case can be made for the G&T program, there's a strong argument to be made that it should be scrapped. The school district has no compelling interest in providing a system whose sole benefit is socioeconomic and racial sorting. In fact, the main beneficiaries of this move would be the very folks who work so hard to get their kids into G&T programs. Because that stressor -- getting kids into the program -- would be removed, while giving no worse outcomes than what they could have expected before.

That is the gist of the argument in support of getting rid of the program.

My son did not test in to G&T. He has some various social and linguistic delays, but, more importantly, I did not do any of the test prep I'm led to believe many of my colleagues gave their kids. I will probably have my son retested this year after doing some professional test prep. Even though I think it's possible the G&T programs offer no benefit, it's hard to wager his future on that bet, and he wasn't that far from testing in. A lot will depend on how his first year of classes go.

<comment><USER24> > It doesn't have its own curriculum, except the citywide program, where they > just tackle material a year earlier than usual.

What's wrong with _just_ being a full-year ahead? If the core curriculum is essential, something like a reasonable claim, then not skipping any of it would follow. Either additional lessons would be needed at extra cost or it could be sped up. They chose sped up. Very common for students outside NY who excel at, say, math.

> And as we all know, the purpose of a system is what it does.

Have a citation for my exploring this line of thought?

<comment><USER23> > What's wrong with just being a full-year ahead?

Nothing. That's why I called it out as an exception to my overall suggestion that G&T might not be useful.

> Have a citation for my exploring this line of thought?

Sure! I find it a really fascinating perspective. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I feel I must adapt a saying of Milton Friedman in response to this:

 _" When you aim for equality over excellence, you will achieve neither equality nor excellence."_

This is so wrongheaded one almost doesn't know where to begin. There are so many fronts of error and public policy gone wrong to the tune of populism (ironically).

First of all, you ask what the goal is, for these equality advocates. Is it equality of performance across all students, and none of them shall ever be allowed to have a gifted talented program in the future?

Because if they miraculously are successful, someday all students will be minimally achieving across all demographics, and then what about the gifted ones? Will they reinstitute gifted programs then? Or only if it again samples the racial groups equally?

Or worse (and I hope they think this self-aware), only if the "right" minorities are sampled? Because sometimes I wonder if only certain favored minorities get advocated for in this way.

Anyway, as many have said before, the problems of underachieving students extend far beyond the help of the classroom, and are the product of homes, parents, environment, that no banning of otherwise race-blind programs will do any more to achieve. This move will not somehow make NYC's schools better or in-classroom instruction more effective, you'd better believe that -- and isn't that the point?

2nd point:

NYC will be gutting no small fraction of the people who make its future bright, in the name of trying to remediate the general population (ineffectively I may say).

Why? Because unpopular as it is to say, a city's (or country's) future isn't propelled by the average person. It's driven by outstanding people, rockstars, high performers. The kinds of people who get into (and are educated at) places that get called "elite".

You can see this in your daily life. Most people who do a job are just barely doing it competently. It takes the people with imagination, drive, ideas, talent, who are a cut above the rest to make significant differences and change.

People don't flock to NYC because it's average. They flock there because there's exceptional people, places, companies, and infrastructure to do the things they want to do. NYC would be cutting its exceptionality off at the knees to make the average person only slightly better. That's a mistake.

Finally, a closing thought:

 _" THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren't only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General. "_

</comment><comment><USER26> This article is a little confusing. It implies that _most_ white and asian kids are going to gifted schools. Can that really be the case? Kids that are actually gifted probably benefit from more challenging material but they don't need that all day long in a separate school. Think of them as handicapped kids that need a little extra attention but attend the same school as every one else.

</comment><comment><USER27> I'm constantly surprised, confused, and appalled when moves, however imperfect, toward a more meritocratic system are thwarted by, possibly well meaning, progressives who have the most to benefit. So let's ditch a fantastic program based on objective measures so we can meet some _racist_ quotas...

<comment><USER28> I have a son in G&T program in Queens so this has some relevance for me. This is a purely political move by De Blasio, which I think will face strong objection and, I hope, will fail miserably.

Now there are people who think that black kids will magically become better students because they sit next to high achievers. But as a former NYC student I would tell them that it is, sadly, not the case.

Black kids need additional help, why not set up schools where kids, black, white, yellow, brown, get the extra discipline and help that they need. No, that is no joke and it will only work if these school have the same high expectation and concomitant resources.

The problem in the end is that there is not enough resources and political will to help these kids. Naturally, the parents who are resourceful will find way to help their own kids succeed. The issue is how to do it for every kid.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> A flawless, proven solution to eliminate inequality is to seize everything of value from everyone. Then we are all equal.

<comment><USER30> It's the premise of Harrison Bergeron. Put everyone at the lowest common denominator to make society truly equal.</comment></comment>


Networking Event at FloQast (Los Angeles Startup) - <AUTHOR> https://www.eventbrite.com/e/built-in-brews-at-floqast-tickets-42870653278 <comment><AUTHOR> Hi All!

I'm one of the Software Engineers in Test at [FloQast]([https://floqast.com/](https://floqast.com/)) and we're hosting a networking event to meet people to potentially join our team. We have several positions open across all departments including business, security, quality, and IT. If you're interested please sign up through the link provided, and if you have any other questions you can send me an email at winston (at) floqast (dot) com.

<comment><USER2> Feel free to spread the word in the techLA subreddit:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/TechLA/](https://www.reddit.com/r/TechLA/)

<comment><AUTHOR> done!</comment></comment></comment>


Hacker News vs Reddit and Digg - <AUTHOR>

Hacker News has completely taken me away from Reddit and Digg. I seldom visit those 2 big news sites as I get all the contents I want on this site. Has it happened to you also? <comment><USER2> This sort of post is one of the great failures in social news sites. 7 upvotes, 13th on the front page, zero interesting content. The cause is the plague of feel-good "me too"-ism, groupthink and lowest-common-denominator-ism that causes people to upvote things uncritically and eventually leads to the mass-upvoting of poor articles and comments (especially the immortal "[pic]", agreeable question/'vote up if' or 'hilarious' YouTube video) over good more thought-provoking, challenging and nuanced ones. I think it's a big flaw in the concept of social news sites ala Hacker News, Reddit and Digg.

Relevant to the topic, I've been moving towards MetaFilter lately as it doesn't suffer from this problem as much due to the design of the site, has the bonus of hand-moderation and the $5 entrance fee is a surprisingly good way of limiting membership. The flip side of this is that the content is a very mixed bag in terms of submission quality and topic due to the hugely different styles and interests of submitters - even more so than other social news sites. The comments there are often unparalleled in terms of quality, however, and Ask MeFi is an invaluable resource.

I poked around with Planets (blog aggregators on one topic) for a while but the amount of content is generally overbearing to make it impractical to read them for any great length of time.

I'm slowly but surely warming to the idea that old-style blogs that link to the other content may be a good idea but the question is finding a good ones that are regularly updated, whose moderation you can trust and whose interests align with yours. I do read Boing Boing, Ajaxian and Engadget who follow this format, but I think Slashdot has suffered from it over time by deviating from its core subject matter, has become a caricature of itself especially with regards to its biases and suffered from dumbing down over time. Of course, it's still an open problem as to where they get their content from and how they filter the good from the bad.

Perhaps the conclusion is that the whole concept of a link-driven news site is still largely an open problem - and I'm certainly not sure what the solution is.

<comment><USER3> I have been thinking about this problem a lot recently and I think I might have a solution. Dissatisfaction with the state of social news sites seems almost universal, digg has almost unspeakably low quality, and reddit is slowly bleeding to death, and we all know that Hacker News has not been immune to the same disease of "lowest-common-denominator-ism." There must be a solution, certainly there's enough data sitting around on all the various services that meaningful inferences about user preferences can be drawn!

Enter my idea: <http://con.nect.us/>. It's currently under development (it's my senior project at my university) and will be finished by December. My advisor is Tim Davis (<http://www.cise.ufl.edu/~davis/>), the brilliant man who wrote many of MATLAB's sparse matrix libraries, so I have an excellent mind to tap to help me solve my linear algebra problems.

It goes like this: con.nect.us will track user activity across many different websites, linking your username on reddit or digg or wherever with your account on con.nect.us, as well as take submissions for news itself. It then analyzes what people like and how people are similar to each other and recommend new content accordingly. Hopefully this will help us avoid the curse of the least-common-denominator and start to experience the web better.

If you want to be informed of future developments, there's an email submission form on <http://con.nect.us/>

Also, the name isn't finalized, so if you think you have a better one, please send it my way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I was 90/10 HN/Reddit for a while until I found out how to customize using sub-reddits. I'm now about 40/60 HN/Reddit for reading articles, but I don't read comments or participate in discussions on Reddit. Simply too many trolls to make it worth my while.

edit:

This site is the best for startup news. That vibe has almost completely left Reddit and been transplanted here.

The discussions here are probably among the best Hacker discussions that I've been able to find anywhere online.

<comment><AUTHOR> how is the repetition in both these sites? i have found it too much for the contents i am interested in

<comment><USER4> Most of the programming reddit is reflected here on Hacker News, but if you pick subreddits like Javascript, Web Design, Haskell, Lisp, Python, Ruby, Computer Science, Geek, Cognitive Science... You can get a nice selection of Geeky articles that aren't covered here.

<comment><USER5> I use both HN and progit (programming subreddit); though HN < progit for technical programming articles.

However, the big plus of HN is the 100% absence of trolls (or maybe I just don't notice them here because they aren't encouraged). The most horrible thing on reddit is several people with technical competence who use it to abuse people - a form of trolling. I find that combination hard work to deal with.

I wonder if a factor is not "diluting responsibility" (psych 101) too much? HN is a smaller site (and has pg overseeing it); subreddits have fewer subscribers; /. has fewer (randomly chosen) moderators. Is too much dilution of responsibility what undermines social sites like Digg?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> HN really is the hidden gem of news sites and communities. I love it!

.

* Great stuff on the homepage....ALWAYS something I'm interested in!

* The comment system isn't full of witty comments just said to get karma....Reddit is big for this, and even Digg, even though it doesn't have an overall user karma system!

* Overall, HN makes NEW knowledge, it doesn't just pass on current knowledge - people asking questions, and getting answers, both in submissions and comments, is a massive sign of the quality of the users.

.

Long live the current state of HN!

<comment><USER7> Digg has a karma system. They just don't show your karma. Perhaps that's what you meant.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Yes the same has happened to me, but I've noticed I go to several different specific news sites instead of Reddit and Digg now. There was a recent post about a slinkset site I think it was called Infosec Update or something that seemed promising. I use a lot of Pligg sites as well now.

Digg is, well, Digg with all it's failings. Reddit recently turned into 4chan. HN I like as the SNR is quite low but I have started to see posts for things that are less related appearing as the community grows. I've also spotted the same sites popping up again and again.

<comment><USER8> Just to reply to my own post, the site was called Infosec Update - <http://news.mandalorian.com> if anyone is interested.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> well, reddit prgramming is still good. I also follow delicious. digg is nothing but crap now.

<comment><AUTHOR> agree i dont understand digg now and what to see on that

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> me too; however, i sometimes check slashdot too ... the comments are wittier and funnier (while still being thoughtful) than hn

<comment><USER8> Parent voted +5 (Insightful)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I still pull top stories from some of their categories, but I never go to the actual sites. HN is my new home.

</comment><comment><USER12> Regular visitor. But not completely yet. Still visit Reddit.

</comment><comment><USER13> It's moved me a bit off of reddit, though I have to say there's a lot of content that gets cross posted (usually from reddit --> HN).

</comment><comment><USER14> Yes, completely.

</comment><comment><USER15> absolutely, I just hope that HN will not get advertised too much, because then we will be flooded by the digg-like submissions</comment>


Richard Stallman and the Fall of the Clueless Nerd - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/richard-stallman-and-the-fall-of-the-clueless-nerd/ <comment><USER2> Here's a probably-apocryphal story about San Francisco. The cultural tolerance and open-mindedness the city was know for happened because at some point in history the need for dockworkers was way, way stronger than any superficial differences that employers might otherwise discriminate over if the labor pool was larger. At a time when discrimination was the open and explicit norm, that lack of exclusion grew out into the societal attitudes across the city.

Tech was once a place where we lived with weirdos ranging from unconventional appearance all the way to downright unpleasant to work with. There was a lot of work to get done, and goddamn we were going to figure out how to get it done with the people we had.

Fast forward to the 2010's. We hire for conformity across the board, some places even acknowledge the strictness of that part of their selection criteria and call it "culture fit." It's a very dictionary-definition-but-not- political-alignment conservative time. The outliers have all gotta go.

<comment><USER3> We realized that lone hackers aren't actually the tremendous geniuses who can accomplish dark magic on their own.

The profession has changed. We no longer build low-level constructs that are leaps and bounds ahead of prior versions, but incrementally take existing building blocks to find solutions for problems that are ever more social in nature.

Having worked with several lone-wolf hackers, I am glad we are no longer afraid of pointing out shitty behavior.

<comment><USER2> I tried to write that post about contemporary standards with wide enough room to avoid singling out one archetype and proceeding to disparage them by contemporary standards.

But you found it; as it turns out everyone on the spectrum from "unconventional appearance all the way to downright unpleasant to work with" is a cartoon-cutout "lone wolf". Ya got me.

<comment><USER3> The only ones who are being singled out in recent times are those who are downright unpleasant to work with. I still see all the same quirky characters getting well-paying jobs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > Instead of considering the pain of a young person treated in such a manner > [...]

I find it really odd this myoptic view: he is defending a coworker, which is not alive anymore to defend himself. He did not say the victim is lying, he is talking about how Minsky possibly didn't do anything wrong himself.

Is everyone aware there was a protest against the ones involved at MIT (including Minsky)? How would you feel if someone protested against you if you were innocent?

> [...] opining that 14-year-old girls have free will [..]

Not in the US, but that does not apply to a good number of countries is Western Europe, South America, etc.

Now, I do not agree with everything Stallman said, but he has the right to be wrong. Why can't he be wrong? Is he not entitled to an opinion which does not conform to the majority?

Silencing people we don't agree with is a slippery slope, specially when appealing to some absolute morality standard. I see this happening too much lately, including here.

<comment><USER5> >Now, I do not agree with everything Stallman said, but he has the right to be wrong. Why can't he be wrong? Is he not entitled to an opinion which does not conform to the majority?

You're really asking two questions here. Is he entitled to his opinions? Sure. Is he entitled to maintain his position while holding those opinions? Different question.

Or, to put it another way, is someone entitled to having any opinion without facing any consequences?

>Silencing people we don't agree with is a slippery slope, specially when appealing to some absolute morality standard.

The "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy, but more importantly neither you nor anyone else expressing similar views actually believes what you wrote. If Stallman had written, say, that he believes Jews are subhuman vermin and need to be exterminated, there would be zero question he should be fired and neither you nor anyone else who isn't an actual Nazi would be leaping to defend his right to express that opinion.

<comment><USER4> There is a fundamental difference in your example in the fact that it calls for action/violence.

If he had said, for instance, that every child needs to be molested, that would be more in line with your example. And that would no longer be acceptable.

Outright racism and similar views are indeed less tolerated nowadays, but this is a whole discussion by itself. I'll just add that, from my POV, they cross the line from the "opinion realm", which together with a number of other arguments justifies non-tolerance of these views.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> So to anyone who hasn't read the actual email chain, here is a link.

[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-091320191420...](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-09132019142056-0001.html#document/p20)

Most. Of the press reporting is absolutely terrible with regards to accuracy. Please read it first before passing judgement.

</comment><comment><USER7> Nerds geeks and dorks like me have never had an easy time in life. Now we have mobs to consider.

<comment><USER8> "I think it is morally absurd to define "rape" in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17."

If an employee at a major company sent out the previous sentence in a "company-all" email would he still be employed, after having been given a "talking to" regarding comments he made about pedophilia several years earlier?

If nerds, geeks, and dorks think that the following series of events is evidence of a "mob mentality", they need to retreat from public discourse:

1\. A student posts a link promoting an upcoming event protesting the way that donations from Epstein were covered up by MIT administrators and calling for their resignation.

2\. Richard Stallman chimes in defending Minsky. Saying, among other things, that rape and sexual assault require force (they don't).

3\. Several commenters take offense to that.

4\. Instead of shutting up, Stallman DOUBLES DOWN.

5\. Commenters rightly point out that discussing matters like this in a public forum is unprofessional and may tarnish the reputation of CSAIL.

6\. Stallman resigns when people start looking into the matter and find all of the pedophile stuff on his website.

<comment><USER9> > (they don't)

He seems to be complaining about terminology (it is Stallman after all). To give an analogous example:

Person A: Minsky downloaded some music and is thus a pirate and robber.

Stallman: "robbing" requires force and this did not happen on the high seas. You are only using these words to make Minsky seem violent and dangerous in addition to describing the allegation. I think that word choice is not okay.

Stallman has very strong "opinions" about what words should mean and which ones should be used, even if the rest of the world disagrees, and always doubles down.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> the article talks ". His inability to understand the hurt that comes from insensitivity "

but the title is fall of the clueless nerd?

<comment><USER11> Didn't read the article but where's the contradiction in your quote? Inability to understand and clueless are close enough.

e: My mistake, clarified below.

<comment><USER12> The contradiction is that "clueless nerd" is pretty insensitive, so for an article preaching about the hurt that comes from it, well, sounds weird.

<comment><USER11> Oh that's what the commenter was pointing out, my mistake.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Failing to blindly follow the herd is not being insensitive.

<comment><USER14> I feel like his defending pedophilia in cases where a "child consents" is a good argument for why sometimes the herd is right. His words are insensitive to those who are victims of pedophilia because it minimizes the impact and implicates the victim as being potentially receptive to the act.

<comment><USER15> As a side note, it would be nice if we could actually use the proper terms for things. "Pedophilia" is a sexual attraction, the term you are looking for is "child molestation".

Honestly, I think the overreaction to willing child sexual interaction does more harm to the child in many cases than the original acts (e.g. "victim" labelling, attacks against someone close to the child and removal from their life, being brainwashed into thinking something horrible happened to them until they believe it is horrible).

<comment><USER16> > I think the overreaction to

Luckily we have experts who have thoroughly debunked this NAMBLA recruiting point. And this point has no relevance to the topic, which is about a child who was coerced into sex against her will.

<comment><USER15> This is somewhat off-topic, true.

Do you happen to have anything more googlable than "experts have thoroughly debunked this NAMBLA recruiting point"?

<comment><USER16> Something reasonably recent in a high impact journal: [https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0...](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366\(19\)30286-X/fulltext)

<comment><USER15> I appreciate you going to the effort of finding a link, but I can't find a breakdown between coercive and non-coercive abuse (and the consequences thereof) in that link (which was central to my comment).

Could you point me at where in the article I could find such a breakdown?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This article start right away by lying using the disinformation machine that is setup about these mob outrage issues. Right away in the subtitle: "The controversial pioneer of free software resigned from MIT over his remarks on Jeffrey Epstein and Marvin Minsky."

"his remarks on Jeffrey Epstein" were none, zero, nada, zilch. Stallman addressed Minsky in his remarks. [1]

But sure, the pit is setup, let's burn the guy because it's the mob culture in which we live on at the present and well, it's a guy, a white guy, so he must deserve some kind of punishment, right?... Even if not for having said what almost everyone joining the outrage mob thinks he did say.

[https://itsfoss.com/richard-stallman- controversy/?fbclid=IwA...](https://itsfoss.com/richard-stallman- controversy/?fbclid=IwAR2EcxaMWXZnwU5GOJ4jbuiQrqpdRUmYlQkyGF2FZrA61M1r8onFm0fxssc)</comment>


Single-file public-domain/open source C libraries with minimal dependencies - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/nothings/stb/blob/master/docs/other_libs.md <comment><USER2> Shameless plug: I also maintain a few small single-file C libs at [https://dev.yorhel.nl/ylib](https://dev.yorhel.nl/ylib)

And, separately, a small-single-file-but-correct XML parser: [https://dev.yorhel.nl/yxml](https://dev.yorhel.nl/yxml)

</comment><comment><USER3> Here are some more...

Kazlib contains a few single-file (actually one .c file and one .h file) open source C libraries. For example, there's a dictionary data structure based on red-black trees, dict.c/dict.h, which I've found to be useful and reliable. There's also a linked list library, a hash table library, etc., but I haven't used these.

Home page: [http://www.kylheku.com/~kaz/kazlib.html](http://www.kylheku.com/~kaz/kazlib.html)

Source code: [http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/kazlib.git/tree/](http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/kazlib.git/tree/)

The latest version uses the BSD License.

</comment><comment><USER4> For parsing, there's the excellent _mpc_ , a parser combinator library in highly portable C. [https://github.com/orangeduck/mpc](https://github.com/orangeduck/mpc)

I even managed to use it drop in for a RiscOS project once.

</comment><comment><USER5> What about:

* sqlite3 amalgamation: [https://www.sqlite.org/download.html](https://www.sqlite.org/download.html)

* duktape javascript interpreter: [http://duktape.org](http://duktape.org)

<comment><USER6> Shameless plug: [https://github.com/cesanta/v7](https://github.com/cesanta/v7) embedded javascript interpreter

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> [http://git.annexia.org/?p=miniexpect.git](http://git.annexia.org/?p=miniexpect.git)

It's an "expect"-like library written in C (and more sane than the Tcl original). It's 3 files, because it has a header file and a manual page.

It's just 390 lines of code because it's implemented using some PCRE trickery.

</comment><comment><USER8> _Why isn 't SQLite's amalgamated build on this list? _Come on.

I don't understand this. Can someone explain it to me?

<comment><USER9> > The amalgamation is a single C code file, named "sqlite3.c", that contains > all C code for the core SQLite library and the FTS3, FTS5, RTREE, DBSTAT, > JSON1, and RBU extensions. This file contains about 184K lines of code (113K > if you omit blank lines and comments) and is over 6.4 megabytes in size. > Though the the various extensions are included in the "sqlite3.c" > amalgamation file, they are disabled using #ifdef statements.

[https://www.sqlite.org/amalgamation.html](https://www.sqlite.org/amalgamation.html)

<comment><USER10> In other words, it's stretching the definition of "single file" a bit... but then again, I don't know any other SQL databases anywhere near as small as SQLite.

<comment><USER11> Smallest commercially viable SQL database is probably the latest k5/kdb ([http://kparc.com/](http://kparc.com/)), which is implemented in something like 9KB of code (source: [http://kparc.com/o.htm](http://kparc.com/o.htm)).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Just proposed one of my projects for inclusion: [https://github.com/djcapelis/atomic- ring](https://github.com/djcapelis/atomic-ring)

Lock-free Single Producer, Single Consumer (SPSC) queue. The dependencies include C11 and that's it. No POSIX required, should work on any arch you can find a C11 compiler for.

<comment><USER13> I was just reading your code, which interests me since I've been interested in lock-free programming for a while but only recently started learning about the C11 and C++11 memory model and atomic operations.

I had some thoughts, which I'm offering in hopes of clarifying my understanding, and possibly helping to improve your software in the process.

I don't see any correctness problems in your code, but I do see what look like several opportunities for optimization. Though please take these with a slight grain of salt, as I am still learning the C11 atomics.

Your aring_give() ends with a release barrier and your aring_take() begins with an acquire barrier. That makes sense to me, as a way of ensuring the sequencing of the reads/writes to aring->rb and to item. However I don't see why aring_give() needs to begin with an acquire and aring_take() needs to end with a release. I think both of these could be changed to memory_order_relaxed with no change in correctness.

But I think we can go a step further actually. Your atomic_fetch_add_explicit() and atomic_fetch_sub_explicit() operations operate on a shared aring->items member. Both the reader and writer write to this variable, which requires expensive locked operations and which will degrade under contention. I don't think this is actually necessary.

Instead you could eliminate aring->items completely and simply compute it based on aring->head and aring->tail. Only the writer writes to head and only the reader writes to tail, so you could use just atomic_load_explicit()/atomic_store_explicit() with memory_order_relaxed on these variables to read and write them. Then calculate the number of items present by comparing them. This could make the overall queue significantly more efficient.

I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on this.

<comment><USER14> Not the author, but anyway; I'm not sure you can release on one variable and acquire on an other while having ordering guarantee between the two.

Anyway, I agree that having both acq and rel on both reader on writer side seems weird. I guess you can come with a solution with only one rel for the writer and only one acq for the reader.

UPDATE: I'm stupid, actually not possible if you don't want to overflow.

<comment><USER13> Interesting, it was my impression that the release/acquire are not specific to a memory location. They are just barriers, aren't they? But as I said I'm just learning.

<comment><USER14> They are specific. See 5 in 188.8.131.52 Multi-threaded executions and data races in n1570.

In term of real hardware it translates well in MESI/MESI-like protocol on cache lines on ooo cores, without much more constraints (of course some arch are sufficiently weak to still require special instructions, but on the other hand x86 don't need anything for acq/rel). If the different cores never touch the same cache line, they don't need to do interact at all even when both execute unrelated acq/rel atomics.

<comment><USER13> Interesting. I bought C++ Concurrency in Action today and am learning all these details of the memory model.

You mention of caches makes me realize that a single-reader single-writer queue can probably also be optimized by putting the head pointer and the tail pointer on different cache lines. The reader and writer can cache the other's value on their own page, and only reload it when the queue otherwise looks full or empty, respectively. This should allow the reader and writer to act without needing to synchronize cache lines for many operations.

<comment><USER12> I think that works on some architectures but would not be guaranteed behavior. In theory on a system with no memory ordering constraints, the pointers could update before the cache lines for the underlying ring buffer. Which means that without an acquire barrier at the beginning of aring_take, which without an item count, would require writes to the shared head/tail pointers to sync anyway, you can't ensure the the data written to the ring buffer is visible to the thread, even though your pointers would indicate there's data there and so you may load either torn or completely different data into the consumer thread.

Which means that if your memory barriers are operating correctly, they're just causing two cache lines to sync for the metadata instead of one, if the pointers are split across two lines.

Whereas with an item count, only one line ever has to sync, even if the pointers are split across two, since the pointers aren't shared between threads.

In practice, the compiler might not be smart enough to realize this and might be enforcing order for all side effects before the barriers though, even if the other thread doesn't read them. So maybe this isn't a good approach.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Plug for a tiny header library I wrote

[https://github.com/rtaycher/debug_print_h](https://github.com/rtaycher/debug_print_h)

It's a little thing for simple printf debugging. I got tired as hell of using formatting strings. It prints line, file, and function, expression and value. Since it stands out /greppable it's easier to delete then random printfs.

It has support for different colors(to make things stand out) and uses c99 _Generic to support different types with a single "function" and c initializers for named arguments. It supports basic c types and you can sort of extend it by modyfing the header(unfortunately I couldn't find anything cleaner using c).

C99 only (works on gcc>4.9 (due to use of designated initializers) and llvm/clang >3.3 (maybe earlier but I tested it with 3.3) I was hoping to support msvc but it looks like Microsoft hasn't implemented _Generic yet.

<comment><USER16> But... isn't _Generic part of C11, not C99? You actually require C11. Big difference.

<comment><USER15> Oops.

You're absolutely right it's C11.

<comment><USER16> Yeah, I wondered about that because I thought VC's C99 implementation is _relatively_ useful but again C11 might never arrive there.

<comment><USER15> Looks I'm wrong again, it's been a while since I wrote it it also uses typeof gcc/llvm extension, there might be a way to fix that but since msvc lacks _Generic I didn't bother.

I was also hoping to support c++ but c++ doesn't do designated initializers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Just proposed two of my C projects for inclusion:

TinyExpr - evaluate math from string - [https://github.com/codeplea/tinyexpr](https://github.com/codeplea/tinyexpr)

minctest - very minimal C unit tests - [https://github.com/codeplea/minctest](https://github.com/codeplea/minctest)

TinyExpr is a single source file + header, while minctest is a single header. Both are zlib licensed.

Also, I'd appreciate feedback if anyone is interested.

</comment><comment><USER18> Shameless plug: [https://github.com/kgabis/parson](https://github.com/kgabis/parson) (2-file (.h and .c) json parser)

</comment><comment><USER19> Another good source of small utility libraries is CCAN.

List of available modules: [https://ccodearchive.net/list.html](https://ccodearchive.net/list.html)

</comment><comment><USER20> Mostly related: [https://github.com/blanham/PDCLib](https://github.com/blanham/PDCLib)

Not one file but public domain and a great project :)

</comment><comment><USER21> Uh, this stb library [1] seems to follow a horrible pattern: not only combining your code into a single .c file (which is fine, like the sqlite amalgamation), but putting the code into a single .h file. [2]

I've never seen a C or C++ codebase that does this. Maybe you can rely on link-time deduplication, but it will still cause duplicate compilation, and thus increased compile times. I haven't thought it about it lately, but I thought the common wisdom was not to depend on the linker to dedupe or strip unused symbols. Actually it should cause link-time errors, not just duplicated cause.

The justification is also somewhat ridiculous: _Why single-file headers?_

 _Windows doesn 't have standard directories where libraries live. That makes deploying libraries in Windows a lot more painful than open source developers on Unix-derivates generally realize. (It also makes library dependencies a lot worse in Windows.)_

Really? Why not just lay out your source normally, and then munge it with a simple script into something Windows can handle (similar to sqlite)? Because writing trivial scripts on Windows is also a pain?

[1] [https://github.com/nothings/stb](https://github.com/nothings/stb)

[2] [https://github.com/nothings/stb/blob/master/stb_c_lexer.h](https://github.com/nothings/stb/blob/master/stb_c_lexer.h)

<comment><USER22> Note that the implementation code is conditionally compiled. By default you only compile the headers, so it's up to you instantiate the implementation somewhere by setting a preprocessor symbol before you include the library. This is described in the comment at the top of the file.

<comment><USER21> OK, I missed that... it makes it a slightly less crazy pattern, but still weird and offputting. If you really have problems adding one .h and one .c file to your project, I think the development environment is broken.

(Admittedly, I last used Visual Studio C++ in 2007... I installed it from a DVD, only to find it was broken, and I had to copy a .DLL from the Microsoft website to get it to work.)</comment></comment></comment>


The Ekranoplan Is Stranded Off a Beach - <AUTHOR> https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a33808381/russia-ekranoplan-plane-boat-wrecked/ <comment><USER2> The article links to recent (post-stranding) photographs of the interior by an urban explorer: [https://www.rferl.org/a/photographer-sneaks-inside-the- legen...](https://www.rferl.org/a/photographer-sneaks-inside-the-legendary- soviet-ekranoplan/30777774.html)

Apparently there was a security guard, but they were asleep!

<comment><USER3> Won't be surprised if they just bribed the guard.

<comment><USER4> The guard's there to keep people from taking anything or vandalizing. Nerds taking pictures isn't something he's there to stop. It probably went down something like this:

"hey we're just here to take pictures for a magazine article, may we get a tour of the vessel?"

"um, no"

"we can pay you for the trouble"

"um, fine"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Here is drone footage of this beast:

[https://firstname.lastname@example.com/video/6862108775214...](https://email@example.com/video/6862108775214632198)

<comment><AUTHOR> This is fantastic — thanks very much for finding/posting the link.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The article refers to the "Caspian Sea Monster" as "the Ekranoplan" as if there haven't been any other ekranoplans built. It is certainly the largest example, but I found this usage strange.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground- effect_vehicle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-effect_vehicle)

<comment><USER7> Likewise. Erkanoplan is a generic russian term for ground-effect vehicles, but the article talks specifically about the sole completed Lun-class (MD-160).

The USSR had an other Lun planned ("Spasatel", which was intended as a mobile field hospital but was not completed due to the fall of the USSR), as well as a bunch of other models in prototyping, development or active use (Orlyonok having been pretty much the only somewhat successful one, but also much more flexible than Lun: Orlyonok can fly way above ground-effect altitude).

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> If curious see also previous Ekranoplan threads:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24152959](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24152959)

2013 [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6230218](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6230218)

2013 [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5503760](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5503760)

Others?

</comment><comment><USER9> It's as impractical as it's cool. While faster than any warship of similar capacity, it has a huge turning radius and requires a lot of power to take off (if you have ever seen a swan take flight you know what I mean).

<comment><USER7> > While faster than any warship of similar capacity

OTOH a "warship of similar capacity" is a large-ish patrol boat, Lun-class is about the same weight as a Cyclone-class. It's really not much of a warship.

<comment><USER10> The Lun was very heavily armed!

NATO considered it a super fast patrol boat, and the soviets really doubled down on missile boats.

The range of the Lun's missiles out ranged its radar, which was a problem that missile boats of that era also had. Nato imagined that a forward Lun would act as scout for the rest etc with lots of coordination.

The Lun's problem was that by the time it entered trials the soviet missile boats were being fitted with a over horizon radar that the Lun couldn't carry.

That, and the end of the Cold War, of course.

[http://www.hisutton.com/Russian-Navy-Ekranoplan- WIG.html](http://www.hisutton.com/Russian-Navy-Ekranoplan-WIG.html)

<comment><USER7> I'm not saying it wasn't heavily armed, I'm saying all things considered it was a very small warship — though a very fast one; and it was extremely expensive compared to the warships you'd expect at the end of the scale, so not really matching the missions those'd usually have: the advantage of patrol or missile boats is that they're cheap and they're relatively easy to crew, but a Lun would be neither of those.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's a shame these things never really took off.

And I wonder why. Fast, efficient transport sounds perfect for today. The Caspian Sea is a limited area, but is there a reason these things can't work on the ocean? How close to the ground does it need to fly? Are waves already a problem?

<comment><USER12> Theoretically you could fly over most waves, as some designs allow fleet height equal to 1/2 wingspan - so dozens of meters of height. The issues with ground effect vehicles are several:

A plane takes advantage of the much thinner atmosphere higher up to go farther easier, while an ekranoplan has to plum along under an ocean of air sapping its fuel efficiency. No GEV design I'm aware of (feel free to correct!) could make it across any ocean without stopping for refueling, and many can't even island-hop across the ocean. You'd need to construct refueling stations in the middle of the ocean.

GEVs need calm, flat water to take off. This makes the above refueling stations even more challenging, as any vehicle that lands to top up may not be able to get airborne again. This seems a minor point, but it's why we abandoned seaplanes - it's just not worth the effort of waiting for the seas to calm when a plane on an asphalt runway is always ready to go.

GEVs are awkward to maneuver and very slow to turn, so if a pilot does happen to see a rogue 30 meter wave up ahead he has very little he can do to avoid it. Everyone just dies.

Taking off in light wind is difficult, as wave direction is inconsistent. Taking off in heavy wind is a miserable, bumpy experience for the passangers. Sort of damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

I do think there might be something to GEVs, but it would require someone to invent a design that combined 1) 30+ meter flight height with 2) 3000 km range on one fuel tank. The ability to hop from bay to bay is critical to the design becoming practical.

<comment><USER13> > GEVs are awkward to maneuver and very slow to turn, so if a pilot does > happen to see a rogue 30 meter wave up ahead he has very little he can do to > avoid it. Everyone just dies.

Wouldn't most GEV be able to temporarily "jump" out of ground effect for emergencies like that, or at least wouldn't require much change to gain that capability? But that ability wouldn't really make a difference, not without solving all the other issues as well.

What I could imagine, as a narrow niche, is a short range regional plane designed to be good at utilizing ground effect on routes that are too short for the "ascend into thinner air" trick to work out and that happen to go over water. Not being seaplanes those wouldn't require sufficiently calm seas for aquatic start and landing. I think that this might be able to occupy an attractive sweet spot between the fuel economy of surface boats and the speed of aircraft in intra-archipelago traffic. Flying slow in ground effect could even be the missing link for creating a niche where electric flying is economically viable. Perhaps a "plug in hybrid" that goes purely electric on short hoops, stays purely electric on longer connections if the sea is sufficiently calm and that can spin up the RX if it is forced to fly the whole distance out of ground effect.

I think that the main economic issue with this concept is that fuel isn't that much of a cost factor in short distance flying, but I might be completely wrong with this.

<comment><USER12> >Wouldn't most GEV be able to temporarily "jump" out of ground effect for emergencies like that, or at least wouldn't require much change to gain that capability? But that ability wouldn't really make a difference, not without solving all the other issues as well.

Consider these vehicles can travel up to 500 km/h and operate very near to the ground, meaning

1) Vision-obscuring weather like fog or rain

2) A plethora of objects to smack into

3) Very low time to react due to high speed

This is why we generally avoid flying planes this low, unless forced to by circumstances. An example of such circumstances is found in military aviation, in which military aircraft fly very low to the earth to avoid detection (a strategy rendered somewhat less effective modernly due to the invention of light-weight Pulse-Doppler radar). In this case the danger from crashing the plane is judged less than the danger from enemy missiles.

GEVs take this already challenging and dangerous task, which the military only does because they are being shot at, and then make everything that much more difficult by having the vehicle control like a cow.

<comment><USER13> > 2) A plethora of objects to smack into

On the ocean? I'd say that not running into objects that raise high from an ocean would rank pretty low on the scale of control problems that are hard in 2020.

"up to 500 km/h" are military devices built for maximum speed at minimal distance from the surface. A short distance people mover aircraft that tries to trade speed for energy conservation would have very different numbers. And it would be far more nimble, by being able to quickly raise out of the ground effect level, than swimming ocean-surface vessels that are already quite capable of not hitting objects on the ocean (you'd definitely want to improve on the state of that art though).

The biggest issue with this concept, outside of the clearly problematic cost/market size ratio (because designing planes is never cheap) would surely be that an aircraft traveling in ground effect lacks the altitude energy store that allows conventional aircraft to deal surprisingly well with engine outages (or sensor issues) outside of short time windows during start and landing. You'd probably need to spend a lot of mass and effort on making the fuselage properly boatable in emergencies even if it's never intended to swim more than once.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Could you build a passenger version of this and run it up and down the west coast? (or trans-pacific?) Sounds like a "speeder" from Star Wars!

NASA (or atleast someone affiliated with NASA) seems to think there's some potential! [https://nari.arc.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/IF...](https://nari.arc.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/IFAR_AeroAcademy_2014.pdf)

The last slide shares conclusions: "Commercial ground effect planes will lead to more fuel efficient trans-oceanic flights. • Cheaper flights. • More accessible. • Less pollution. • Revolutionize aviation design."

<comment><USER14> so that slideshow I linked was probably written by an intern or something - but here's a serious analysis of the tech dated 1999 from DTSO (australian army) that states: "There are no apparent technological barriers to the successful design, manufacture and operation of WIG craft"

"[http://www.seaphantom.com/pdf/MILITARY_ANALYSIS_WIG_AIRCRAFT...](http://www.seaphantom.com/pdf/MILITARY_ANALYSIS_WIG_AIRCRAFT_AU_GetTRDoc.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> From the bullet points that start the article:

> The Soviet Union was the only country to experiment with such a craft, and > Russia abandoned the effort after the Cold War.

I think it could be argued that the Spruce Goose [1] was an early experiment with a hybrid Ground Effect Vehicle [2].

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-4_Hercules](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-4_Hercules)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground- effect_vehicle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-effect_vehicle)

<comment><USER7> > I think it could be argued that the Spruce Goose was an early experiment > with a hybrid Ground Effect Vehicle.

Since the Spruce Goose was never intended or designed to take advantage of ground-effect[0], it really can't unless you go with the approach that more or less every large plane is "an experiment in GEV".

[0] quite the opposite, GE is less pronounced with high wings, which is why the Lun uses mid-wings and the Orlyonok uses low-wings

<comment><USER15> > never intended or designed to take advantage of ground-effect

This is a bit of a circular argument. How do you incorporate real-world empirical data in your design before you have a real-world prototype? The ground effects phenomena was known at the time and thought to be suited to large flying boats.

We are both speculating about undocumented intent but I'd be surprised if the designers were unaware of the potential efficiency gains.

<comment><USER7> > We are both speculating about undocumented intent but I'd be surprised if > the designers were unaware of the potential efficiency gains.

You are making a positive assertion and providing no evidence whatsoever for it. My statement is that there is no evidence for for your assertion, and that the design of the spruce goose is evidence for the opposite of your assertion.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Kaomoji: Japanese Emoticons - <AUTHOR> http://kaomoji.ru/en/ <comment><USER2> On iOS if you add the japanese keyboard and press the bottom left button on that keyboard you have access to a huge list of Kaomoji.

<comment><USER3> I have it enabled, but this site has more

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The site is blocked by Norton for its use of JSCoinminer.

<comment><USER5> Confirmed on Symantec.</comment></comment>


They brought wolves to Yellowstone and that changed it - <AUTHOR> http://theshrug.com/they-brought-wolves-to-yellowstone-but-they-had-no-idea-this-would-be-the-result-2/ <comment><USER2> [http://warnercnr.colostate.edu/ess-news-and-events/news- head...](http://warnercnr.colostate.edu/ess-news-and-events/news- headlines/935-conservationists-crying-wolf-new-study-shows-yellowstone-s- ecosystem-dynamics-more-complex-than-trophic-cascade)

"Our results contribute to a growing body of evidence showing that changes in growth of woody deciduous plants following the reintroduction of wolves cannot be explained by the trophic cascade model alone"</comment>