Boring Company to use Tesla's technology for its tunnel project under LA - <AUTHOR> https://electrek.co/2017/08/08/elon-musk-boring-company-tesla-tunnel/ <comment><USER2> Boring Company has a bigger potential impact on transportation than Uber or Google even dream about.

At 200kph, with no traffic, all that empty land near San Rafael or beyond the Berkeley tunnel can be minutes away from downtown San Francisco. This could be a huge impact on housing and our everyday life.

The transcontinental railroad was paid in part through land grants to the railroad[1], for parcels along the route. That land was instantly valuable once the railroad was completed. Real estate could be a bigger part of Boring Company profits than user fees.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Transcontinental_Railroa...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Transcontinental_Railroad#Land_grants)

<comment><USER3> Transportation is only a part of the puzzle. Where would you fit more millions of people in downtown San Francisco?

The upside of this is decentralization, not more concentration.

<comment><USER4> _Where would you fit more millions of people in downtown San Francisco?_

In buildings. It's really not that hard: [https://www.vox.com/a/new-economy- future/urban-sprawl-housin...](https://www.vox.com/a/new-economy-future/urban- sprawl-housing-costs-solutions-elevators) or [http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/05/03/silicon_valle...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/05/03/silicon_valley_housing_boom_there_s_no_such_thing.html) . It's just illegal, right now, to build the buildings that people want to occupy. Make it legal and lots more people will live in SF and environs.

<comment><USER5> Singapore is the city to study. They build massive underground connections, malls, transport etc as they grow. They have massive setbacks to the buildings which allow for it to have a crap ton of trees and plants all between buildings... they plan to double their population and are building smartly.

But, as with any city - the income disparity and the cost of living is high - but all cities need affordable labor as well as economic opportunity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > They aim to have no impact at the surface by digging just about 20 feet (6 > meters) in the ground.

Is 20 feet enough? I would imagine that a lot more depth would be required to support the above-ground structures.

<comment><USER7> A TBM doesn't just dig a hole. It installs tunnel ring segments to support the ground above. 6 meters down is no big deal. That's mostly to get below other buried infrastructure.

Here's a good explanation of how TBMs work from Crossrail.[1] They use two types of TBM. There are also hard-rock TBMs, used in deep jobs like the Gotthart Base Tunnel. For some hard-rock jobs, a tunnel lining isn't necessary.

Most of the problems in tunneling involve water. Mud, leaks, underground rivers, etc. The Boring Company doesn't mention water much. So far, the Boring Company just seems to have bought a small TBM and is learning to use it.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z38JIqGDZVU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z38JIqGDZVU)

<comment><USER8> They've mentioned water when asked about Hyperloop, to point out that standard tunnels are waterproof to a specification that they could also support the level of vacuum necessary for Hyperloop, without modification.

The SpaceX rep mentioned this in the recent Hawthorne city council meeting, and I believe Elon said the same thing in one of his presentations.

<comment><USER7> It's not keeping water out of the tunnel once built that's hard. It's building the tunnel through water and mud that's hard.

<comment><USER9> Sure, but groundwater flow has to be accounted for. Hard engineering can lead to very bad outcomes. The Soviets tried to ignore the effects of disrupting thermal equilibrium in their attempts to build cities in permafrost areas. Their solution was prodigious volumes of concrete. It failed badly. These days geotechnical engineers try to work more harmoniously. For example, in areas with saturated soil one approach is to excavate an equivalent weight of soil to that of your construction, thus the building effectively floats, and there is no disruption to the local dynamics.

I cannot see that Elon can get around the need for proper geomorphological study here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It's still unclear to me how their technology is different. Did they just slap the Elon Musk brand/allure on regular boring machines for SpaceX/Tesla's own use?

edit: Well I guess they have a pretty clear FAQ on their site, but I'm wondering if the small tunnel diameter can be used for anything other than cars. Would subway cars fit?

[https://www.boringcompany.com/faq/](https://www.boringcompany.com/faq/)

<comment><USER11> London Underground tunnels are less than 12ft.

There's no reason you couldn't do trains instead of cars.

It's weird to me that you'd do this with cars if you believe self driving cars are the future. Trains between hubs give higher density (which means building fewer tunnels), then (if strictly necessary) switch to a car at the other end to get to your final destination.

<comment><USER7> Musk's proposed tunnel size is 14 feet, slightly bigger than London Underground deep tunnels. (Crossrail's tunnels are about 20 feet inside diameter, large enough for full-size English passenger trains.)

<comment><USER12> 14 feet probably means that standard containers couldn't be transported? Containers are close to 10 feet, not sure if that leaves enough room.

A tunnel just for passenger cars would be a bit of a waste.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The TBM (Tunnel Boring Machine) seems pretty much a "standard" one and in a note on one of the photos it is stated how it has been alredy used (in some project in San Francisco).

The title seems to imply that the technology for boring the tunnel is Tesla derived, while it is related to the _whatever vehicles_ that will be used in the tunnel once it will have been bored "traditionally".

<comment><USER14> While the two subject seem to be confused in the article I assume that Tesla tech can be used in both the tunneling and the sleds. Musk's aim was to increase boring speed by two orders of magnitude so presumably they'll find inefficiencies by converting the boring machine to run on electric motors over what I presume to be diesel engines in existing machines.

<comment><USER15> I'd be surprised if they use diesel engines. Seems like dealing with the exhaust in a closed environment like that would add too much risk and complexity.

<comment><USER13> Right, though the issue is not much about risk and complexity, but rather by sheer power needed to push the air in a tunnel.

The smaller the tunnel is, the smaller is the size of the ventilation tubes that can be used, and thus you need more power to push the air inside.

The amount of air needed by an electric motor is "0", whilst the amount of air needed by a combustion engine is something that needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis, normally the rule of the thumb is 4 cubic meters per minute for each Diesel HP (i.e. with kW's 5.4/KW).

And you have to assure anywyay some air to the people, usually 3 cubic meters per person per minute is used.

And there is anywyay a limit to the pressure with which you can pump air in, because the "return speed" is usually limited to a maximum of 0.5 m/s (as higher speed may cause the transportation of dust and particles).

And then of course the longer the tunnel is the more powerful must the ventilating fans be, we are talking of several hundreds of kW to power these fans.

<comment><USER16> So that's enough airflow to make the engine exhaust be half a percent CO2, which is right about at workplace limits. And extreme overkill on the per- person air if everything is mixed together. (If it's not mixed together it makes sense to over-ventilate the humans for comfort.)

<comment><USER13> I am not sure to understand what you mean "not mixed together", the tunnel is a single environment to which you provide air.

The method generally used is "positive pressure".

I.e. there is a single pipe or duct through which the air is pushed till the excavation front.

The air, having no possible way out is forced to go back towards the tunnel opening.

Since usually the most activities are near the excavation front there is concentrated the clean air, while the one returning back is "contaminated" by the CO2 and other fumes at the excavation front.

The 3 m3/min per person and 4 m3/min per HP are common rules of the thumb to calculate the amount of air, and is in practice a "large" allowance since it is calculated with the maximum possible number of people and with the theoretical power of diesel engines (that never run at 100% throttle), and it has to take into account the said effect of contamination so that people working in the tunnel (not a the the excavation front) still get enough clean air.

Moreover it is not a "continuous fine regulation", fans have normally a finite number of speeds, so you are always using the speed (and the number of fans) calculated for the "longest stretch". As an example for the first 200 mt of excavation you have one fan at 1st speed, the next step, switching to 2nd speed is good up to (say) 400 meters, and you switch to 2nd as soon as you get past 200 mt, and so on.

<comment><USER16> So yes it's all mixed together from the second the air leaves the duct.

Which makes it interesting that the 4 cubic meters per HP is about 10 times the allowance for contamination as the 3 cubic meters per person. Everyone shares the higher contamination level whenever the engines are active.

<comment><USER13> Not really everyone.

In such a ventilation scheme during the works most personnel is near or in the immediate vicinity of the excavation front, they have "non-contaminated" "fresh air" at all times.

You get some "contaminated" air only during the time it takes from the tunnel entrance to the excavation front, and in some circumstances people making maintenance or other works far from the excavation front.

As said the quantity of fresh air fanned in is much more than what actually "needed", there are sensors for the contamination and all in all the air you breath in any modern tunnel during construction is much, much better than what anyone breaths everyday in a trafficked city.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I don't think we should pay much attention to this stuff until they actually start building TBMs or have some technological breakthroughs.

<comment><USER18> Agreed - they're a pretty boring company until they get some real tech going.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Pretty cool how Musk's companies reuse technologies amongst themselves. Back in 2015, SpaceX shared welding techniques and machinery with Tesla:

[https://electrek.co/2015/05/24/spacex-transferred-novel- weld...](https://electrek.co/2015/05/24/spacex-transferred-novel-welding- techniques-and-equipment-to-tesla-motors/)

<comment><USER12> Don't all companies do that? GE will also share basic techniques between departments. And if you don't have another department to get the knowledge you contract other companies. There's no need to invent everything yourself.

To me the whole thing sounds more like a marketing stunt. Tunneling is extremely expensive. Musk knows how to make products more efficient but the improvement needed in this case is probably far more than what he achieved with Tesla.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Can anybody comment on how technology transfer between two firms works where one firm is say 80% musk + a + b and the other, say, 40% musk + x + y + z ?

Both firms are technically separate, right? I suppose x,y,z would mind if Musk just took the tech to Boring company. And a,b would mind if he chose Tesla (if it were not the best)?

Or are people flexible in this regard? In the initial stages?

<comment><USER14> Didn't Tesla open all of their patents?

<comment><USER21> Tesla opened some of their patents, and only if you in return give all of your patents to Tesla.

This is also why no carmaker except for Mercedes has used Tesla patents at all, and Mercedes simply bought 5% of Tesla to get the patents.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> If Tesla 'merged' with SpaceX and Boring Co. on the public market you're talking about a company that could have a $100B mkt cap as soon as next year, the slight and continuing unofficial convergence of all of his companies is a bit odd

<comment><USER23> Not odd at all for someone bent on retiring on Mars. Airtight underground dwellings are the current best bet for Mars habitation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Does anyone know the ownership structure of The Boring Company? Is it a spin- off of Tesla or SpaceX or a brand new standalone entity?

<comment><USER25> Standalone entity founded by Musk.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> What I'm not clear about is how BC plan to overcome American cities tendency to sprawl. It seems there's a huge risk of building tunnels at enormous expense which travel between places where people, at some indefinite point in the not too distant future, no longer really travel to.

Either that, or you build tunnels in highly concentrated places like Manhattan that just act as a supplement to existing metro networks. What am I missing here?

<comment><USER8> Isn't that true of any capital expenditure? You make a model, cross your fingers, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but you make it up on the margin.

<comment><USER26> I guess but I'm making the presupposition that Elon Musk is smarter than me, therefore he wouldn't have overlooked this, and am curious to know what I'm missing or what my mental model of how American cities grow and sprawl is failing to take account of.

<comment><USER8> It takes decades for a population center to empty. Plenty of time to recoup an investment. If he starts with low hanging fruit, like transit between deadlocked parts of LA he'll be making money. Maybe eventually he gets down into boondoggle territory, but I don't see why that should be a concern. As part of a larger fund, a few boondoggles are no problem—learning experiences.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> They must be careful. In Germany, tunnel construction just caused major train track damage: [http://m.spiegel.de/reise/deutschland/a-1162727.html](http://m.spiegel.de/reise/deutschland/a-1162727.html)

</comment><comment><USER5> What happens to all the material tunneled out?

What happens when TBC wants to tunnel where secret government tunnels already exist?

<comment><USER28> ...secret government tunnels?

<comment><USER5> It's long been rumored that there are tunnels cross crossing the us, connecting deep underground military bases.

We know for a fact there are numerous tunnels in DC, some that go to places to support / maintain continuity of government in the event of nuclear war.

I think it's erroneous to think that they are no longer in use, but nobody really knows their true extent.

The point was simply that if the amount of tunnels needed for this type of transport were dug, through the US, they would reveal, somehow, if such tunnels did really exist.

<comment><USER12> The government will probably release information about areas and depths were no one is allowed to dig. This can be vague enough to not disclose information about where tunnels actually are while still ensuring their safety.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> It's funny how must cross breeds his ventures. Solar energy, electric vehicles.. probably some high end engineering talent from SpaceX too. It's a bit like Apple maybe ? he bootstraps it's own vibe.

<comment><USER30> You are probably being downvoted due to your terrible typo.

<comment><USER29> I deserved hit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Oh, "Tesla" the _company_ , not the man, as I expected. :-/

<comment><USER32> Yeah, for the past five years I've been like, "Oh look, Tesla! Aww. Oh look, Tesla! Aww."

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I keep thinking, if this is really just for research and development, why are they doing it under LA?

It seems like there would be some place more remote and a little safer for drilling giant tunnels.

Also, I'm surprised to hear it's only going to be 6m deep.

<comment><USER34> They have property that they can dig on in LA.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> That doesn't sound boring at all.

<comment><USER36> "Boring" is the process of excavating a tunnel. Play on words :)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_boring_machine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_boring_machine)</comment></comment>


OpenSSL Expert Tips and Tricks: Test and Benchmark Servers - <AUTHOR> http://olex.openlogic.com/wazi/2011/openssl-expert-tips-and-tricks-test-and-benchmark-servers/

<comment><USER2> openssl s_client isn't capable of IPv6 last time I checked. (Destination IP address is stored in a 4 byte data structure.)

gnutls-cli is. Plus, much cleaner code in that library.</comment>


You Are Jeff Bezos - <AUTHOR> https://direkris.itch.io/you-are-jeff-bezos <comment><USER2> There is something odd about the complacency implied by the line of thinking this game seems to represent. Why is it more Jeff Bezos' problem to solve homelessness than it is each of ours? Does he have a greater moral directive to do so than us because he has accumulated a great fortune? At what point do we as a society hold this theoretical Bezos accountable for the choices he makes?

My point is not that he shouldn't give charitably, but there is something that seems deeply pessimistic to me about turning to the rich to solve our societal ills. If the implication is that we should have a more 'fair' tax system, I can get on board with some version of that straw man, but would rather we as a society fix our own problems rather than hoping for help from the plutocrats.

Why should we assume that Bezos or any other billionaire would solve these problems in a way that is actually in society's best interest? Would we wish that Bezos spend his money differently than the Koch brothers?

We have government to help create solutions for this space, and in my opinion we should reject the passive acceptance of mediocrity there and instead hold them accountable for delivering these things. I may not be holding my breath for this, but that is part of the problem.

<comment><USER3> The game isn't saying we should ask the rich to solve our problems. The game implies a system is fucked that allows one person to own a seemingly infinite sum, and leave others to suffer and die on the street. I think this is a fair assessment. A system that gives any one liberty to seek the greatest riches, should also protect those who's fortunes, being a part of the same system, are much poorer. It is probably a simple exercise to economically model how too much in one hand prevents enough in another's stomach.

Better than questioning the morality of looking into rich people's bank accounts, is the question of whether it is ethical for people to accumulate so much in the first place. There must be a sense of commonwealth, because the only thing that exists "in a vacuum of society", is nature itself, and that must in some respect belong to everybody. It would not even amount to "wealth redistribution" to tax the top 0.01% enough to afford decent housing and education; it'd be a soft cap.

<comment><USER4> > Better than questioning the morality of looking into rich people's bank > accounts, is the question of whether it is ethical for people to accumulate > so much in the first place.

The economy is not a zero-sum game. Bezos has "accumulated" company stock by building the freaking company. He didn't stockpile food he took from someone's mouth. He created value, and got value in trade for it. That is not unethical.

I'm willing to debate whether it is ethical to be uncharitable if you have great means. But can we please dispense with the notion that merely being wealthy is wrong?

<comment><USER3> Nobody said being wealthy is wrong. It was stated the system is unethical that allows one to die on the street with nothing, and another to possess all, where enough is available for everybody.

We don't have to take food from somebody's mouth to prevent them from eating. In an economic system where you must have dollars to find food, you need only prevent them from getting enough money. And I'm not even saying Jeff Bezos does this. Nobody does it on purpose. It occurs naturally is our economic system, so we must determine whether it is ethical.

> The economy is not a zero-sum game...

it's also not a vacuum. The value of the dollars is nothing without a whole lot of other stuff going on. for instance: a 500B/yr standing military to protect the interests that keep those dollars valuable; a labor force that has been turned into a business commodity; the destruction of finite natural resources; the manipulation of the sovereignty of foreign peoples... it goes on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Here's a counter-idea for this game:

You wake in in 1993 with no memories except perfect insider knowledge of how Amazon was built down to the finest details. You have a full year of lead time to drink Jeff Bezos' milkshake.

Do you:

1) Spoil all the resources he used so that an unknown entity becomes the main online merchant instead, with the typical "morals" you'd expect a big company to have?

2) Build Amazon yourself plus "morals" accepting the real possibility that those changes to the formula cede your competitive advantage to a less "moral" unknown entity?

3) Build Amazon exactly as Bezos did, but with the strong belief that after 20+ years of extremely dedicated work on your part you'll still feel like the rest of the world deserves the payoff more than you do?

4) Find out you're mostly interested in video games and can't be bothered to change history. Plus, it's really convenient to get those games from Amazon!

<comment><USER6> To be perfectly honest, I'd most likely invest in Amazon at the earliest chance I got and let Bezos build Amazon as he did.

I don't worship Amazon (nor currently own any shares other than via index funds), but I'm a very happy customer of many of their businesses and think they've created vastly more good than ill. I'd rather they continue doing what they're doing.

<comment><USER7> Invest in Amazon and through Machiavellian schemes become majority shareholder, then force moral imperatives into the corporate culture.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> At least one of the items you can spend Jeff Bezos's money on ("End homelessness in the United States (-$20 billion)") is argumentative, since the government at different levels has arguably spent a much larger amount than that already. The only tally I see attempted is from an admittedly small- government-bias outlet (the Cato Institute, estimating $15 trillion), which many people seem to believe is inflated. Even if it's off by, say 2 orders of magnitude, you're still left with the government having spent much more already.

Which shows two things:

1\. Throwing money at a problem is not enough. 2\. The idea of just taking rich people's money to fix problems is not enough.

Also, one of the further items ("Fund NASA for a year (-$20 billion)"): Jeff Bezos is already spending a billion dollars every year to fund a private space company. I don't know why the assumption is that it's a "vanity" project.

<comment><USER7> You're not wrong. But it sure doesn't hurt!

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> > Jeff Bezos is worth $156 billion? You're using the top tax bracket of 37% > and paying out $57.72 billion of that.

That's... not how taxes work. We have income taxes in the USA, not wealth taxes.

I'm not entirely sure what the point of the game is. But after playing through this far, I am not exactly impressed by this kind of error.

Clearly, there's a political message the author is pushing here. Which isn't necessarily bad: I liked Capt. Planet damn it. But getting such a trivial fact like taxes wrong makes me distrust the "game" in its entirety. Now maybe the game is saying that he wants to push for wealth taxes in the USA. Maybe we can have that discussion. But... for now... this seems to be pushing assertions that are very far removed from reality.

</comment><comment><USER10> This game implies that Bezos' net worth is all liquid, which it's definitely not. Owning a large portion of a very large company is very different from having a fat checking account

<comment><USER11> When you have billions of dollars in assets you can get a loan for pretty much any amount. Bezos has no problem with liquidity.

<comment><USER10> >Bezos has no problem with liquidity

Not for any sensible things he may want, but he certainly would if he were to do everything OP implies he can do with his wealth

</comment></comment></comment><comment> j-c-hewitt Why are my only options to fulfill the insipid political fantasies of a twitter slacktivist?

</comment><comment><USER12> Bezos doesn't have billions of dollars in his bank, in cash, waiting to be spent. He, simply, owns 15% of a company that he started.

Now, it turns out that this is worth a lot of money. But should it really be... wrong to want to own part of your own company?

</comment><comment><USER13> Entertaining, but I could think of spending sprees with much higher and long- term impact.

</comment><comment><USER14> I am Elon Musk

<comment><USER15> I would absolutely play Elon simulator.

All the options though... Like calling out Valve [0] or the whole funding secured saga. Would be too complex?

[0] check twitter.com/elonmusk

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Haters gonna hate.</comment>


New Google Search Tool Causing a Stir  - <AUTHOR> http://internetcommunications.tmcnet.com/topics/enterprise/articles/23692-new-google-search-tool-causing-stir.htm

<comment><USER2> Example: [http://www.google.com/search?q=microsoft&ie=utf-8&oe...](http://www.google.com/search?q=microsoft&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en- US:official&client=firefox-a)

</comment><comment><USER3> Smart thinking - and an excellent example of good unobtrusive usability design.</comment>


Seriously, Fuck You, "Kindle Unlimited" - <AUTHOR> http://www.theawl.com/2014/07/seriously-fuck-you-kindle-unlimited <comment><USER2> I'm so tired of whiny babies screaming because they can't have everything their precious little selves desire for free, free, FREE!

Now the whiny babies are also developing potty-mouths, which is not an improvement.

I look forward to this infant's continuing series of articles, including "Fuck You, Netflix," "Fuck You, Spotify," "Fuck You, Apple," "Fuck You, Every Business On Earth."</comment>


France's top administrative court overturns burkini ban - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/top-french-court-to-rule-on-legality-of-burkini-bans/2016/08/26/18499b64-6b64-11e6-91cb-ecb5418830e9_story.html <comment><USER2> When I complain about homophobia, I always use the argument that people of the same gender having sex is something that adults do in their free will and doesn't affect other people's lives and therefore shouldn't have any laws against it.

I don't like the concept of women covering themselves like that because of religion, but I have a hard time thinking it should be banned because of the argument I just mentioned.

But I still feel this cognitive dissonance inside... It's weird.

<comment><USER3> I have friends who wear hijab, and for them, it makes them feel modest. I think the best way I can think about it is if I decide to go out into the street naked. Sure, my social conditioning has made me feel, well, naked when I am nude and uncomfortable with the idea of presenting myself nude in public. In fact, even when I am semi-nude (like I feel my shirt is too short and exposing my lower back), I am self-concious.

You can be so lib that you argue my discomfort with my nude self is a product of "repressive" western culture conditioned by Christian values, or you could just accept that that is my choice and what I feel comfortable with, as long as my choice doesn't affect you. I think that is fair.

<comment><USER4> Interesting that you say nude, since its is common illegal to be nude on beaches unless explicitly permitted. If everyone has a right to wear as much clothing they want so long that choice don't harm anyone else, shouldn't the opposite clothing choice also be permitted?

<comment><USER3> You're getting it...not all laws (public indecency) are based in secular logic, there is a piece of culture in there too. I'd argue secular logic is a culture too--my personal favorite of them, tbh.

I am not against nude beaches personally.

<comment><USER4> I am actually a bit against nude beaches, as I rather have all beaches have clothing as the decision of the wearer and not culture. Nude beaches has always sound a bit like reservations for foreign culture, barely tolerated and put out of sight.

I would also like to see nudist and Muslims go hand in hand in a common demonstration against clothing laws. A common demand that society should be more tolerant to other peoples views and culture, and sign of faith that they too can do so. In this fantasy, it would mean a end to phobias against other cultures.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Instead of forbidding burkinis, a better way to fight against this backward repressive fashion would be to encourage people to go swimming in the nude. It's already mostly accepted on french beaches and would be a nice cultural counter, non violently reclaiming public space from extremists ideologies.

<comment><USER6> That won't "reclaim" the beaches, you'll just have conflicts between the two groups.

The way to solve it is to make the beaches nude-only. Then no anti-religious discrimination can be claimed: if they want to swim there, they just have to shed their clothes, and the rule is the same for everyone. Although, as a very fair-skinned person, the main problem I'd have with that is sunburn; I already like to wear a t-shirt at the beach for that reason.

<comment><USER4> Wouldn't the more obvious choice be to have 3 different beaches, one for no clothes, one for cultural accepted amount of clothes, and one fully clothed. It would follow the current setup of non-nude and nude beaches, and everyone could avoid being confronted with situations that they are uncomfortable with.

<comment><USER6> Why should a bunch of religious nuts be entitled to having their own public beach set aside for them?

If they get the prime section of beach, then everyone else is going to complain (rightfully) that the religious minority is getting special privileges.

If they get the crappy section of beach (relative to the nude and normal beaches), the religious minority is going to complain that they're being discriminated against.

You can't make a bunch of identical beaches. Beaches are not like software; you can't endlessly replicate them. Some are better than others, and they're a limited resource.

And finally, why should the country cater to religious extremists in the first place?

<comment><USER7> Confused: currently _all the beaches_ are set aside for the religious nuts - the Frenchmen who can't abide anyone dressing differently.

<comment><USER6> That's a stupid statement. There's no religion involved there, only culture. And who are you to tell the people of a whole nation that their culture is wrong, and that they should abandon it and adopt someone else's culture?

<comment><USER7> Are they separable in France?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Science of Eggs - <AUTHOR> http://luckypeach.com/the-science-of-eggs/ <comment><USER2> Harold McGee is the author of this article and he is both brilliant and a great writer. Reading the rest of his articles on that site [0] would be time well spent. This paragraph alone was enough to get me to whip up a batch of salt-rising bread [1], and it was indeed tasty. I have made it several times since.

"The engine behind this fermentation method is Clostridium perfringens, a close relative of bacteria that cause botulism, tetanus, and food poisoning. It can eat flesh. It gives gas gangrene its name by causing putrefying flesh wounds that bubble and foam with flammable hydrogen. And it can make something surprisingly delicate and tasty."

[0] [http://luckypeach.com/author/haroldmcgee/](http://luckypeach.com/author/haroldmcgee/)

[1] [http://luckypeach.com/infectious- confection/](http://luckypeach.com/infectious-confection/)

* edited for formatting

<comment> david-given I used to make ginger beer, which is traditionally is cultured from a thing called a ginger beer plant; this is a jamjar full of nasty brown goop consisting of a symbiotic mix of yeast and bacteria (and a lot of slowly decomposing ginger).

What you're _supposed_ to do is to leave a jamjar of sugary water out in the open for a few days so that it gets infected with whatever strain of wild yeast happen to be floating around your house. You keep feeding it for a month or so and the desired types of bacteria and yeast are supposed to outcompete the others and you end up with the right stuff to make ginger beer out of.

Good ginger beer plants make good beer, and afficionados have been using the same plant for years, occasionally swapping cultures with other people to breed just the right culture to make _really good_ beer.

Me, I was squeamish about wild yeast in my 1900 British terrace mostly made out of damp rotting bricks, so I added a tiny amount of beer yeast to mine to get it started. Worked really well.

I eventually lost the plant when I had to go on holiday, and so was unable to feed it. Instead I tried freezing it. The results when I thawed it were very weird --- I think the freezing process killed of all the yeast, but not the bacteria, or vice versa. It was certainly quite useless.

 _Edit:_ Aha, instructions on how to make your own!

[https://delishably.com/beverages/How-to-Grow-Your-Own- Ginger...](https://delishably.com/beverages/How-to-Grow-Your-Own-Ginger-Beer- Plant)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is a lovely article, but I can't help feel the author is missing a trick. If you need to peel an egg, do it under fast running cold water. No matter the condition of the egg, the running water will rapidly separate the shell and membrane from what's underneath, and it usually comes away in a single sheet. No need for 4-8 hours of chemistry.

<comment><USER4> It might be that you don't have the problem with peeling very fresh eggs the author is addressing. We keep our own hens, and an egg just a few days old is bloomin hard to shift the shell off.

<comment><USER5> Having spent the better part of a week researching this one, I found two things that "cracked the case": 1) steam cook instead of boil (12 minutes in a pot with 1/4" water) - and then 2) let them cool down for 12+ hours. You can at that point crack the shell in half and the hard-cooked egg will fall out...

If waiting isn't an option, then under water -- either running water or in a bowl -- works just as well. The outer membrane that sticks to the shell just needs moisture to release.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Or just use a eierschalensollbruchstellenverursacher [1]

[1] [https://youtube.com/watch?v=2QfRMwdZUBA](https://youtube.com/watch?v=2QfRMwdZUBA)

</comment><comment><USER7> Yeah everyone has their own way of peeling eggs, handed down by parents/grandparents? Mine is to shake the saucepan quite hard just after the eggs are boiled (how hard depends on how long you boiled the egg). This should put a few clear cracks in the shell. Now submerge in ice water or just run cold water over the eggs for a minute. Now when you go to peel it, the shell has separated and it should just come right now cleanly. Works for me about 95% of the time (could be more but I'm often lazy)

Here's my method explained in detail by someone else, followed by comments of more methods.. it's a rabbit hole.

[http://thestonesoup.com/blog/2010/03/the-secret-to-easy- to-p...](http://thestonesoup.com/blog/2010/03/the-secret-to-easy-to-peel- boiled-eggs/)

</comment><comment><USER8> Roll it on a hard surface? Shell cracks into small fragments that stick to the membrane between shell and egg, and it peels right off. I haven't ever had the problems described.

<comment><USER9> Similar method: I gently press them all around between my palms to get these cracks. Then, peeling them under running water is really easy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I've tried every non-chemical method that I could find, and The Spoon Method is the most foolproof method to peel eggs, soft boiled or hard, cold or warm, old or new. All it takes is about five practice eggs and you should have it down. It's insanely easy, quick, and effective: you get a spoon, crack the egg, and work the spoon up under the shell by pointing the end of the spoon at the shell, so it pushes up and cracks the shell, and only the bottom curved part of the spoon comes in contact with the white, briefly. You can take the entire shell off in one go. There is no cooked egg that it hasn't worked on for me. YMMV

</comment><comment><USER11> Another solution [1] was on HN a while ago. Lower the cold eggs into boiling water, boil for 7-9 minutes for desired yolk, then plunge into ice water. We regularly boil 2-4 dozen eggs a week this way and almost never get a stubborn peeler, whether the eggs are old or fresh, store-bought or backyard.

[1] [http://www.seriouseats.com/2014/05/the-secrets-to-peeling- ha...](http://www.seriouseats.com/2014/05/the-secrets-to-peeling-hard-boiled- eggs.html)

</comment><comment><USER12> Thanks for posting this, I love Harold McGee and wasn't aware of his posts here. I've now got a bunch of browser tabs open with his other articles, can't wait to read them all...

He used to write occasionally for the NY Times, but it's been awhile. He's also an occasional guest on Dave Arnold's podcast "Cooking Issues."

</comment><comment><USER13> That's the most nauseating HN post I've read. I look forward to the day when eating other animals' reproductive materials is a rare delicacy.

<comment><USER14> Is it worse than eating the animals themselves?

Or the milk, originally intended to support the young animals after birth?

Is it worse than eating the reproductive materials of plants?</comment></comment>


What It's Like For a Girl Gamer  - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/08/sexual_harassment_in_the_gaming_world_a_real_life_problem_for_female_gamers_.single.html

<comment><USER2> There are TROLLS on the INTERNET who like to HARASS people? Stop the presses!

</comment><comment><USER3> _crickets chirping, once again_

:/

<comment><USER4> What is there to say that hasn't already been said? On Reddit and HN, at least, this horse could not be any more deceased.

<comment><USER3> I know. Which is kind the point. Looking at some incredibly vapid articles, and the enthusiastic responses they get, I'd say to each their own.</comment></comment></comment>


A 160k-year-old jaw in a Tibetan cave might explain high altitude living - <AUTHOR> https://www.businessinsider.com/160000-year-old-jaw-from-human-ancestor-in-tibet-cave-2019-5 <comment><USER2> > _The bone turned out to be the very first Denisovan fossil ever found > because the specimens found in the Denisova Cave in Siberia 's Altai > Mountains were unearthed 28 years after the monk's discovery. But > researchers didn't know that at the time._

Interesting, so the Denisovans might have been called something else if they had only looked at this?

<comment><USER3> > the Denisovans might have been called something else

You have to admit that Denisovan has a nicer ring than more descriptive "Late Pleistocene Pan Asian Hominid"!

<comment><USER4> To be fair, those are only descriptive through our familiarity. If you look just at etymology that combination could be plenty ambiguous:

Pleistocene = "most new" in Greek.

pan- = "all" in Greek.

Asia = "northwest Anatolia" in Hittite.

Hominid = "human-looking" in Latin/Greek mashup.

<comment><USER3> Yes but the immediate meaning of those terms is the totality of their definition in normal communication.

I love - or am practically obsessed with - etymologies, but an etymology is the linguistic equivalent of of a fossil.

Much as evolution reused terrestrial therapod dinosaur feathers for flight in their bird descendants, language creates new meanings and concepts by reusing older ones. And thankfully we don't communicate in etymologies.

<comment><USER4> I think we are making compatible claims.

Naming this sketchily understood category of ancient people after some cave in Russia (itself named after one Denis, an 18th century religious separatist hermit who lived there by himself) is only obscure at the start. As we become familiar with the name "Denisovan" it becomes a fine description, whether or not we know or care about Denis or his cave.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I heard of a Tibetan legend, of the founding of the Tibetan people came when a monkey met an ogress.

[https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/teaching-e...](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/teaching- evolution-to-tibetan-monks/)

Perhaps there is a seed of truth to that after all.

<comment><USER6> How long can legend persist, though?

Denisovans are speculated to have existed no more recently than 15,000 years ago- in New Guinea, at that. That's at minimum 700 generations ago. This jaw find is 8,000 or more generations ago.

<comment><USER7> Here in Oregon, there are native legends that reference the eruption of Mt Mazama (which is now Crater Lake), some 7500 years ago.

<comment><USER8> Suppose a group has 1000 random legends. What are the odds that one of them might sort of match a distant event?

It could be like those headlines "Psychic Predicted The Last 3 Elections".

<comment><USER5> The Tibetan origin legend is not random, has been around for a long time, and is an important part of the Buddhist and Bon traditions within Tibet. The "monkey" is referencing the same race of hominid as the legendary Hanuman in Hindu myths. The idea here passed down in the Tibetan tradition is that the wild race of "ogres" have been civilized by noble influences.

So while random legends might be that, there may be other characteristics of legends that are not being accounted for with a purely random selection.

<comment><USER8> People used a similar argument to say that the eye could not have evolved from random mutations.

Perhaps you underestimate the time scale involved here?

<comment><USER5> I am not using the same argument. I am not arguing that something must be true by disproving something. I think you misundersand what I am suggesting here.

I am suggesting that there may be a legend that was somehow carried from the days that the Denisovians (ogress) mated with Homo Sapiens (monkey), so that that the modern-day Tibetans carried those genes for living in high altitudes. That mechanism for passing on those genes are exactly what the the article is suggesting.

At no point am I saying that these legends were somehow the cause. I am not sure how you got to that idea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > is more than 1,400 miles from there.

I don't know why paleontologists think this is a large distance to humans. Modern individuals often walk that distance.

</comment><comment><USER9> Many people from Peru and Bolivia (edit: I guess also Mexico) also inherited some genes like these in Tibet that let you breathe at high altitudes. I'm wondering if it could be the same explanation since natives of the Americas allegedly crossed that land bridge from Asia. These people's chests and lungs are quite large compared to a normal person and you can see it in the body type.

<comment><USER10> We know genetic basis of high-altitude adaptation for Tibetans and Andeans is different. So probably not.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High- altitude_adaptation_in_hu...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High- altitude_adaptation_in_humans)

<comment><USER11> Ethiopians have a third adaptation that's a bit like one of the others but still distinct.

I have a theory that early Martians will see some gene input from all three of these groups and I'm curious what the results will look like.

<comment><USER8> Interesting that you said that. I've concluded long ago that the only way we can successfully live off earth is to adapt our bodies to live with different gravity, air pressures, etc.

<comment><USER11> Be it space or submarine habitats, at some point it has to make sense to have some workers who are adapted to hypoxic situations, if only for emergency work. You go to work, you have kids, the kids fall in love, you have grandkids that might have one, both, or neither of the genes. A few more mingled generations and a little selective pressure here and there and soon you have specialists with two copies of the genes.

I think it's plausible for things to play out something like this, a bit different from Kim Stanley Robinson's predictions in a few critical ways:

You have a group of people on Mars who can survive and reproduce in cheaper habitats than everyone else, eventually they'd realize they could sod off and do their own thing. Lower barrier to entry maybe overcomes economic and political pressure, and pretty soon they outnumber everybody else. Your first group that refer to themselves as ethnic 'Martians': Tall, dark skinned, barrel chested (because of the air) individuals who speak a pidgin of English, Amharic, Quechua, and a handful of Tibetan words, and don't answer to Earth.

They are the first people who can walk the terraformed surface without equipment, and they explode out onto the surface. A fresh wave of earthlings from above 10,000 feet arrive and bolster the numbers and gene pool. As terraforming continues, a second wave inundates the First Peoples with many immigrants who swarm to the lowlands. There is a comedian who does an entire monologue on the crazy customs of the New Coloradans, and how they never seem to get along with the New New Mexicans (which leads to 3 full minutes of material on why the hell they called it New New Mexico). For her second tour, she asks why so many Mormons are there. This trickle never really slows down, and Albuquerque and El Paso become a kind of continuous concierge service where people come to live for a year, and then either go home or to the space port to fly to Mars (people who go through Albuquerque have better outcomes, but El Paso competes on price).

Eventually a third wave brings people from everywhere, and the 'Old Ways' find themselves in the highlands at first, and on the slopes of Olympus Mons later, where no amount of terraforming will ever create a popular destination for lowlanders or Earthers.

<comment><USER8> We won't need to wait for evolution. We'll be engineering the people directly with gene editing.

<comment><USER11> The genes have already evolved, you're just selecting for them, which doesn't take long.

The rich have access to gene editing. I seriously doubt working class Martians will. And I'm not sure that safe gene editing will get here before Mars colonies do. I could see it going either way. People will try it anyway, and some will win the lottery while others lose.

<comment><USER8> We already have gene editing. Last week's "60 Minutes" featured a young woman being cured (so far as the doctors can tell) of sickle cell anemia with gene editing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> (paywalled) article: [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1139-x](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1139-x)

<comment><USER13> lynx open it just fine.

EDIT: ok, no.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Write messages on the Ethereum to circumvent censorship - <AUTHOR> https://ethwriter.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> I was inspired by this: [https://www.sciencealert.com/transparent-blockchains- may-be-...](https://www.sciencealert.com/transparent-blockchains-may-be-the- ultimate-anti-censorship-tool)

As of now, there's no easy and simple way to write messages on the Ethereum blockchain. MyEtherWallet doesn't count because it's not really something that tech-savvy non-coders can figure out.

Put in a low fee to recoup costs for hosting/domain and also to deter spamming the network. It's easy to circumvent if you know what you're doing though, so it's more of an honour-system thing.

</comment><comment> polski-g Think steem.io was designed to do just this.</comment>


I hate all podcasts – even the ones I like - <AUTHOR> https://spectator.us/pod-delusion/ <comment><USER2> Part of the joy of podcasts is that listening is kinda like hanging out with friends when you find a good one. Sure, that may take a while, but I don't get why this dude is all butt hurt about it, or why anyone should care about his opinion. Look at how popular radio was back in the day.

That said, too many businesses are making podcasts now, and I really despise how true crime stuff exploits victims and their families for listens/views and makes celebrities out of serial killers. We have an episode about this on my podcast ;-)

[https://accidentallyfasting.com/](https://accidentallyfasting.com/)</comment>


The Warburg is Britain's most eccentric and original library. Can it survive? - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/03/16/in-the-memory-ward

<comment><USER2> _" A center of European culture and a repository of the Western tradition that escaped Hitler and survived the Blitz may finally be destroyed by British bean counters."_

Aliens are living amongst us. Unfortunately they are Vogons.</comment>


Ask HN: Google Calendar spam, is it a universal problem? - <AUTHOR> Over the past few months my Google Calendar has been completely saturated by spam event invites. I have reported them and removed them so much that it has become a part of my daily routine.
I am reaching the point that this may be the issue that gets me to move away from the gsuite.
So far the only solution I have read online is to disable automatic event invites, which would break a lot of useful features for me like adding flights to my calendar.
I have been looking for a solution from google for this for months but so far it is just pr about an incoming fix soon, despite it being several months now that this exploit has been abused.
If you are on the Google calendar team and reading this, please fix your product.
For other users is this something that you are experiencing? <comment><USER2> I dont get any spam on my google calendar. Could it be a setting?

<comment><USER3> _> the only solution I have read online is to disable automatic event invites_

It could be that setting

<comment><AUTHOR> There is a big difference between allowing automatic invites from international airlines, and allowing automatic invites from Russian bot farms linking you to porn sites.

This is the type of distinction that I expect to be an issue for a startup, not one of the largest corporations in history.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Font website redesign live after 1 year in development - <AUTHOR>

https://www.p22.com/
I don't normally show off my work here, but this just went live yesterday and I thought I'd share it and get some of the communities feedback and possibly some sales for them.
Some points 1 year in development. All fonts are rendered live on the site in real time. You can "play" with the fonts using the Typecaster or when viewing a font family. Multiple Rackspace cloud services including servers, dedicated database and CDNs were used.
Over 100k lines of code all in, all entirely programmed by me with design input from P22 staff.
I'm quite proud of it. By far the biggest website I single handedly have taken on.
So take a look, I welcome all constructive input. And maybe buy something! :)
-- If you goto their Facebook page, there are some end of year / going live promotions so check it out if your interested. <comment><AUTHOR> [https://www.p22.com](https://www.p22.com)</comment>


Mesosphere Is Now D2iQ - <AUTHOR> https://d2iq.com/blog/mesosphere-is-now-d2iq <comment><USER2> The name seems like trying to compress your elevator pitch into a name which feels odd. Also sounds awkward to say out-loud over and over but that might just be me.</comment>


Brazilian Billionaire Creates Plan to Beat Death - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-19/brazilian-billionaire-creates-plan-to-beat-death.html <comment><USER3> Brazilian here. Diniz is ripped and muscular because he takes steroids, as one HNer questioned below. This is well known here to people who strength train, from all the photos he takes showing off his muscles, and from the doctors he's associated with (doctors who charge an arm and a leg to legally prescribe steroids -- this was exposed in a national magazine recently, but was quite known before). How he does keep his muscles with a calorie deficit, I don't know. Probably just a bad article. And no, I don't really like the guy. He's just a billionaire playboy who likes to be on the spotlight. And yes, there are some brazilian billionaires who I admire. Just not this guy.

<comment><USER4> Taking steroids doesn't reduce the effort in getting abs and muscles. You still have to put in a heckuva effort to build that muscle.

<comment><USER3> Doesn't reduce the effort? Are you sure? To build the same amount of new muscle mass, who needs to put more effort: the natural lifter, or the one taking large doses of steroids? C'mon, I lift regularly with people on the juice. They put in a lot of effort, sure, but so do I, and they've built a lot more muscle.

<comment><USER5> Steroids significantly reduce recovery time, so you can go back and deliver another "build muscle" stimulus sooner than without the steroids (if you chronically lift before you recover you'll LOSE muscle mass). But you cannot avoid the work, you still need to work just as hard to deliver the stimulus.

<comment><USER3> By what you're saying, someone who is lifting and taking adequate rest between sessions, ensuring that they get enough rest, won't benefit from taking steroids if they don't change their schedule? I'm saying steroids reduce recovery time, AND build muscle more easily. You're saying it's just the former.

<comment><USER5> I would say the way steroids build muscle more easily is via reducing recovery. The person you present would get that benefit, be able to train more frequently and grow faster than a person doing the exact same things except not taking steriods. Steroids also allow one to exceed their genetic strength maximum, but unless you're already banging up against that wall (say 10-15 years of sustained excellent programming, diet, & rest; and maybe half that if taking steroids the whole time) their benefit is almost entirely speeding recovery time.

<comment><USER3> I didn't know that. Do you have any links that explain this so I could read more on it?

<comment><USER5> here's a great overview of maximum genetic muscular potential which touches on the role steroids can play.

[http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/whats-my- geneti...](http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/whats-my-genetic- muscular-potential.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I don't want to sound mean but he's still <90years old. He can be ripped as much as you want, but until he at least pass the century, this article is pure speculation. Let's see how he fares in 20 years, then we discuss.

Then, being mean, what I see here is a narcissistic guy who's saying: "I'm so cool and I bet that with exercise I will survive until 130years. Everyone should worship to my phallus idol"

To which I would like to reply: lucky you in being fit and strong and cool and rich and yada yada yada. I hope the best for you, but still this will have a ludicrous scientific relevance.

And finally, to connect with the tabou article of before, there's some one else that think that maybe living longer is a problem and not a solution?

<comment><USER6> I'd like to state this controversial position, in the hope that is read with the open-mindness of the "what you don't say" thread:

I believe that many of the problems of our society are due to people afraid of dying: Accumulating money in the delusion of fighting death. The universal fight for happiness is impersonated in one extra year of struggle, often by sacrificing the life of others. Seems to me that despite 2000+ years of history, a concept such as the acceptance our own frailty, and the consequent joy of every extra day, is too hard to be learned.

<comment><USER7> History is a lot longer than 2000 years.

<comment><USER6> indeed. I was roughly counting 2000 since stoics philosophy

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> He's found the best way to live an extended life - be rich. He has access to health care and doctors most people can't afford & preventative tests that typical insurance doesn't cover. Of course, just because you have access to that type of health care, doesn't mean you take advantage of it - <USER2> Buffett famously put off his colorectal exams forever, nearly costing him dearly.

The other aspect of this article that I wanted to see was whether he's chosen to use hormone replacement - it says "he's ripped. His arms are guns. His abs come in a pack" and later "Losing muscle to age clearly spooks him". Those are all nice, but seemingly biophysically impossible for a 77 year old man.

<comment><USER9> I don't know, my grandfather now pasted away in his 70s could run a mile faster than me back in my teens and I could run the mile in just under 5 minutes. We used to race at the track. He lived until he was 91. The reality is you can be pretty active and enjoy life well into your 80s but it only takes one thing to go wrong at that age for pretty much everything to stop. He has a stomach issue where is large intestine just burst... this by itself does not kill someone today - medicine is very good, but eventually it's the lack of nutrients and the body just takes forever to heal itself that eventually will catch up to all of us... The most promising thing I've read about with this regard is the gdf11 discovery by the scientists at Harvard - but like any discovery... there's a lot probably missing from it... at any rate, exercising is without a doubt a good thing, but eventually our bodies will just fall apart... literally.

<comment><USER10> Not that it contradicts the point you are making, but the world (recorded) mile record for a 70 year old male is just under 5:20. (or 4:53 for the 1500m) [http://www.world-masters-athletics.org/records/outdoor-men](http://www.world- masters-athletics.org/records/outdoor-men)

(Irrelevant, but I added the 1500m time for people not familiar with mile times. But actually this mile record was set in the Netherlands, while the 1500m record was set in California. :P )

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Awhile ago there was a wonderful little post about the probability distributions of human lifespan. The distributions fall off super- exponentially with age. What this means is that chances of someone living past 130 without major medical intervention is astronomically small.

Even with medical intervention, it seems unlikely someone will live much past the 130 year barrier.

Link: [http://gravityandlevity.wordpress.com/2009/07/08/your- body-w...](http://gravityandlevity.wordpress.com/2009/07/08/your-body-wasnt- built-to-last-a-lesson-from-human-mortality-rates/)

<comment><USER12> Looking at your graph, which tells us what we all already really know (we will probably die somewhere between 60 and 80) makes me profoundly uncomfortable.

I think of my grandfather, who is about 80 now. He seems pretty healthy, but I know he probably has a couple more years. I should make the best of every time I see him. Should try to see him more.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Anecdotally the elderly people I've known who've lived the longest, have been the ones who've been active as long as possible, not just with exercise but also trying to continue either working in some regard or continue travelling and exploring. I'd imagine there's likely studies on it, but as our population ages it'll become more significant.

<comment><USER14> There's an excellent article about this in the NYT: [http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/magazine/the-island- whe...](http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/magazine/the-island-where-people- forget-to-die.html?pagewanted=all)

<comment><USER13> Thanks, that was really interesting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I think the old saying 'Better rich and healthy, than poor and sick' applies here.

</comment><comment><USER16> I guess there's a slight chance he didn't use any, but I find it hard to believe he didn't get a bit of help from HGH and "Vitamin-S" (steroids).

Not that there is anything wrong with that, but the article feels lopsided without any insight into his supplementation.

</comment><comment><USER17> His plan is only a plan to live healthily. In that he is like David Murdoch [1], who has the fortunate coincidence of living longer, being very wealthy, and having long had good health practices. But once you get past your 70s and 80s, the odds of living longer start to have much more to do with your genes than your past health practices. 75% of everyone with the best diets and healthiest lifestyles die before reaching 90 [2]. 99% die before reaching 100, and your progress in that territory is strongly dependent on genetics. This fellow has about a 50/50 chance of making it through the next 10 years, and only very low odds of making to 100, and there is actually very little he can do to make those odds better that is not also available to the rest of us.

We live in an age in which access to specific types of medicine is very flat. If you have $30,000 and medical insurance, there is nothing that a billionaire can conveniently buy that you cannot also go out and get if you do the legwork and phone calls yourself. Medical tourism, clinical trials, etc, etc. The billionaire can buy a fleet of doctors but he cannot buy a form of medical technology that isn't yet available to other people.

He can of course, create new medical technologies by funding their development, but then it is still available to everyone at the end of the day.

Remaining life span for the old is strongly dependent on progress in medical science, however: the transition of the next few decades from medicine that is only a matter of crudely patching over the symptoms of aging to medicine that addresses the causes of aging. An example of the former is alteration of gene expression through drugs, or introduction of reprogrammed stems to enact repair. In neither case does that address the reasons why gene expression changed, or why native stem cells are not doing their jobs. An example of the latter is breaking down the build up of metabolic waste products like lipofuscin constituents [3] that harm cellular operations and housekeeping machinery, and are increasing prevalent with age.

The future of medicine must be something that evolves from the Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence (SENS) [4], a way to repair the underlying cellular and molecular causes of aging to reverse its course. Everything else that fails to deal with underlying causes is just patching over holes in the dam, or trying to keep an old engine running without replacing any parts: the whole thing fails catastrophically no matter how much expense you go to, and the expense keeps mounting regardless. That is present day end of life medicine in a nutshell, and it must change to preventation and repair of known causes.

Even with far more funding than is presently the case, SENS implementation in laboratory animals is 10 to 20 years away.

If you are in late life then your only practical option for anything other than death and oblivion is cryonics [5], the low-temperature vitrification of the fine structure of the brain in which the mind is stored, done against the possibility that future medicine can restore a vitrified brain to life. (Or, depending on your viewpoint, that it can be scanned and run in software, but that doesn't seem like a very helpful end result to me. A copy of you isn't you).

So as I said at the top, this fellow has a health hobby, but he really isn't doing anything material other than having a good time, and perhaps deluding himself as to how well he is impacting his life span. The only material things worth a damn are (a) 80/20 good health practices like regular moderate exercise and calorie restriction, (b) funding the right rejuvenation-focused medical research, things like SENS that may pay off greatly in the next few decades, and (c) cryonics. Everything else is wishful thinking.

1: [http://www.forbes.com/sites/nextavenue/2013/06/07/90-year- ol...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/nextavenue/2013/06/07/90-year-old- billionaire-david-murdock-doles-out-advice-on-longevity/)

2: [http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/npp/national-population- projec...](http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/npp/national-population- projections/2010-based-reference-volume--series-pp2/mortality.html#tab-The- changing-life-table)

3: [http://sens.org/research/introduction-to-sens- research/intra...](http://sens.org/research/introduction-to-sens- research/intracellular-aggregates)

4: [http://sens.org/research/introduction-to-sens- research](http://sens.org/research/introduction-to-sens-research)

5: [http://www.evidencebasedcryonics.org/scientists-open- letter-...](http://www.evidencebasedcryonics.org/scientists-open-letter-on- cryonics/)

<comment> loup-vaillant > _A copy of you isn 't you_

Actually, it is.

The current laws of physics don't have the notion of identity. So swapping two identical particles not only doesn't have any effect, it doesn't even make physical _sense_. Like the rest of physics, this principle stays valid at the macroscopic scale.

Teletransportation is a genuine form of transportation. It doesn't kill you, and the result is not a mere copy. It was traditionally a philosophical question, but thankfully, physics has the answer.

[http://lesswrong.com/lw/r5/the_quantum_physics_sequence/](http://lesswrong.com/lw/r5/the_quantum_physics_sequence/)

[http://lesswrong.com/lw/pl/no_individual_particles/](http://lesswrong.com/lw/pl/no_individual_particles/)

<comment><USER18> Just because physics doesn't have a notion of identity, doesn't mean there is no such thing.

Identical particles have different identities because they have a different location in space-time. The location in space-time creates the identity.

There's also a problem with the math of your claim. They can't "be the same particle" if you can have two of them. 1 != 2

<comment><USER19> > Just because physics doesn't have a notion of identity, doesn't mean there > is no such thing.

How is that not exactly what that means?

<comment><USER20> Identity, like beauty, fun, and spiciness, is[1] something that's built _on_ physics, not requiring a fundamental property, just as asking how much spiciness an electron has is futile.

[1] Well, presuming it actually does exist as something other than confusion, which I'm not currently arguing, though I'm sympathetic to the notion.

<comment><USER19> Beauty has physical structure on a couple levels. You can either talk about certain synapses lighting up (or whatever happens in the brain when someone experiences beauty) or you can talk about facial symmetry and 1.618.

Fun is an extremely vague notion, I'm not sure what it means or if it even has a consistent set of synaptic patterns (or whatever), but I think that's probably because people don't use the term consistently (or are confused, etc., as you say).

Spiciness is absolutely purely chemical.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Not sure working out and eating well will cheat death that long. Now if we could find some way to back up the software...

<comment><USER22> Cryonics?

<comment><USER13> Cryonics is similar to religion, it just seemingly costs more. You invest in a promise that may or may not be reality, with religion it's 'follow these rules for ever lasting life after you die', whereas cryonics is 'pay us to cryogenically preserve your body so you may have ever lasting life after death'.

<comment><USER23> > You invest in a promise that may or may not be reality

I don't think cryonics organisations _promise_ that you will eventually be revived. They promise to try, and they probably think there's a higher chance of it happening than most people do. (But perhaps not higher than most people who pay for cryonics.)

With that in mind, the structure you describe is "pay someone to try to do something that might not work", which also describes investing in startups and any number of other things.

Your objection here is that you don't think cryonics will work. That's a reasonable objection, but the way you're framing it is uncharitable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Death is a pretty good bet to win. I'd say a sure thing. Plus he might be in perfect health and be killed by a beer truck.

</comment><comment><USER25> Can you really run a caloric deficit indefinitely? Surely that can't be the answer.

<comment><USER26> It's not about running a caloric deficit, but a caloric restriction. Usually the goal is reducing your caloric intake by 20-40% compared to your regular diet. You don't need to run a deficit and burn more than you take in or you would waste away.

<comment><USER27> Surely if the human body were a simple machine, as some people argue, then you would be running at a deficit? Any excess energy would have to be stored. In reality, however, the body can adjust to a range of energy input and allow you to run at lower levels of input, albeit with a reduced metabolism.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> A neighbour of mine died just 2 days ago (I went to his funeral yesterday). He left home at about 10pm for a short walk with his dog, as usual. Then, a few minutes later, somebody noticed him laying on the ground, his dog sitting by his feet. When the ambulance came they apparently tried all they could - to no avail. He was dead. He had a healthy lifestyle and, as an officer, had regular check-ups. He was just 38 years old, and left his wife and two daughters of 13 and 8. I'm sure he didn't plan to do so.

</comment><comment><USER29> Top 10 oldest men on record, all died at age 124.

One single person lived through that age to die at 128. Just 4 years more.

By age 124 your lungs can't take in enough Oxygen to produce required body heat.

<comment><USER30> Your numbers seem to be off from what I've read. According to this, the ten oldest men died at ages 116, 115 (x 2), 114 (x 4), and 113 (x 3). Meanwhile, the oldest human died at age 122.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_people#Ten_verified_olde...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_people#Ten_verified_oldest_men_ever)

I'm interested in your claim about lungs and oxygen. Is that really what kills these people? Several of them are listed as dying of pneumonia, so perhaps that's what you mean; though one was a "blood clot", and several don't have a cause of death listed or merely say "natural causes".

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Tangentially related: Are there any characters who are known to maintain an above average level of fitness, while hacking a startup? Fitocracy comes to mind, but if the industry were not related to fitness that would be more impressive. Fitness is one thing I would like to accompany me throughout building a startup in the future - asking too much?

</comment><comment><USER32> I wonder what/if his drug regimen is (testosterone replacement therapy, steroids, etc.).

Not being judgmental, as most Americans who are 70+ are on a litany of drugs for various chronic conditions anyway.

I recall reading that most/all men over the age of 40 would basically qualify for testosterone replacement therapy, albeit perhaps only with an accommodating doctor.

</comment><comment><USER33> I was hoping to read about some really expensive treatment he was receiving.

</comment><comment><USER34> I missed the part were he talks about his "plan". I'd bet on Larry Page to have any impact on longevity. Funding Calico and hiring Ray Kurzweil seems like steps in the right direction.

</comment><comment><USER35> Would you say he's a "Brazilianaire"?

</comment><comment><USER36> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eIaEgxZCpk](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eIaEgxZCpk)

</comment><comment><USER37> > can run backward. On a treadmill. In the dark.

Why is this so significant. Does this affect your health in a goodway?

<comment><USER38> "Vigorous, varied cardio is Diniz's cornerstone. Running backward in the dark hones coordination and proprioception -- the sense of where his core and limbs are in space."

<comment><USER37> > Proprioception

Interesting, Need to do some more research on this.</comment></comment></comment>


Mom and pop investors are on a stock buying spree, fueled by free trades - <AUTHOR> https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-02-21/small-investors-pile-into-stocks <comment><USER2> One of the best signs a crash is imminent (say within a couple of months) is when your family members start bragging about their stock holdings at parties. That's the time to get liquid if you haven't already done that by then. Of course that means you're indirectly still trying to time the market but at least you'll err on the safe side.

I've earned a fair bit of money trading and would never put it down to anything but dumb luck and having enough reserves to be able to sit out the worst. If you're trading with money that you need you're doing it wrong.

<comment><USER3> That is the old adage "when the shoe shiner starts giving you stock tips get out"... but you cant time when it will crash or when it will correct and go back up. You might save yourself from the single event "the crash" but over a lifetime of trying to do this you actually will lose more money by not exiting and entering at the right time.

For example you convert to cash because you hear a family member talking about their stock. The market continues to go up another 20% before crashing 30%. You really only saved yourself 10%... now hopefully you rebuy before it goes back up... if you misread the entry point you might actually lose more than just staying in the market. Unless you have a crystal ball you will likely not time it correctly.

I prefer "time in the market beats timing the market"

<comment><USER4> Just a reminder here to everyone about the shoe-shiner story:

You are the shoe shiner, not Joe Kennedy.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_P._Kennedy_Sr.#1929_Wal...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_P._Kennedy_Sr.#1929_Wall_Street_Crash)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Do we really think the reduction in trade costs from $10 to $0 is really driving consumer investors to dive in? Or is it the surge in stocks like tesla over the last year that is driving more speculation?

<comment><USER6> It's more about the difficulty, but the cost is a part of it. People without a lot of money aren't going to go to the trouble of opening a brokerage to invest 200, 400, maybe $2000 dollars. Keep in mind you used to have to go to a physical brokerage or get on a call with an online firm before you could trade.

When it's an app, and you can do it all from your couch, maybe that makes it worth it.

<comment><USER7> To build on that further, if you only have $100 in your existing account to invest, you're may not think it's worth it to buy a stock if 35% of it is going to be eaten up in fees.

But if you can suddenly invest 100% of that $100, then it's far more worth doing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Someone has got to be left holding the bag in the next downturn.

<comment><USER9> It will be the people holding USD due to the devaluation due to bailing out equity owners.

And if the US isn't in position to bail out equity owners, then it has bigger problems and you should be investing in your network, food and water supplies, and guns.

Just like in past bailouts, too much of the voting populace is invested in the value of their equity holdings, including taxpayer funded defined benefit pensions and regular 401k/IRA plan. It's not politically tenable to let those values go down, assuming the US has the ability to print money still.

<comment><USER10> In the event of a global downturn, what would be the safe haven currency if not USD?

<comment><USER11> It might go back to the good old days where shops would accept gold dollars, silver dollars, treasury bills, or pieces of eight. I know the "reserve currency" of Warlord-era China was the Mexican dollar.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> >"There's sometimes no fundamental reason for it. It just is based on perception — a perception based on narratives that run only an inch deep," he said in a note. "Let's see how much longer it persists. This kind of activity often unwinds much faster than the windup."

I think this is very, very risky. Families or individuals putting a lot of money into stock that is largely driven by the media and rally around the stock price increase is how you ruin people's financials. The Tesla stock mentioned in the article being one of them, as the recent bitcoin-esque rises are really hard to explain by fundamentals.

But it seems to me to be the case for a lot of tech stock in particular. Lots of them going up 40% or 50% year over year yuo really have to ask at some point if this is going to continue for another ten years or if it's going to come down at some point.

</comment><comment><USER6> As others have pointed out, these "free trades" aren't actually free. In exchange, you lose good order execution. Brokerages like Robinhood seem to outsource this to other market makers which in turn give them a kickback for sending those orders their way.

<comment><USER13> The average "mom and pop" investor can give 2 craps about trade execution. An execution price with a 20bps delta is MEANINGLESS to them.

<comment><USER14> A friend was trying to convince me that high frequency trading was a good thing because of the liquidity it added to the market would allow me to sell my stock in milliseconds. If I've been holding a stock for twenty years, when I go to sell it, do I really care if it takes twenty minutes instead of twenty milliseconds? From the look on his face it was obvious that in his world investing in stocks long term is completely alien. Can't be too hard on him though, he did warn me of the Great Recession months in advance, with problems he was seeing in credit default swap pricing being what he considered the Archduke Ferdinand of the financial system.

<comment><USER6> > _If I 've been holding a stock for twenty years, when I go to sell it, do I > really care if it takes twenty minutes instead of twenty milliseconds?_

I think you may care actually. To give an example, I was holding a stock for several years that recently went up in price quickly, without much change in the underlying business. Simply, analysts started changing their rating on it. When this stock got high enough, I started to feel nervous, and I was watching the market open on a day when I was prepared to sell. Immediately, the stock started to tank, and I sold it right away.

I sold it at a good price, and even though I was a long term investor, I made a short term decision to sell based off the (IMO) extremely irrational price.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> If the trade is free you increase trade volume. Say fair weather stock investors come out an play, the more they trade the more they usually lose, and the more they need to refill their trading accounts from their hard earned Money.

<comment><USER16> Why would they lose the more they trade? I mean yeah they'll lose some on the spread but not very much. You would expect their returns on average to match the market.

<comment><USER17> People often imagine they'll make huge amounts of money by making a tiny amount on each trade, very frequently and consistently. The arithmetic on the percentages makes it appear possible. It just works just as well (or better/worse) in reverse.

I'm not sure what's typical these days, but let's say the spread on a large cap liquid stock is 0.02% and the spread on a small cap illiquid stock is 0.40%.

If you trade once a year, the cost is comparable to the management fees on an index fund. Not much, but already you're paying more than someone who is fully diversified.

If you trade everything once a month, and average -0.40% each time, you are down 20% after five years!

If you trade more frequently, say 200 times a year (not every day, but most days) and stick to the liquid stocks so that it only costs 0.02%, then you are also down roughly 20% after five years, before the actual returns.

<comment><USER15> Also you tend to lose when playing the short game, short game is more easily predicted by algorithms. So you are not only going against pros, you are going against machines that has speed and world class math phds

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Why the brokerages are free and how do they make money [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20276551](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20276551)

(mostly, near zero yield for the cash on your brokerage accounts)

</comment><comment><USER19> > The latest leg of their emergence times closely with October, when E-Trade, > Charles Schwab and TD Ameritrade slashed commission fees to zero.

It also times closely with the most meaningful rate cut by the Fed in five+ years.

</comment><comment><USER20> [https://archive.md/6PDmQ](https://archive.md/6PDmQ)

</comment><comment><USER21> So the moved on from Bitcoin...expect similar bubbles soon!

<comment><USER22> Bitcoin is back on the rise btw... people are going into cryptocurrency not out now.

<comment><USER23> Anecdotally, in the last 6 months none of the parents of kids I went to highschool with have cold called asking about crypto shit. People aren't leaving crypto, cause they already have all left.

<comment><USER22> Back on the rise doesn't imply max hype. Those are different parts of the cycle.</comment></comment></comment></comment>