A Dollar Store Backlash Has Begun - <AUTHOR> https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/12/closest-grocery-store-to-me-dollar-store-food-desert-bargain/577777/ <comment><USER2> I don't know about other areas, but here in the middle of Oklahoma the Dollar Generals have been a real positive. There's a lot of rural areas where a Walmart came in, then folded later. It left a 1-2 hour drive to get buy any kind of "real" food. The DG stores here have been expanding to include an actual grocery section, including fresh produce and (limited) fresh meat. More is available frozen. They have excellent prices on canned goods. Are they as good as a full grocery store? No, but they're a _lot_ better than the gas station/convenience store and its endless supply of deep-fried burritos...and also the only alternative.

<comment><USER3> Here in rural Iowa, Dollar General also has claimed the niche of "less stuff, but also nearby". You can either drive 5 minutes into town and go to the Dollar General for most of your basic needs, or you can drive a half hour to the nearest city with a Walmart / Target / etc.

I really quite like stopping by to grab a quick thing or two. Around here, there tends to be a local grocery chain in the same vicinity, so generally I'd pick there for more traditional grocery foods. But ran out of toothpaste or need a pack of diapers? Dollar General is the place to go.

<comment><USER4> > You can either drive 5 minutes into town and go to the Dollar General for > most of your basic needs, or you can drive a half hour to the nearest city > with a Walmart / Target / etc.

I'm intrigued by these time estimates. Living in a suburb of Santa Cruz (just south of the Bay Area), the choices are similar. Completely inadequate corner store (much worse than DG) locally, or drive to a location with real stores. That drive is a minimum of 15 minutes depending on the store you want.

But I feel like people in beach communities around the Bay Area would struggle with the idea that they're just as remote as hicks in rural Iowa.

<comment><USER5> Suburban Texas must be an odd phenomenon then. Kroger has found the key to dominating a vicinity away from Walmart. They build giant grocery stores about 3 miles away from each other where the Walmarts are more like 8 miles apart from each other. Then are various other competing stores in the mix as well.

* [https://firstname.lastname@example.com,-97.18...](https://firstname.lastname@example.com,-97.1882734,12z)

* [https://email@example.com,-97.2...](https://firstname.lastname@example.com,-97.2184857,12z/data=!3m1!4b1)

* [https://firstname.lastname@example.com,-9...](https://email@example.com,-97.2184854,12z/data=!3m1!4b1)

* [https://firstname.lastname@example.com,-97.2184...](https://email@example.com,-97.2184854,12z/data=!3m1!4b1)

A side note to this crowding is that unless you live within quick access to a freeway on-ramp it often takes about 30 minutes to get to that store 3 miles away.

<comment><USER6> There's a location in the town where I grew up with two Jewel (Albertson's) locations less than a mile apart on the same road. One is a much older store (early 80s), the other is much newer and was acquired when Dominick's (Safeway) shut down in the Chicago area.

By keeping both stores they have all the good grocery locations at that end of town tied up. There's a Mariano's (Kroger) on the opposite side of town and a Walmart with some groceries a couple miles in another direction, but most people go to what's right there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> You really have to differentiate between the food that's offered at a dollar store and everything else. I shop at the dollar store for things like shampoo, deodrant, toothpaste and it's superb deal, not in any way making me poorer. on the contrary it saves me money. for groceries, you should shop somewhere else, unless your looking for dog food.

the reason there aren't more grocery stores selling good food is because no one wants that. Consumers are in charge and they've spoken loud and clear: consumers prefer processed foods, sodas, chips, things placed in boxes and plastic. I've even seen parent who boycott schools trying to remove cookies from the lunch menu. At a certain point, people need to start making good decisions about what they buy. and yes, you can buy healthy AND cheap. Rolled oats (aka oatmeal is available for 50c to 1$ per lb, even here in the CA!) . and that's 22 times cheaper than a meal at McDonalds. Compare => 3 meals at mcDonalds => 22$ vs Oatmeal 1 lb = 1600 calories which makes it about 1$ per day. And oatmeal is high in fiber, protein and countless minerals, super low in saturated fat, extremely low in sodium and sugar. Sure, you'd want to add a couple of fruits to your basket: there's bananas for 55c per pound!, etc.

I ate oatmeal almost everyday for lunch for a year and it lowered my LDL cholesterol by 60 points! it's a real cholesterol fighter. And, if you do the math on everything, you can find great deals in veggies to: potatoes, onions, Beans, Corn (super highly subsidized), and the occassional costco spinach.

Once we start choosing good foods, stores will have no choice but to start selling more of that. Let the backlash begin!

<comment><USER8> I love oatmeal and eat loads of it, but we really need to avoid telling poorly-informed people that the path to cheap nutrition is to eat bland goo. _You_ might think about it as a rhetorical example, but you need to remember that people won't remember what you say, only how you make them feel. The salient imagery in your post is living on unflavored oatmeal, and that's not appealing to anyone.

<comment><USER7> that's a good point. I didn't realize people thought of oatmeal like that. I really enjoy oatmeal. I put some bananas on it or some pumpkin seeds, or strawberries or a little bit of honey and the whole thing tastes absolutely delicious.

<comment><USER9> This cheap food tastes really great when you put expensive food on top of it!

<comment><USER10> Small amounts of expensive food is still cheap.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's fairly obvious that grocery stores would not want to be in poor neighborhoods. This article paints it all as segregation / race issue which is inaccurate where it is really an issue of purchasing power of the community. While many poor neighborhoods are communities of color - dollar stores have their origin and largest footprint in rural America which is predominantly white.

<comment><USER12> > It's fairly obvious that grocery stores would not want to be in poor > neighborhoods.

Why not, for us clueless people?

<comment><USER13> Why are products more expensive in poor neighborhoods? If there were real profits to be reaped, certainly stores would be moving in and enjoying high profit margins rather than leaving.

The answer should lie elsewhere and it does. Cost of doing business in those neighborhoods is very high. Vandalism and robbery jack up insurance rates. Companies don't want to deliver there because they don't want the risk, so they charge more. Shoplifting expenses must be spread across all product actually sold. If the place offers loans, they must deal with very high rates of defaults. You can't squeeze blood from a turnip. If someone doesn't pay for that car, you have to repo it, but there's a decent chance it can't be found or that you now own an unsellable car or that it was messed up, but there's no way of actually getting any money out of the responsible parties.

Finally, let's say I put a store in a nicer part of town only 15 minutes away. I get less vandalism and basically zero robbery. I get less shoplifting and lower insurance rates. I can keep the same profit margins as the guy in the poor neighborhood and still offer significantly lower prices. Because it's reasonably close to the poor neighborhood, I even get their business without all the extra risk. In the loan market, less risky clients means I can charge less interest and still make the same amount of money and have far less overhead tracking down people and things.

The real tragedy here is police. Poor neighborhoods and police don't get along. Police view everyone suspiciously (why wouldn't they when most dead and injured police show up in those same neighborhoods?). Likewise, the people living there don't trust the police because the police treat them as criminals (and like it or not, someone somewhere is always going to make a mistake that starts this downward spiral). This isn't even a race issue. Police and the poor have had this relationship going back as far as you can search no matter the race (or races) involved.

This problem could be fixed with education, but the average criminal and average police officer both have below average IQs (with it being ruled in the US that it is perfectly legal to reject police officers who have an IQ that is "too high"). If everyone in a poor neighborhood were properly educated, it would cease to be a poor neighborhood in a very short amount of time, but our education system is only interested in lip service (another problem in itself).

<comment><USER14> "Cost of doing business in those neighborhoods is very high. Vandalism and robbery jack up insurance rates."

Oof. I was with you til this. For a large grocery store chain, the occasional vandalism/shoplifting incident is nothing. Built into the price, as they say.

The real reason they don't operate in these areas is because a poor community spends less money than a rich community. If you have to stretch your floor space buck, you want to operate 1) in the market gap you work best in and 2) the area of best fit for that market. A Kroger, if you will, serves middle class America. Their stock, their prices, their marketing and everything else they do operates at that market. However you might see a Kroger operating in an area a bit beneath their target. You won't ever, however, see a Whole Foods or Trader Joe's anywhere near a poorer community.

So Dollar General and the like are filling a previously neglected niche that used to be filled by small bodegas and mercados.

<comment><USER15> But that doesn't mean that a company with the resources of Kroger couldn't also manage a brand that aimed significantly lower.

In Arizona, there's a local grocery chain (Bashas') that's been around since before WWII. They have three very distinct brands-- the mainstream brand, a decidedly lower-class brand with a string Hispanic focus, and a deluxe brand which seems to target a more foodie, but similarly affluent audience to Whole Foods.

<comment><USER16> Bashas is now part of Albertsons which is one of the big grocery conglomerates in the US.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> > _"It advertises hard-to-beat low prices but it offers little in terms of > fresh produce and nutritious items—further trapping residents in a cycle of > poverty and ill-health."_

The elitism here is sickening. Why shouldn't the author just come out and say "We know what's best and have to control the stores around poor people or they might buy junk food."

I hope people who think this way never end up in a position to influence actual laws or policies.

<comment><USER18> It's not elitism to talk about the very real link between an abundance of unhealthy foods and an unhealthy lifestyle, and the secondary link between areas of increased poverty and a lack of access to healthy foods.

America is freaking fat, man. Like really, really fat. Over 35% of people are obese! I'd say the proof of people knowing best what to eat is in the pudding, so let's stop crying about illuminati control of our lunch options and start looking at how we can encourage healthier eating.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I must have missed something in the article. the main cons I gleaned are

\- some items are not as cheap as walmat/costco like Fluor

\- they dont create as much jobs as traditional grocery stoes ( 9 vs 14)

I assume the folks who are struggling are not stupid .. and have looked at every conceivable way of stretching their dollar and judging by the demand it (Dollar store) is providing a valuable service.

I take another exception to the approach this article takes .. instead of complaining about dollar stores moving into poor/urban areas why are they giving a pass to the established grocery chains for moving out ? it seems like providing 9 employment positions is better than the 0 being offered by the other stores.

<comment><USER20> > I assume the folks who are struggling are not stupid .. and have looked at > every conceivable way of stretching their dollar

One might assume. Possibly the biggest trouble of dollar stores is that a lot of the "deals" are the result of simply selling things in smaller quantities. The next time you visit a Dollar Tree, compare the actual amount that you get for something like flour, oatmeal, detergent... really anything, to the sizes sold at normal stores. Things are often cheaper at Dollar Tree and Family Dollar because the containers are smaller, often 2/3 size, and sometimes the price for goods at dollar is _more_ than elsewhere when adjusted for quantity. There are some deals to be found at Dollar Stores, but it's not as if similar deals can't be found at normal stores. Dollar Stores compete because of _perception_.

I occasionally stroll into a 99 Cents Only store and there was a time when they had big juicy mangoes for 1/3 of the price of the mangos at the local Ralphs or Vons. I bought some on the spot and they were delicious. But that's one of the ways that dollar stores get new believers; they will have a few really good deals on things that aren't really essential, like mangos, to get people to think "wow!" and assume that all the other low prices around them are just as good of a deal.

<comment><USER21> > The next time you visit a Dollar Tree, compare the actual amount that you > get for something like flour, oatmeal, detergent... really anything, to the > sizes sold at normal stores.

Many financially constrained people have a cash flow problem - they often end up spending more as you said.

However, buying larger quantities is still not an option because the money is simply not there. Being able to plan out a month is a luxury in some ways.

<comment><USER22> Exactly. It's one of the biggest issues in trying to help people out of poverty. As Sam Vimes's "Boot Theory" sums it up:

>The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

>Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

>But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

>This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.

It's essentially true. Poorer people have to buy the smaller quantities/cheaper materials because it's all they can afford. And because of that, they end up having to buy it more often, often spending more in the long run. I'm actively trying to change my wardrobe now that I've realized that, and buy clothes that will last longer as opposed to cheaper ones that I have to replace more often. Thankfully, I have the money to do so, but many do not.

<comment><USER23> I like the boot story as much as the next guy, but is this actually true in the real world? By which I mean something like this: In what categories of products do rich people actually spend less than poor people? Are there any?

It's certainly true that top-end clothing lasts longer than cheap stuff. But the people who buy it like nice things, and variety. Maybe car repairs? But probably a trick of counting the new-car service plan as part of the purchase price.

<comment><USER24> it's all an information game of continuously and strategically evaluating every purchase!

i buy almonds at the indian grocery for $5/lb in 3lb qty rather than $7. i drive a used toyota camry even though it's boring as hell but low $/mile.

heck part of the value of desktop pcs is their modularity... there's also a subreddit called buyitonce iir.

<comment><USER23> In my case, saving money by buying nuts in bulk is like a frat house saving money by ordering kegs.

More seriously I've also saved money by having a prepaid phone plan which was a lot more expensive per minute. And by buying super-cheap ice skates which I'm sure would have worn out after 10 times... and throwing them out when I moved soon after. In other words, sometimes the simple calculation by which a more durable item is cheaper, leaves out important things.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This article is maddening on many levels. All they manage to prove is that dollar stores, like many other types of stores, go where they perceive their customers to be. They aren't a causative factor behind poverty or racial segregation, though they managed to inject that deeply into the storyline.

I dislike dollar stores, but not for any of the reasons listed here. The folks pushing back in Vermont aren't angry about dollar stores for the reasons being dissected in this piece - instead, they seem to dislike massive, soulless retail chains showing up and profiting off their community.

How about instead writing about the fact that Whole Foods _doesn't_ open retail stores in communities of color? That probably doesn't play as well to their affluent white audience who probably has disdain for dollar stores but shops at Whole Foods on the regular.

</comment><comment><USER26> Every year for Christmas my wife continues a small family tradition: every year we go there and buy stocking stuffers for our small family.

It's definitely a different experience than going to a grocery store for sure. It's almost like you have a department store or modern pharmacies like CVS with the food capabilities of a gas station or 7-Eleven.

I can see why it would appeal to lower-income families. If you assume they are short on time you can probably get all your shopping done in one place. It's definitely smaller than a grocery store and there are fewer options. I think this helps because if you're short on time and trying to get in and out of there you have to spend less time in the store and there's less cognitive overload trying to figure out what to get.

Most grocery stores I've been to have unit prices somewhere on the shelf. They're noticeably absent and I have to do the math sometimes.

I can understand residents being upset about these stores being subsidized by local government. It makes me wonder what the alternate solutions are. I assume they're getting subsidized since stores are fleeing or they don't want to open up shop. If that's true I don't think those stores are coming back unless they're even more heavily subsidized.

Is the solution more Aldi's or Lidl's? I've found that there's a "feel bad" for me going in those stores compared to a normal grocery store.

<comment><USER27> Aldi's can be a bit drab, but the actual quality is fantastic. (I don't understand how Aldi's has the best fresh pineapples.)

<comment><USER28> Good logistics is one of Aldi's strengths in Europe, so I assume they've taken that experience to the USA.

That also have less range of products, which might mean they sell more pineapples as there are fewer alternatives.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I normally like CityLab, but the tone of this article really grates on me. Calling dollar stores parasites? The article casually notes that without these stores many poor or minority communities would be true retail deserts, but it offers no workable alternatives. Only invective.

Every Dollar General I've ever been in has dairy, eggs, a competent selection of canned and dry goods (pasta, beans, etc), baking goods, and a good (if basic) selection of fresh fruits and vegetables.

It's not the dollar store's fault if the surrounding community insists on frozen pizzas and soda.

<comment><USER30> Yeah, this does kind of feel like condemning people for having the gall to not shop at Trader Joe's.

Realistically, what's the difference between Dollar General and Woolworth's 5¢ & 10¢ stores? What's the difference between Amazon and the Sears Roebuck Mail Order Catalog? The names have changed, but merchandise really hasn't.

<comment><USER31> There was a Bloomberg article from not too long ago where one real estate analyst described the dollar store companies as betting on the existence of a permanent underclass in America. That might be the subtext this article is driving at.

<comment><USER32> I make really good money for my area (I'm not in the US), but I still prefer to buy some things at dollar stores or the cheap store brands at regular stores. Some things it's just not worth paying twice as much for name brand things.

There's a brand of microfiber cloths I buy to clean my truck and car and it's the same exact brand in the dollar store and the supermarket that are next door to each other but it's literally twice as much in the supermarket.

It's pieces of fabric that will end up covered in grime and grease, why should I pay twice as much?

<comment><USER33> > It's pieces of fabric that will end up covered in grime and grease, why > should I pay twice as much?

I know you said it's the same product so this doesn't apply directly, but I was reminded of something that happened to me.

I was buying sponges, and the store-brand knockoffs were about half as much as the name brand sponges. They had the same yellow/green design, and they're just sponges... why not get the cheaper ones?

When I got home and used the sponges, I noticed that they were leeching green dye onto everything I used the sponges on, even for at least a few days after using a new sponge. I never noticed significant staining from the sponge runoff, but it's also not worth $3 every few months to not have to wonder if my sponges are going to dye my food/dishes/whatever I'm cleaning green.

Anyways, I don't really have a point here, it's just really annoying that I think of these sponges every time I'm buying the cheaper knockoff products.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> This doesn't really make sense to me on several levels - including the fact it is possible to eat perfectly healthy frozen and canned fruits and vegetables - a bit more additives in the case of canned but frozen if anything is likely better nutritionally due to being frozen at peak freshness. They just might taste a bit worse.

I wonder how much of the issue is cultural and institutional knowledge as opposed to economic. Poverty alone doesn't ensure lack of healthy cooking, the skills involve and time aren't free or universally possessed. One can't just handwave away the labor costs of auto repair for everyone because they know how to fix their own car.

Cynically the 'backlash' it seems more like a 'keep the poor out' move than anything else.

</comment><comment><USER35> While these communities are snubbing Dollar General and Family Dollar -- most of rural America welcomes them with open arms, because they stock roughly the same sorts of things as a CVS or Walgreens, but actually build out in a county of a few thousand, and the one next over.

A few decades prior, Walmart built up a retail empire through its willingness to build on the outskirts of rural, far-from-everything-else towns that only had gas stations, ailing downtowns, and maybe a small grocery store, but definitely not a supermarket. But even Walmart's best-in-class coverage leaves large tracts out, and these gaps are filled in by the sorts of Dollar General, for when you don't need to go to the Walmart another twenty, or forty minutes away.

In more populated, more urban areas, grocery stores have shed locations in neighborhoods that were faltering, further contributing to these locales' decline. These are interrelated. It's easy to claim that variety stores don't do enough about food deserts or that they even contribute to the problem (by not stocking enough fresh, perishable foods), but at least they're trying, while other national chain stores have pursued a pragmatic strategy that has largely removed them from this issue.

I once expressed, in a comment on a Strong Towns post [1], that when you consider settlement patterns, urban form, structural poverty, and food insecurity, perhaps you'll find that it's more sensible to subsidize fresh food delivery to people who could least afford it, but such a solution might find itself at odds with the solutions that (new) urbanists would prefer. It might not alter the structural status quo, but it could improve real outcomes in real people's lives.

And as for nonperishables and non-food, bulk packaging is a discount accessible to those with access (e.g. warehouse club), transportation, storage, and able to cover a higher upfront cost for a lower per-unit cost. These are all harder on low or unpredictable incomes, which is one of the many ways poverty is quite expensive. But is this the fault of variety stores? Of course not. The real fix is much harder.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17525029#17531109](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17525029#17531109)

</comment><comment><USER36> _"What if we went to these neighborhoods and didn 't assume that poor people or communities of color do not want to eat healthy?"_

You can lead a horse to water. You cannot make it drink.

I don't know how to fix this. I grew up in a home where food was very important. There was a garden out back and my mother cooked from scratch, etc. In recent years, I've been quite poor, including spending some of that time homeless.

My firsthand observation of other poor people is that most of them seem to cut the food budget first. Anecdotally, when I finally got off the street by moving into a cheap rental, many other residents clearly smoked cigarettes and/or marijuana. They tended to stay up all night. I wasn't disturbed by their behavior because I couldn't hear them in my room, but I could hear them anytime I went down the hall to the bathroom.

The character of the residents has changed in the time I have been here. I think the presence of my family is a factor in that. People behave better. Most people seem to sleep at night. We smell less cigarette smoke and less marijuana smoke.

We smell more food cooking in the building. I think people are smoking less because they are eating better and they probably somehow learned that from us (at least to some degree).

Do note that one reason a lot of homeless people smoke is because it is an appetite suppressant. I think people were smoking so much because they weren't eating enough. Now, people are eating better and smoking less and their sleep schedules, behavior, etc all appear to be improved in the aggregate.

I know from talking with people and reading articles, etc, that a lot of poor Americans have this idea that eating well is some luxury they cannot afford rather than a basic necessity upon which everything else is based. They try to get cheap, convenient food. They often lack good cooking skills.

To my mind, poverty and health problems grow out of this broken mental model. I don't know how we fix it, but I don't think just making sure there are stores selling fresh produce fixes it. When I was homeless, bananas and oranges were frequently given for free to homeless people and I sometimes saw other homeless folks just leave it on a sidewalk somewhere.

I really think we need to figure out how to promote healthier eating in the US. I don't think that actually starts with stores per se. I don't know where it starts. But we have this bizarre idea that "health care" happens at a doctor's office instead of seeing diet and lifestyle as the foundations of health that they actually are. Americans tend to have lousy diets and then high medical bills.

<comment><USER37> I lived on $2 a day for a couple of years[0], that was left after rent, bills and tobacco. Tobacco is taxed out the wazoo here in Australia, $30+ a bag. I didn't think about stopping.. As long as you can afford a luxury like that, you have your human dignity. Or something like that. Maybe if a bag of oranges was $35 and tobacco $3, fruit would be the essential luxury..

"The only thing that can console one for being poor is extravagance. The only thing that can console one for being rich is economy." \- Oscar Wilde, _A Few Maxims for the Instruction of the Over-Educated_

[0] I survived on pasta, home-made cereal (e.g. wheat germ + shredded coconut) and friends taking me out to lunch.

<comment><USER38> Exactly. People consume tobacco/alcohol/marijuana because, well, so do normal people. If you have never been poor, then you can't possibly understand the stress that goes into it that is often relieved only by these types of goods for many people, and the shame that already goes into giving up so much.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Dollar General and Family Dollar are not dollar stores. They are variety stores - their stuff is not $1. Dollar Tree is a dollar store.

<comment><USER40> They're honestly kinda expensive. Dollar tree gives you a lot for your money

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> These articles definitely make me think the average leftist/Democrat in the United States has no idea what it's like to be poor and reliant on many public services. They'd understand not only why Dollar Stores exist, but why they are primary choices for many impoverished Americans.

Source: Been destitute and on public assistance with a child and limited access to a car.

<comment><USER41> Can you explain why that's true of leftist/Democrats and not true generally of all people?

<comment><USER38> I mean these articles in general. They aren't written by Republicans; they're written by leftists who feel they should do better and this and that. Most of the time they've never experienced poverty and why poor people make the decisions that they do, like shop at Dollar General, for example.

<comment><USER41> I think you've taken the right-wing bait a little too to heart here. In the US, most young people, most women, and most ethnic minorities are Democratic- Learning, and I'm speculating those are also the groups most affected by poverty.

<comment><USER42> He's talking about how the rich young twitteratti of the knowledge class have no idea what poverty is, and yes, most of them are politically leftist. The people affected by poverty aren't writing articles bewailing dollar stores, it's the rich people in the process of gentrifying small towns who hate them.

<comment><USER41> I would agree that most young people are leftist, and most people in the knowledge class are leftist. I'm not going to agree that most rich people are leftist or most people on Twitter are leftist. I am willing to go along with most people matching all of {rich, young, knowledge class, on Twitter} are leftist, although I've no idea if it's true.

However, extrapolating that to the OP's point of:

> the average leftist/Democrat in the United States has no idea what it's like > to be poor and reliant on many public services

really doesn't follow at all. The numbers are clear that really poor people heavily skew Democrat. In summary:

Less than $30k: 20%R to 43%D

$30-50k: Equal split

$75-150k: 33%R to 30%D

$150+: Equal split

It feels impossible to go from these numbers to the Op's conclusion, although I would accept the modification of it to "the average person in the United States, of either party affiliation, has no idea what it's like to be poor and reliant on many public services". Suggesting that's more true of Democrats is simply not factual, the numbers suggest though.

More detail at: [http://www.people-press.org/2016/09/13/2016-party- identifica...](http://www.people-press.org/2016/09/13/2016-party- identification-detailed-tables/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> This is a sloppy hitpiece by someone who probably doesn't cook, is too uppity to be seen in a DG, or both.

DG has saved my bacon on numerous occasions--when I've found myself an ingredient or two short mid-recipe.

They have plenty of dairy, eggs, canned vegetables, dry goods, spices, etc-- more than adequate for a nutritious and affordable meal.

<comment><USER44> I couldn't agree more.

This person has unilaterally made a judgement from afar about what people "should be eating" and wants to ban them from getting what is affordable and attainable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> I looked hard to find anything resembling a problem with Dollar stores. What exactly can be pinned on them? Providing cost-effective food to neglected neighborhoods? That's painted as some sort of tragedy, but it seems to stem from a privileged point of view. "No fresh olives; no nine-grain bread" is not a tragedy.

</comment><comment><USER46> The reason that there are places where the only grocery stores are dollar stores is because the people who live in those places are overwhelmingly poor. If you want these people to buy fresh produce and live like middle class people, you need to figure out a way to bring them out of poverty.

<comment><USER47> There is actually another option - subsidize growing fresh fruit and vegetables the way we do corn & soy:

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/farm-bill- why-...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/farm-bill-why-dont- taxpayers-subsidize-the-foods-that-are-better-for- us/2014/02/14/d7642a3c-9434-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html)

<comment><USER38> Fruit and vegetables are ludicrously cheap where I live at Farmer's Markets and such that are open normal hours, year-round. People still love buying boxed and processed food for many, many reasons. If the fruit and veggies got 20% cheaper I am positive it would only help the people already buying the very cheap produce and attract basically no new business.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> This has been an ongoing issue near me @ Joshua Tree, CA [1] [2].

I don't know all the details, just what I've heard some people involved share about it on various local podcasts like Desert Lady Diaries [3]. It sounds like a major objection is the presence of a Dollar General casts an area as impoverished, making it less attractive to potential transplants/investors/tourists. Joshua Tree residents and business owners are trying like hell to distinguish the area from its surroundings as a classy enclave full of artists, and want to do their best to attract the preferred kind of investment and residents, raising the bar - not lowering it.

It is quite visible when driving through the surrounding towns. The Dollar General stores, definitely leave a crappy impression. I visited one once just to see what they sold, and the sliced bread loaves on the shelves were moldy, some had insects visible inside. NOPE.

[1] [https://www.facebook.com/groups/nodollargeneraljoshuatree/](https://www.facebook.com/groups/nodollargeneraljoshuatree/)

[2] [https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/2014/12/25/dollar- gener...](https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/2014/12/25/dollar-general- unwelcome-joshua-tree/20903761/)

[3] [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmGyfvro5aierNkIuSNVDOg/vid...](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmGyfvro5aierNkIuSNVDOg/videos)

</comment><comment><USER49> I hadn't noticed until this year but many dollar stores in the suburbs near me carry less groceries than other stores in the - uhm - rougher parts of town. I found out that their lease often limits them to selling "snacks only" if there is another grocery store in the same plaza, which in one case includes just a Target. Go visit one that's more stand-alone and you'll see more grocery selection.

</comment><comment><USER50> I don't see a lot of evidence to support the thesis.

"When a dollar store opened up in Haven, Kansas—subsidized through tax breaks by the local government—sales at the the nearby Foodliner grocery store dropped by 30 percent, "

This seems to be a case of a specific kind of competition, and the Dollar Store is good at that.

The corporation is 'extra evil' for selling stuff cheaper than the 'normally evil corporation' down the street? These arguments are really hard.

As long as produce is available - and by all reasoning it is ... then remaining conclusions are a stretch.

Cheaper prices are generally good for consumers, especially the most vulnerable.

Also should note that it is 'fresh produce' that tends to be the cheapest food. 'Processing' is where the cost is, ergo, and maybe thankfully, processed foods will be more expensive.

</comment><comment><USER51> There were riots in Baltimore a few years ago. The street gangs used it as an excuse to knock over every pharmacy, shoe store, and liquor store.

This destroyed years of work trying to get stores to build there. Among many others, Target decided it was no longer worth the risk and moved out. They also ended up cancelling projects in other cities, such as DC.

When a city is not competent at providing for basic things like safety and security, it becomes a high risk area, and many businesses will limit their exposure. Small dollar stores are a form of that. Vacant store fronts are another.

<comment><USER52> There is a Target store open inside the Baltimore city limits. I think they may ave only abandoned certain neighborhoods, not the whole city.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> I think there's enough clearanace stuff there that it might be helping to cut down on waste. It's surprising how much junk there is there, and much of it looks like it wasn't intended to wind up at a dollar store. If not for a dollar store would it wind up at a landfill?

</comment><comment><USER54> We hardly have grocery stores anymore even here in affluent north-central New Jersey. Walmart, Sams, and Target came in, and quite a few of the old line stores closed, helped along by the A&P debacle. Then they closed the Sam's near us, so the nearest market that sells fresh food is around 10 miles away. I'm no expert on the economics of selling food, but the current situation seems like a lot to lay on the dollar stores.

</comment><comment><USER40> I never buy food at these stores but dollar tree is shit for random household stuff! Sponges, dish soap, batteries, baby wipes, light bulbs, you name it just a dollar. Don't carry everything you need but if they do it's usually about 1/2 the price at Walmart and 1/4 what it costs at Walgreens.

<comment><USER40> Ps dollar tree offers way more value for your "dollar" (pun intended :) than dollar general where things seems to rarely cost a dollar.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Any article using the term "white flight" is to be regarded as ideological propaganda.

When you are performing analysis at the level of blaming white People for moving, you are not looking at serious material.

</comment><comment><USER55> Among other reasons of sorry state of the communities this article mentions "white flight".

Would it be worth starting a campaign to attract white people back to the dilapidated neighborhoods?

<comment><USER56> What might be the essential elements of such a campaign? In other words, if you believe in "white flight", I assume you think they did so for a reason or set of reasons.

Have those reasons changed? Have the conditions changed? Other than relatively inexpensive land, what's the motivation for a group who decided to move out to move back?

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> Dollar store is a symptom of repressed wages. How about we fix the cause instead of treating the symptoms ?

</comment><comment><USER58> I've actually wanted to do a documentary on dollar stores, and their proliferation as wages became more stagnant or fell. This idea came to me maybe 8 or 10 years ago. The punch line of the film (although different than this article) would be that they wouldn't be truly helpful until cars and houses became a dollar.

</comment><comment><USER59> Dollar General is not a dollar store. It's a General Store with the name of "Dollar".

</comment><comment><USER60> When I was living in Berkeley as a poor student, dollar tree was the only thing I could afford. I must say I never missed them, their products were the lowest of the lowest quality and now every morning and thank God that I make enough money to not worry about groceries.</comment>


Marijuana Damages Young Brains - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/16/opinion/marijuana-brain-effects.html <comment><USER2> Scary title.

The actual results[1] are less scary: _long-term_ , _heavy_ cannabis use that _begins_ in adolescence correlates with increased rates of psychological conditions and IQ decline.

Edit: To inject a personal anecdote: every time I travel to Europe, I see people my age (and sometimes substantially younger) drinking beer and smoking marijuana. I _almost never_ see reckless drinking or smoking the way I do in the US (e.g., at every college event), and I attribute that to a cultural failure of ours.

My opinion: if we want to stop the kinds of results that these studies show, then we should focus our efforts on reducing the taboos/absence of cultural knowledge that lead to binge usage.

[1]: [https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2012/08/22/120682010...](https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2012/08/22/1206820109.full.pdf)

<comment><USER3> Thanks for the citation, but not sure how that's less scary. Sure they see the most effect statistically in long-term heavy users, but there's no evidence to indicate that such amount of usage is the threshold. Even occasional users show a slight negative Delta IQ in the tables.

Perhaps you're okay with taking something that makes you even the slightest bit dumber, but I am not. Importantly? Do you think kids should be allowed to make this mistake when they don't understand this difference?

<comment><USER4> > Do you think kids should be allowed to make this mistake when they don't > understand this difference?

Does banning it actually decrease usage (I'm genuinely asking, as it's a highly political issue and I can find articles claiming either side)? Also I feel it's much more our duty to inform people as much as possible to empower them to make the best decisions (for the same reasons I think a lot of anti- drug campaigns that exaggerate the dangers of drugs do more harm than good, or why abstinence only sex ed is a net negative). Kids are going to do stupid shit, it's an invaluable part of growing up. If they're not directly harming anyone else, it should ultimately be their choice - even if we think it's a bad one. What makes an arbitrary age any better?

My argument does not have much data behind it, and I welcome studies that contradict my stance.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The legal age isn't set where it is because that's the age at which marijuana is deemed to have no negative effects, any more than it is for alcohol or any other substance that can be habit forming. It's just the age at which people are considered responsible enough to make a decision on their own about the risks and benefits involved.

If you want to say that cognitive development isn't done until 25, and so people can't be considered adults until then, you'd better be ready to argue that for a whole lot of other sacred cows.

<comment><USER3> Which makes sense too in many ways. The only people who've had to bet their money on making a decision on what age to consider people as adults at, is the rental car industry. Incidentally they came up with the 25 number too, I guess purely actuarially.

<comment><USER6> This is no longer the case. At least in Tennessee.

<comment><USER7> That's not true. See below for the under age surcharge for Budget in Tennessee and Enterprise everywhere:

[https://www.budget.com/budgetWeb/html/en/common/agePopUp.htm...](https://www.budget.com/budgetWeb/html/en/common/agePopUp.html#TN) [https://www.enterprise.com/en/help/faqs/car-rental- under-25....](https://www.enterprise.com/en/help/faqs/car-rental- under-25.html)

<comment><USER6> How am I wrong? The link you posted states "The minimum age to rent a vehicle is 21 years of age." Sure there's a $20 a day extra fee, but that's negligible in comparison to the inconvenience of not being able to rent the car. The sentiment of my comment was that you don't have to be 25 to rent a car.

<comment><USER7> You replied to a comment stating that rental car companies picked 25 as the age below which people don't always act like adults actuarially speaking. That bet is a literal charge in this case, weighing loss of business from higher prices against increased risk of loss from un-adult behavior.

You said that is not true in Tennessee and, as I explained, you are wrong about that. While I'm sure you knew what you meant, given your lack of explanation it is assumed you were directly replying to the central tenet of the previous comment (i.e. that persons under 25 are less adulty and should be treated as such).

<comment><USER6> You're right. "ramraj07" was arguing that the rental companies view under 25 year olds as less mature, not that rental companies won't do business with them. That's where I went wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Note that ethanol, and a host of other mind-altering substances, should also be avoided until neurobiological adulthood (approximately 26): [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4669962/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4669962/)

For alcohol, neurological effects can be observed in those who consume as little as 21 drinks per week ([https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9500305](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9500305)). Your brain is just a bunch of electrically powered neurons swimming in a chemical bath - it's surprising how little of a substance over a regular time period can have an effect.

<comment><USER9> 21 drinks a week seems like a lot?

<comment><USER10> It is a lot, but also a relatively easy number for e.g. a college student to exceed.

While looking back I can see it wasn't healthy... nachos and a couple beer on Tuesday night after our long engineering lab, and 3 or 4 mini-pitchers (3oz) at the bar on Friday and Saturday night pretty quickly adds up to, say, 27 drinks in a week. I was perfectly functional (minus Saturday and Sunday mornings where I'd sleep in until 11 or noon), passed all my classes, even made the Dean's list.

Definitely not recommended, but not unheard of. I have a much healthier relationship with booze now, and I'd be broke if I drank that much of the good stuff :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> What is the role of THC here? Presumably THC will change your behavior, and if your behavior over a long period of time impacts IQ or any of the metrics mentioned (e.g., "executive function, processing speed, memory, attention span and concentration...") then it is difficult to say that THC is the direct cause of "damage." When we say that being poor lowers your IQ or decision making capabilities, most infer that this is the result of secondary effects like stress and anxiety rather than your actual wealth alone. Is the message that THC causes damage like cigarette smoking, or like being poor---or both?

<comment><USER12> IQ is mostly invariant of behavior, and absent gross brain injury, is largely fixed over one's lifetime.

<comment><USER13> This is absolutely not true. There are multiple factors which have been proven to affect an individual's IQ over time-

* Schooling, * How stimulating their environment is, * Nutrition, * Disease (although this is generally towards the negative).

All of these can be influenced by behavior- people's eating habits affect their nutrition, and people who seek out intellectual stimulation are more likely to find it than those who don't.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Alcohol damages brains of all ages, as well.

I don't write that to dispute the point of the article. However, many findings do dispute the age of adulthood.

<comment><USER3> Does alcohol induce long-term damage on the brain in proper adults?

<comment><USER15> Yes. It has an acronym - ARBD (alcohol related brain damage).

It includes things like Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome (also called Korsakoff's Phychosis), and alcohol-related dementia.

It's likely that younger people are more susceptible to alcohol related harm.

People who drink heavily are at higher risk.

This would be people who drink more than about 50 units a week for men, or 35 units per week for women. (Current safe drinking guidance is to drink no more than 14 units a week, spread out, with some days drink free).

There are roughly 40 units in a litre bottle of spirits.

18 UK pints of 5% ABV beer would be 50 units. Over a week that might be 2 pints a day and a big session on friday and saturday.

It's hard to know how many people drink this heavily because the stats are all self reported, people don't know what a unit is nor how strong the alcohol they drink is, and alcohol affects memory so people can't remember what they've drunk or when. But we think about 4% of men and 3% of women drink this much. [https://www.drinkaware.co.uk/research/data/consumption- uk/](https://www.drinkaware.co.uk/research/data/consumption-uk/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I smoke this stuff everyday since I was 16 so I'm biased. Basically I need more than experimental evidence or correlations to believe the results as this completely invalidates my past behavior. Don't expect me to flip my opinion over night based on logic. Humans aren't logical creatures. If I changed my opinion then I'm basically admitting to taking drugs to make my brain stupider since I was a kid.

Of course putting something in my brain that never belonged in the first place would likely be bad for my brain judging from common sense. However, thanks to the fact that I've been enjoying getting high for years and due to the fact I don't want to admit I've been damaging my brain I'm going to google search very specific results that support my bias.

See here: [https://www.inc.com/cynthia-than/the-surprising-way-to-be- be...](https://www.inc.com/cynthia-than/the-surprising-way-to-be-better-at- brain-teasers-a.html)

The above link is a more convenient scientific result to believe so despite offering nothing more then the NYtimes article (just correlation and experimental evidence) I'm going to choose what I like to believe and this harvard study is it.

Logical conclusion: Marijuana increases IQ. Also I'm high right now, which makes my judgement more precise because my IQ is higher at this very moment.

</comment><comment><USER17> I wonder if the I.Q decline is caused by the use of Marijuana or if it's caused by the life style of Marijuana users?

<comment><USER18> Being a heavy stoner through 25 is highly correlated with at least alcohol consumption, pre-existing mental health problems, and polysubstance abuse.

That said intuitively that weed makes you stupid and crazy doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Unfortunately smoking weed is the most fun before things get serious with work and family in late 20s.

Another thing that came to mind, in the creativity enhanced altered state I'm currently in and have been in since age 12, is the exact mechanism is still up for debate regardless of established causality. I'm hoping the IQ decline comes from sitting stoned playing video games over engagement in school and work, as opposed to THC itself directly causing neurological learning deficits that are not reversible

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Ive only rarely had a good experience with weed and ironically have not had any since it was made recreationally available in CA. It usually just makes me feel sick or very paranoid. Probably best for my wallet.

<comment><USER20> I'm in the same boat. It makes me unbearably anxious and will ruin any evening out. I've tried multiple kinds, and even the varieties richer in CBD cause me anxiety. It's just not a substance I can enjoy.

<comment><USER16> Same here. For some people it's like this...

[https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/gy8pa9/weed-causes- anxiet...](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/gy8pa9/weed-causes-anxiety-for- some-people)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Right now Marijuana destroys your life in the US if you get caught with it. So worry about decriminalization/legalization and then worry about why poor Timmy isn't very swift. Cigarettes and alcohol damage most organs in the body, so educate people as best you can, but people a lot younger than 18 are going to use pot no matter what age it is legalized for so I am not sure what good this policy advice is from NYT.

<comment><USER22> This isn't actually advice from the NY Times. It's an editorial. As such, it represents the views only of the two writers involved.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> If you sell a product, with known harmful effects, and you do not warn the buyer, are you not liable?

In other words, is there a liability issue?

Any lawyers care to chime in?

</comment><comment><USER24> It seems to me that it poses roughly the same risk as alcohol. I wonder if legalization changes the amount of children with access to the drug. If all sales are illegal then someone selling it probably won't care if they are selling to an adult or a 15 year old but if selling to an adult is legal but selling to a child is not the risk is probably not worth it.

<comment><USER25> > _It seems to me that it poses roughly the same risk as alcohol_

Alcohol can kill you, both from ingesting too much and from quitting after heavy usage. Cannabis does neither, and that's not even close to "roughly."

<comment><USER24> I know someone who is dying of lung cancer due to years of smoking marijuana. Its not the same instant effect as one night of drinking way way too much but you can die from both.

<comment><USER26> I hate to harsh your mellow, but it was probably due to tobacco.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> > The risk that marijuana use poses to adolescents today is far greater than > it was 20 or 30 years ago, because the marijuana grown now is much more > potent.

For any substance that is consumed repeatedly, it is useful to "binary search" for the minimum effective dose. This tends to cancel out potency as a variable, while reducing the effects of tolerance.

<comment><USER28> The potency stuff is such garbage. So before people smoked an entire joint to get as stoned as they now get off a few hits. So what? People titrate their intake. Whenever i see this line i just stop reading because i feel the author is not interested on honest argumentation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> TL; DR. Only oral administration. At least 3 weeks between uses.

IQ tests are too narrow to assess the real picture. Can't believe these are still in use. And what I think researchers should really test is level of "will power" i.e. self-control.

Once a week is indeed too frequent. You have to take longer breaks. If used recreationally at least 3 weeks between single uses, and once, or better twice, a year a 6-8 weeks break. Plus, never smoke it, only eat. Smoking is the most addictive way of administration.

Also, the title is misleading indeed. What marijuana does is sort of "conserving" your brain, not damaging it. It's absolutely the opposite. It's like neural back pressure.

</comment><comment><USER30> This debate is just starting in NZ where we will be voting next year in a referendum on legalising personal use of cannabis. The draft legislation has set the legal age to be 20, though this has drawn criticism from those that say the age should be 25 based on the same arguments put forward in the linked article.

I share the same opinion as others in this thread that say there is a certain age where you should be considered an adult and therefore old enough to determine whether or not you should do something that is bad for you.

</comment><comment><USER31> This focuses on IQ and memory but doesn't it also impact creativity?

I'd be interested in seeing studies about marijuana's impact on the brain's creative abilities to contrast with this.

Because the devil's advocate in me thinks "We have enough high IQ people in this world and not enough high creativity people."

<comment><USER32> I would be interested in this as well, but how do you measure creativity? Data on long-term effects of marijuana is rare to come by and that's when we are looking at a clear metric like IQ.

<comment><USER31> There are a couple tests available that measure divergent thinking, which is a part of creativity, but I'm not aware of any others.

There certainly is an abundance of anecdotal evidence that marijuana boosts creativity from artists and musicians.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Are all drugs tested to see if they affect IQ tests over extended periods?

</comment><comment><USER34> Drinking too much water also damages young brains. Maybe we should restrict access to water also.

</comment><comment><USER35> See it's what you do after taking it! Marijuana will just help you with it! Just like you eat lot of junk food and sit at one place every day that's not going to make you fit and you can't blame the food it's you! If you learn to focus after taking marijuana it's the best thing and if you try to distract it's the worst thing too!

</comment><comment><USER36> also damages young brains: binge watching, caffeine, social media, bullying, sleep deprivation...

<comment><USER37> Got a source for caffeine damaging the brain?

<comment><USER36> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine_dependence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine_dependence)

<comment><USER38> I don't see any references to brain damage there.

<comment><USER39> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine#Adverse_effects](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine#Adverse_effects)

Not brain damage per se: > Caffeine can have negative effects on anxiety disorders. According to a 2011 literature review, caffeine use is positively associated with anxiety and panic disorders. At high doses, typically greater than 300 mg, caffeine can both cause and worsen anxiety. And > Caffeine- induced anxiety disorder is a subclass of the DSM-5 diagnosis of substance/medication-induced anxiety disorder.

However I will note that it does list a bunch of positive effects of caffeine use; including reduced risk of depression ("although conflicting results have been reported").

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> How does adderall compare?

</comment><comment><USER41> > Marijuana Damages Young Brains

That's just... like, your opinion, man.

</comment><comment><USER42> Reefer Madness! Keep your children away from the devil's cabbage!

* This unbiased message brought to you by big Pharm and America's alcohol brewers.

<comment><AUTHOR> So, presumably, there's some data showing that the authors' thesis is incorrect?

<comment><USER42> What does it matter?

Are we going to risk the lives of our children based upon a thesis which might or might not be correct?

All I know, is that my cousin got high once and you know, he started eating like really weird foods. And then he just felt like he didn't belong anywhere. You know kinda like "Twilight Zone".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Legalizing Marijuana is being interpreted by the general youth population as an endorsement of it as a recreational drug.

Marijuana advocates should prepare themselves to take moral responsibility for the many significant negative consequences of increasing use, including increased schizophrenia rates, traffic fatalities, industrial accidents along with overall lower worker productivity.

The "but compared to alcohol" is a shallow argument used by these biased advocates selfishly looking for approval for their own recreational vice.

<comment><USER43> Keeping it illegal supports a large prison-industrial complex, takes otherwise relatively benign and productive people and ruins their lives far out of proportion to the offense, and helps to continue to fund large organized crime operations, probably with ties to human trafficking and larger things than selling marijuana, and gives law enforcement further excuse to practice civil forfeiture (seizing property without due process of law) and gives them one more excuse to justify curtailing other civil liberties in pursuit of the "war on drugs."

I don't see you calling for any moral responsibility there.

<comment><USER38> Your argument mostly extends to full legalization of all drugs as much of your points apply to all illegal drugs. Perhaps that is worth trying.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> This is true. Weed is ok when you are older, you tend to partake infrequently. But if you take it young it becomes a habit.

I'd like to see legal age of use go up to 26. It seems like a good balance. Legalize, yes, but you have to be mature about it.

It's time to realize that 16 to 25 you are still pretty immature.

<comment><USER45> I used to think 18 was a good age of majority, until I got a bit older and realised most 21-year-olds are pretty immature.

Then I thought 25 was a good age of majority, but as I got older I realised even 30-year-olds can act pretty immature.

Now I think 35 is a good age of majority... but then again even some of my peers can make some pretty poor decisions, so maybe 45?

Or we could just admit that this is what mature humans look like. We're still making dumb decisions and still learning from them, right up til we die.

<comment> xkcd-sucks Yeah thankfully older people vote more than younger people or we'd really be in a bad situation</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Facebook is using my friend's name in advertisement. What to do? - <AUTHOR>

When I searched for my friend's name in google, I was stumped to see an ad saying "
      Find XXXXX.
      XXXXXXX is on Facebook.
      Sign up now!
      www.Facebook.com " This is the lowest form of advertisement. Even if it is not illegal, its unethical in my opinion. <comment><USER2> Unethical? Depends on your friends preferences really.

Have you considered that maybe your friend is happy for people to know he is on facebook if they wanted to get back in touch?

If he adjusts his privacy settings it should put an end to this advertising but really, what harm could come of it? If I type a persons name into google, I'm not going to be shocked to find that they are a member of the worlds largest online social network.

</comment><comment><USER3> How is that different from going on Facebook and searching for John Smith? Do you resent the convenience of not having to search twice on two separate sites?</comment>


Chemists, Chinese Factories, and 'Dark Web' Dealers Spread Fentanyl to US - <AUTHOR> https://www.thenation.com/article/fentanyl-inc-review/ <comment><AUTHOR> ...These experimental compounds—as well as the steps taken to produce them—were written up in small, peer-reviewed science journals and more or less forgotten, until the underworld began to repurpose these articles as recipes for recreational drugs. David Nichols, the utopian chemist who once dreamed of a drug that would end all war, now finds himself faced with the grief of parents like Eric Brown, whose son Montana overdosed on 251-NBOMe, which was brought into the mainstream through his research.</comment>


Hey Apple, why not update my software when it's time to restart? - <AUTHOR> http://lessartmorematter.com/blog/1327444554/apple

<comment><USER2> I don't restart or shut down my computer that often. Keep in mind your usage habits are not that of everyone else and it makes sense not to enforce updates when restarting. As a matter of fact, someone else was complaining about this for Windows not too long ago on another post here on HN. Dude was pissed because he needed to access his computer and instead had to wait for the computer to finish installing all these various updates before it would boot into the OS. Clearly the user experience could be refined on that but at the end of the day, I'm perfectly happy with the way it currently works.

</comment><comment><USER3> Because OSX runs mainly on laptops, where people tend to put their computer in sleep mode rather than turning it off (often several times a day). Same tends to go for most iMac users.

Only users of big old desktop boxes still tend to boot their computer on a daily basis.

</comment><comment><USER4> Because I hate when my pc does that.</comment>


Ask HN: Why is a 5K monitor exciting? - <AUTHOR>

Ask HN: Why is a 5K monitor exciting? I don't see any huge benefits... <comment><USER2> At 27", I don't think it is. You can think about pixel size and then how many pixels are on the screen, as screen sizes get larger, so do pixels. On a 27" 1080p monitor, are you really looking at the pixels and thinking they are too large? How about 4k? We barely touched the surface of 4k at 27" and then we go and squeeze an extra 40% more pixels into the same size. I'd say at 50"\+ screen maybe that would be noticeable, but at 27"?

Also, what content is going to be made for 5k? We're just getting 1080p and 4k is on the horizon. Will media companies jump to Apple's 5k? How good are website images going to look (depends on dpi I suppose), but that's a lot of pixels.

Then comes what I find the strangest part. Yesterday there was a question on Quora about why Apple only has an 8megapixel camera in the iPhone. [http://www.quora.com/Why-did-Apple-use-an-8-megapixel- camera...](http://www.quora.com/Why-did-Apple-use-an-8-megapixel-camera-in- the-iPhone-6-and-iPhone-6-Plus) almost all the comments say "pixels don't matter", and on 1080p monitors, I'd tend to agree with them.

But now you've got photos with essentially a 4k resolution, and everybody jumping up and down that pixels don't count. Then today, we have all this talk about how the new iMac has so many pixels on the screen and how great that is. So which is it? Pixels don't count, or pixels do count? How can they not count on capture, but count on presentation (I would accept that the reverse could be true).

<comment><USER3> _On a 27 " 1080p monitor, are you really looking at the pixels and thinking they are too large?_

Yes, absolutely. Pixels are too large on my 21" 1080p display, let alone 27". That's probably because I've been using a retina MacBook Pro for a while now, so normal DPI displays look bad by comparison.

 _We barely touched the surface of 4k at 27 " and then we go and squeeze an extra 40% more pixels into the same size._

5120x2880 lets you have the same real estate as 2560x1440, with exactly twice the DPI which allows better scaling.

 _almost all the comments say "pixels don't matter"_

Apples (sorry) and oranges. A sharp 4MP image is better than a grainy 10MP. That's not a factor for displays.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> When we read text on a monitor, lots of tricks are needed to make it look acceptable given that the number of pixels involved are so few: anti aliasing, font hinting to remove display artifactsm and so on. These are only partially effective, and you can usually see the pixels in some way. For vectors it's even worse...no font hinting, sub pixel alignments are common, plenty of crappy artifacts. Compare to reading from a high ppi laser printer...everything looks so nice and smooth. Today, our displays are still dot matrix.

Basically, a 5K monitor gives you the experience of not being able to see the pixels...what you see looks more like a high quality printout and less like pixel art.

<comment><USER5> Agreed. Then we can finally send Arial and Verdana to the grave and use other fonts. We're tied to these fonts at the moment because they're the only option for sharp body text on low PPI displays.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The only use I can think of is Media Production, and I'd buy one in an instant. 5K means you can have a 4k preview with stuff on the side (mixer, bin) or a 8k RED source that you crop with more than enough real estate to have a proper view of the end result. Sounds a lot better than working with a 8K stream on 2.5K. The sound guys are going to happy too: more plugins in view, and more faders in Pro Tools. Who said Apple isn't targeted at the Pro's anymore?

</comment><comment><USER7> Compared to the standard 4K or compared to 1080p?

</comment><comment><USER8> It's not. It's just another toy. Here's a picture of Thompson and Ritchie creating Unix: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix#History](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix#History). I don't see any 5K monitors.</comment>


How to Run a Rogue Gov Twitter Account with Anon Email Address and Burner Phone - <AUTHOR> https://theintercept.com/2017/02/20/how-to-run-a-rogue-government-twitter-account-with-an-anonymous-email-address-and-a-burner-phone/ <comment><USER2> > "And finally, keep in mind that after all this, Twitter can always kick you > off for their own reasons."

The problem with

anonymous e-mail address + burner phone + always use TOR to access the account

is that this doesn't play out well in the medium term. This triggers various automatic "anti-abuse" measures on Twitters side. Those measures include: random prompt for re-verification of the phone number, which fails with the burner phone number used to create the account.

It's hard (if not impossible) to maintain such an account in the long run while protecting ones identity.

<comment><USER3> It is indeed hard to maintain Twitter accounts via Tor. Establishing accounts via Tor, using burner phones for verification, isn't hard. And there's no problem reading feeds via Tor. But tweeting via Tor, in my experience, is indeed a crap shoot. So is tweeting via commercial VPN services.

What seems to work is tweeting via private VPNs, running on anonymously-leased VPS. To route that VPN through Tor, you just run the VPN server (in TCP mode) on the VPS as an onion service.

But there's still the risk of cellphone re-verification. So for long-term accounts, you need a persistent number. One solution is to have trusted friends in other jurisdictions, who can activate the number for you when needed.

<comment><USER4> There are "Burner" apps out there that give you a different phone number.

I'm unsure if it'd be easier to maintain. But off the top of my head I'd think it'd be easier to spoof.

<comment><USER2> Almost all numbers from free "burner apps"[0] I came across are already burned for all major Social Networks (probably because someone else already used those numbers for registration).

I don't know if it works with paid services, but then you have the problem of paying for it anonymously.

[0] I guess you mean those services which offers some mobile numbers for receiving SMS to anyone without registering.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It would be very irresponsible to recommend buying a burner phone to people trying to stay anonymous. At the very least, it would give away your location even if you somehow manage to remain unrecorded by street CCTVs in the vicinity of the shop at the time of purchase. Assuming it is even possible to buy one without providing full personal details, as is required by law in most of the EU.

Twitter now not only gives platform to powerful demagogues, it is also actively stifling dissent by effectively disallowing anonymity.

<comment> semi-extrinsic FWIW, in the UK you can buy a burner phone and SIM in cash without giving away any personal details at most supermarkets (at least Tesco and Sainsbury's). With the new EU regulations removing roaming charges, you can fly to London on holiday, and buy a UK burner phone anonymously with two years of data on it that's enough for heavy Twitter use in all of the EU for £240 + phone cost.

If you're under enough surveillance that your adversary will follow you on holiday and track all your supermarket purchases, you have bigger problems.

<comment><USER5> > If you're under enough surveillance that your adversary will follow you on > holiday and track all your supermarket purchases, you have bigger problems.

Problem with modern surveillance is not that somebody is actively tracking you, it's the ability to retroactively track you back with perfect accuracy soon as you become become an inconvenience.

<comment> semi-extrinsic Sure, for digital surveillance I get this concern. But when we're talking about identifying that "on holiday, subject X spent some of that cash he withdrew on a burner phone at a random supermarket he visited, not just on ice cream and beer", then you really need significant HUMINT resources.

<comment><USER6> > for digital surveillance I get this concern

In the context of maintaining digital anonymity against a state-level adversary, I think that considering retroactive unmasking as part of the threat landscape is quite reasonable.

The situation one is trying to avoid is:

\- Tyrant in power \- You try to be anonymous \- You fail, because you didn't take enough steps to protect your tracks (when buying the phone, leasing the VPS, accessing the VPS, etc) from retroactive investigation \- You are now fired / jailed

Surveillance is ubiquitous enough that I suspect anonymity is nearly binary in nature.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Can avoid having to buy a phone using [https://dtmf.io/](https://dtmf.io/) (disclaimer: I made it)

<comment><USER8> > 🇦🇺🇦🇹🇧🇪🇨🇱🇨🇿🇪🇪🇫🇮🇫🇷🇩🇪🇭🇰🇭🇺🇮🇪🇮🇱🇱🇹🇳🇱🇳🇴🇵🇱🇸🇪🇨🇭🇬🇧

What does all those letters I see mean? I see only flags of France, Germany and the UK. Maybe it has to do something with fonts installed on my computer.

<comment><USER9> I parse those as ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country codes:

AU AT BE CL CZ EE FI FR DE HK HU IE IL LT NL NO PL SE CH GB

Australia, Austria, Belgium, Chile, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom

Turns out they're in alpha order by country name, too.

<comment><USER10> When I imagine, in my head, "hmm, how can I present a string of 20 x 2 chars, what is the best way I can confuse the reader?" this is the exact solution I come up with, also.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The Intercept makes less and less sense over time as they run out of sensational stories to publish. Thanks for the weird opsec tutorials, I guess.

</comment><comment><USER12> I'm not understanding how this is a "rogue government Twitter account" versus just a "Twitter account".

Is it supposed to somehow look like an official government account?

<comment><USER13> The twitter accounts are presumably run by people who are employed by agencies funded by the US government. They could lose their jobs or have funding problems because of this.

I think a more fair comparison would be to when scientists were gagged in Canada, under the Prime Minister Harper era.

One of many sad examples: [http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harperman-tony- turner-scient...](http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harperman-tony-turner- scientist-investigation-1.3207390) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei50lM6ab1c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei50lM6ab1c)

Of course, it's not muzzling, it's "ethics violations".

<comment><USER14> > presumably

And that's the problem with this whole article.

<comment><USER13> I don't see why. It's good advice no matter what, for current or future employees. Not to mention the author's background..

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is good information to have, but it was just as necessary during the previous administration.

<comment><USER16> Nope, it wasn't.

Example: the was a State Department "dissent memo" against Obama's unwillingness to bomb/send ground troupes to Syria. Result: they got an answer (basically "this decision is hard, we share your concerns, but ultimately decided against a new war...") and that was it.

Same situation now: Spicer: "If you don't agree with us, you should quit. Diplomats should either get with the program or they can go."

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> You need to turn off the phone and take out the battery every time you use the burner phone. They will be tracking the cell towers that you use, so going back and forth to the same cell towers means they can figure out pretty closely where you work and live.

</comment><comment><USER18> Well it's another security/anonymity guide for beginners. ("An IP address is a set of numbers that identifies a computer...")

I'm always torn on these... like is a little info better than none, or worse than none? Example: "Tor is better than a VPN." Sure, except when the exit node is compromised, and the VPN service is a "no log" service. (Granted you would have to verify or trust any such claim.)

</comment><comment><USER19> I may regret commenting in my real name, but I still have a vestige of belief in open opposition. For now, though, I cannot enter the US without giving my Facebook password. I have no doubts that as the new government settles in, it will up the ante on everything which could be construed as active opposition. This IS a fascist regime. It just hasn't gotten hold of its true tools yet.

</comment><comment><USER20> Is this actually legal? I mean, these are public institutions funded by the people of the US. They should be allowed to communicate, no?

<comment><USER21> Canada went through this a few years ago with a conservative government.

It wasn't that scientists were not allowed to communicate with the public, it was that they had to work through the PR department. The PR arm of the institutions would delay, filter, and even edit publications that touched on sensitive areas (eg. Anything remotely connected to climate change--like even fisheries related data).

Fortunately, Canada came through this period. But we did see the closure of research stations and destruction of scientific data.

So, to answer your question, many legal steps can be taken to stop, slow, of even eliminate scientific communication.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is cool, and stuff, but what does it accomplish to have just a Twitter account? The hard part, I think, is protecting key datasets. Which now means leaking them. That takes some real OpSec.

</comment><comment><USER22> Wasn't it just said recently not to use Tor Browser? Why is it being recommended here?

</comment><comment><USER23> Why don't just outsource all things?

</comment><comment><USER24> > As soon as you power on your burner phone, it will connect to cell phone > towers, and the phone company will know your location. So, don't activate > your phone, or keep it powered on at all, at your home or office — instead, > go to a public place, like a coffee shop, before activating your new phone. > Keep it powered off while you're not using it.

Actually, don't go to a coffee-shop, either. They might have security cameras that can record you, that police can use to find out who you are.

Go into the park or forest, or any place without security cameras when using your burner phone.

<comment><USER25> And don't carry another phone while you're doing this. Or, if you do, turn the power off.

(If turning the power off isn't enough to protect you, then you're probably in that group of people for whom none of these measures will wholly suffice.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Too bad sigaint is down right now, and the darknet is pissed!</comment>


AMD's Hidden Strategy - <AUTHOR> https://seekingalpha.com/article/4142634-amds-hidden-strategy <comment><USER2> Pressed the button to show the full article and was greeted with a full screen demand to download their stock news app.

> Welcome to Seeking Alpha, please complete your setup with our FREE app

Do the metrics really say that these approaches gain more users than they lose?

<comment><USER3> You can't measure lost users, only installs. 1 > 0 so it's inevitable to show an increased number of installs with popup vs without.

<comment><USER4> You can with A/B testing though?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Here's the tl;dr:

On the server, AMD is making a security play w/ EPYC arch.

\- AMD not vulnerable to Meltdown

\- SEV allows encryption of a VM's memory, further mitigating read attacks

On the consumer side, AMD is selling on-package Vega to Intel. This should increase market penetration, and thus get more games optimized for the AMD arch.

<comment><USER6> Vega M ( On package Vega ). I dont understand how this will work.

Let say AMD makes a profit on their Vega Chip sold to Intel.

Intel will now have to sell this CPU+Vega chip ( Raw Cost ) @ Intel Margin.

So Intel either sell a very expensive package, or sell it at the same cost ( or slightly higher ) to customer as if they were to buy them separately, which hurts Intel margin. ( Because Intel earn less on Vega )

And it has been a long time Intel dont care about margin at all.

<comment><USER7> Contrary to how the article frames it, the play here is to starve Nvidia of oxygen by hitting their gaming business. Intel's biggest worry now is that they lose whole market segments to ARM-based systems with Nvidia GPUs. Nvidia has long had ambitions to own more of the platform, and there is a serious threat of them running away with the market by being the best at GPU performance and good enough everywhere else.

Intel has already made a move to rework their GPU development by effectively starting over(see: recruiting Raja Koduri to work in the same kind of leadership position he had at AMD previously while developing Vega). But they need a stopgap for the coming years, and this is one way to attack.

The Vega M package is a technically interesting product(size, integration, possible economies of scale), but it's primarily a win for market share because Intel can cram it down the throat of OEMs to stop them from using Nvidia. They would happily cut their margins to do so.

<comment><USER6> >They would happily cut their margins to do so.

Let hope they do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> AMP version without login required [https://www.google.com/amp/s/seekingalpha.com/amp/article/41...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/seekingalpha.com/amp/article/4142634-amds- hidden-strategy)

<comment><USER9> It un-amps itself when I load this.

Even the print trick doesn't work, it just prints the current page, so for a 6-page article you'd have to print 6 times (and each virtual page probably takes up 1 full paper page + 1 line of a 2nd paper page...). Although, who still prints articles anyway?

Guess whose article won't be read past page 1...

<comment><USER10> Firefox reader view.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I found it very surprising that the article didn't mention machine learning applications. Machine learning and scientific computing is where a company like NVIDIA really shines. The reason for this is CUDA. Nearly all deep learning frameworks, such as tensorflow, use CUDA to run on GPUs. Until AMD comes up with their version of CUDA, and convinces the authors of deep learning frameworks to support it, they will be behind. NVIDIA.

<comment><USER12> >"Until AMD comes up with their version of CUDA, and convinces the authors of deep learning frameworks to support it, they will be behind."

I agree AMD needs to do this badly, but don't think it will take much convincing as long as it works. You can read reddit/etc ml forums and see people are desperate for some alternative (AMD or otherwise) due to Nvidia's abuses of its monopoly.

<comment><USER11> I would definitely like to see more competition.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Can anyone comment on mainline kernel drivers for an entire AMD based laptop? For example if you get a Thinkpad you get Intel CPU and GPU, but other parts like wifi and bluetooth are Intel too. All of these are covered by mainstream Linux kernel drivers.

(I'm thinking of years past when Broadcom wifi etc were a problem under Linux.)

<comment><USER14> I have a Kaveri era HP laptop (read: old). No issues with wifi. Fairly sure it had an Atheros chip which has amazing Linux support.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Note that if you don't make it to page 6, there is a disclaimer that the author is long AMD.</comment>


Nissan to Offer Battery Upgrade Option for Leaf - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-20/nissan-to-offer-battery-upgrade-option-for-leaf.html

<comment><USER2> Can anyone explain _why_ the Leaf looks the way it does? I really don't understand why its designers made the styling choices they did.</comment>


Functional Programming in C++ - <AUTHOR> http://www.altdevblogaday.com/2012/04/26/functional-programming-in-c/ <comment><USER2> I was afraid this would be some sort of contorted framework to let you use C++ to write Lisp. Glad I was wrong. Carmack is spot-on here:

 _"My pragmatic summary: A large fraction of the flaws in software development are due to programmers not fully understanding all the possible states their code may execute in. In a multithreaded environment, the lack of understanding and the resulting problems are greatly amplified, almost to the point of panic if you are paying attention. Programming in a functional style makes the state presented to your code explicit, which makes it much easier to reason about, and, in a completely pure system, makes thread race conditions impossible."_

Too often I've seen functional proponents, when asked _why_ we ought to use functional languages, rely on facile arguments such as "it makes your code more concise, therefore easier to hold in your head" or "it makes your code more mathematical, and therefore easier to reason about". Like Rich Hickey, Carmack gets it right.

<comment><USER3> Thanks to lambdas in C++11, coupled with STL algorithms, there are a lot of possibilities to do functional programming in modern C++.

One just has to take care to minimize mutability, as Carmack wrote on his blog entry.

<comment><USER4> I wish the lamba stuff would finally land in Xcode. I think of all the features in C++11 that's going to change the way I write C++ code the most.

<comment><USER3> I am not a Mac OS X guy, but wouldn't installing a more up to date gcc or clang, do the trick?

<comment><USER4> Unfortunately not. The clang that ships with Xcode is pretty tightly integrated into the IDE. I suppose it might work from the command line but I don't want to give up the IDE features.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> One of his comments kind of stuck out when I read it.

 _... but many object[s] are large enough to constitute a sort of global state all their own, blunting some of the clarity benefits of pure functions._

I think we've all run into (and probably coded) our fair share of objects that were basically this - there is only one of them, and it has a lot of state associated with it. I never thought of it before as basically just encapsulating global state into an object. It almost seems... unavoidable, or at least really hard to avoid.

Also this was hilarious.

 _As an extreme example, you can write a pure DrawTriangle() function that takes a framebuffer as a parameter and returns a completely new framebuffer with the triangle drawn into it as a result. Don't do that._

</comment><comment><USER6> This is probably the best summary of functional programming, written by the best "pragmatical" programmer of the world. I wonder how much Haskell code Carmack must have written to reach this kind of knowledge... and whether it is open source. It would be a good read for the weekends.

BTW, I think the _pure_ keyword in C++ would be great. I wrote some C++ in school, and even I can tell that _const_ , as applied to functions, could use some retirement. It's nonsense to keep _this_ unmodified, stateless so to speak, but allow global variable assignation, and so on.

<comment><USER7> Not entirely nonsense—immutability is helpful even in the absence of referential transparency—but still, a "pure" keyword would be great. Now, what I'd _really_ like is for the type system to be flipped on its head with respect to immutability: make "const" the default and explicitly qualify mutable types with "mutable". A guy can dream…

<comment><USER2> Perhaps you should take a look at Rust.[1] It's a pretty compelling union of functional and procedural paradigms, plus: immutability by default, the ability to annotate functions as pure, pattern matching, option types, good C compatibility, strong support for concurrency, high-level memory management that guarantees memory safety and that doesn't require tedious memory micromanagement (while retaining the option to just GC everything and forget about it), and a lot more. Still alpha software at the moment, though.

[1] <http://www.rust-lang.org/>

<comment><USER7> I've looked into it. Seems like a promising language, and it does quite a few things right. Still, I feel a bit uncomfortable endorsing it wholesale while I work on my own linguistic magnum opus. ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I really liked this point:

"Most developers are not very good at predicting the future time integrated suffering their changes will result in."

So given a graph with time on the x axis and maintenance effort on the y axis, the area under the curve is the amount of suffering caused. That's a pretty good take-away.

<comment><USER9> This is true at all levels.

Acute damage gains much more attention than diffuse damage. Thus you have a common problem of developers taking "shortcuts" and accruing huge amounts of long-term technical debt in exchange for temporary short-term advantages, and you have the equally common problem of internal tooling that just barely gets the job done but also introduces massive amounts of waste of time and effort across the entire institution.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> For anyone wondering about adapting real world problems to FP style, here's an article about someone reimplementing pacman in FP: <http://prog21.dadgum.com/23.html>

</comment><comment><USER11> I love the comment on here:

"I do believe that there is real value in pursuing functional programming, but it would be irresponsible to exhort everyone to abandon their C++ compilers and start coding in Lisp, Haskell, or, to be blunt, any other fringe language. To the eternal chagrin of language designers, there are plenty of externalities that can overwhelm the benefits of a language, and game development has more than most fields."

<comment><USER12> I disagree. Of course not _everybody_ can abandon C++ but some really can. I have developed C and C++ software for many years but with Racket Scheme (a functional language) I am MUCH more productive now. This works because I think and code functionally which is a totally different approach to the way how coding in C++ is done.

I doubt that functional programming in C++ will be as elegant and effective as in a real functional language where everything is functional. The approach of C++ seems to be and to support "everything". But will that support more maintainable code? I don't think so. Quo vadis, C++?

Btw Implementations like LuaJIT demonstrate that virtual machines have become amazingly fast. So, even for performance you don't need to be stuck to C++.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Great article, I love the way Carmack communicates.

Can someone please explain how much of these performance worries is mitigated by C++11 move semantics? To me it seems like the functional style is becoming a possibility when one doesn't have to worry about the penalty of copy operations.

<comment><USER14> A lot. Ignore comments to the contrary.

<comment><USER13> I'd like to hear more, please?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Funny he doesn't quote Tim Sweeney :)

<http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/1277>

</comment><comment><USER16> This headline isn't very descriptive; more useful might be "John Carmack discusses the practical benefits (and limitations) of a functional programming style."

</comment><comment><USER17> I like this a lot because it summarizes the direction my own C++ has taken since I first learned about FP. I've found that making a member method functional (i.e. changing usage of member variables into passed parameters where reasonable - I never use globals) makes it more reusable from an OO point of view. The biggest gains by far have been in multithreaded programming.</comment>