Apple iPhone spontaneously combusts aboard flight in Australia - <AUTHOR> http://www.bgr.com/2011/11/28/apple-iphone-spontaneously-combusts-aboard-flight-in-australia/

<comment><USER2> Lithium-ion batteries contain significant amounts of, you guessed it, lithium. Lithium reacts violently with many other substances. If the battery is damaged or contains a fault, the result is lots of energy released (heat). This danger exists in all devices that contain a Li-Ion battery, which is just about everything these days.

<comment><USER3> Surely the chemistry doesn't matter much. Any energy-dense battery will contain a lot of energy by definition, and it seems improbable that there wouldn't be a way to make it come out faster than normal. This problem will only get worse as battery technology improves.

<comment><USER2> It matters only in so much that you needn't short a Li-Ion battery to have a violent discharge of heat energy.

Shorting any battery will cause it to heat up, but lithium is a potent alkali metal. It reacts _violently_ (as in fire and possible explosion) with water. The moisture in your skin will do just fine. Contrast this with other battery chemistries such as nickel-cadmium, which are practically benign by comparison.

Here's a great video illustrating the results of dropping bits of various alkali metals in to a bathtub full of water:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m55kgyApYrY>

<comment><USER4> That Brainiac video was faked. They didn't get the violent reaction they were looking for from caesium, so they just rigged up a bomb in the bathtub.

[http://www.badscience.net/2006/07/brainiac-fake- experiments-...](http://www.badscience.net/2006/07/brainiac-fake-experiments- scandal-make-it-to-the-evening-standard/)

<comment><USER2> Boy is that disappointing. Braniac had the feel of a show that would pull that kind of stunt though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> LiPo/Li-Ion batteries on airplanes have been an issue for years - see, for example, this article from 2010: [http://travelsentry.blogspot.com/2010/08/future-of-flying- wi...](http://travelsentry.blogspot.com/2010/08/future-of-flying-with-lithium- ion.html)

At this point rechargeable lithium-based batteries are a more effective bomb than 90% of the things the TSA has banned - but I suspect we won't see them trying to take away laptops and phones anytime soon.

<comment><USER6> The TSA are a funny bunch. They've searched through my 80 year-old grandma's bags and confiscated her paint. Yet, when I mentioned that the metal detector failed to detect my solid metal watch, the agent said "it's ok - keep going".

<comment><USER7> your watch was probably not made of a metal that mattered to them. I know the zipper on my pants is made of metal but it never sets off the detector.

<comment><USER6> It usually sets the detector off ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I find it funny that this was on the front page last night:

"Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It's Not Clear Why" <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3283768>

Edit: Not implying anything about a relation to phone use during takeoff and landing (BGR and Australian press release are vague), but I just found it curious.

<comment><USER9> Damaged lithium batteries catch fire whether the device is on or not.

The original reason why the "no electronics during takeoff or landing" regulation was adopted reaches back to the assumption that you can cause an airliner's nav system to go out of whack with radio signals emitted from consumer electronics.

As far as I know this argument has turned out to be pure FUD. However, once a law or regulation is in effect, it is unlikely to ever be rolled back again - this is probably the reason why they simply switched out the rationalization for it to something else: they now say that electronic devices could turn into deadly shrapnel during takeoff and landing.

Like so many "security" and "safety" related things today, the fact that they make you switch off your iPod but don't actually force you to pack it away safely requires a certain amount of cognitive dissonance of all parties involved.

<comment><USER10> I can't locate it, and wikipedia fully backs up the idea that electronics could interfere with Nav systems, however, I once read a compelling piece that lead me to believe different.

It had something to do with FCC regulations and how you could somehow bypass some system and get free calls, or calls could not be billed correctly, perhaps it was data, but it certainly was cellular related.

I can't seem to locate the information now.

At any rate, it does seem strange, as they cell towers themselves are not being asked to shut down, and they certainly broadcast much greater signals than the actual cell phone. This signal is rained over the entire aircraft 24/7.

<comment><USER11> The article that you mention (which I remember as well and also can't find) was basically saying how in theory a cellphone from a plane could hop from tower to tower much faster than they currently do if the user is in, say, a car, and that could cause some problems for the cell phone system.

<comment><USER9> I remember something along those lines as well, it has nothing to do with airline security and switching off electronic devices though. The issue here is that a 2G/3G device on a flying plane does reach a lot of cell towers simultaneously. The network is not designed for this, they pretty much assume that you're in reach of only a handful of towers at any given time - so the cell network could possibly be overloaded by thousands of people in the air trying to connect to many towers at once.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This comes to mind: <http://xkcd.com/651/> (xkcd, Back Check)

<comment><USER13> My major concern is that there's talk about using supercapacitors in portable devices, and notably in cars. The concern being that capacitors are specifically designed to discharge quickly, to the point that a shorted (IE purposefully connecting two terminals) capacitor quickly explodes.

The concern being that should we start filling the floors of hybrid vehicles with these, that we are essentially deploying fast moving bombs on our streets, roads and highways, and all we're going to rely on is faith that someone isn't going to put a switched connection between two terminals and wait till they're parked outside a police station, abortion clinic or elementary school and just flip the switch.

<comment><USER14> Well, how is that different from gasoline?

<comment><USER13> Gasoline doesn't explode in 3 seconds flat from a foil wrapper is how it's different.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Lithium fires give off a number of toxic gasses like HF. Even if the fire was safely contained, my concern would be if the people on board were exposed to these toxins through inhalation. If a plane is recirculating cabin air, is there a anything a pilot can do to expunge bad air in these cases?

<comment><USER16> A plane does not recirculate all of the cabin air; it recirculates about 50%. Not ideal for the people but it's not like they are trapped with only the air that they have onboard. Also, the recirculated air is HEPA filtered. I would turn up my personal air nozzle if there was something like this in the future.

Source: <http://www.boeing.com/commercial/cabinair/facts.html>

<comment><USER15> HEPA does not filter gasses like HF.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> There appears to be a modification to this phone. - Steve Jobs' head is where the apple bite is. Maybe that caused it?

<comment><USER18> [http://www.mod-gadget.com/tribute-stevejobs-iphone-4s-for- st...](http://www.mod-gadget.com/tribute-stevejobs-iphone-4s-for-steve-rear- panel-mod/)

I do agree that the bite looks like a head, but it doesn't look the same as the one in the link above, especially when you take into account the missing "Steve Jobs" and "1955-2011".

I'd put it down to a freakish break line causing fragmentation around the bite. Backplate looks identical to mine (minus the damage).

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Thank god this didn't happen in the USA. The poor iPhone owner would likely be imprisoned right now.

<comment><USER20> I hate to be That Guy(tm), but only if his skin color was sufficiently dark.

<comment><USER21> You guys are both "that guy" right now. Pretty weird to see it coming from you.

<comment><USER20> Come on. Imagine a bearded Middle Eastern man with a device that's glowing red hot and looking like it's about to explode, on a passenger plane.

We live in an era where a few brown-skinned men praying on an airplane is enough to trigger passenger panic and the involvement of the FBI. Do you really think that, if the above happened and the passenger was unfortunately of the wrong race, that passengers _would not_ immediately jump to the "terrorism" conclusion? In the last few years passengers have jumped to that conclusion for _way_ less.

[edit] I'm not saying this would've meant throwing someone into Gitmo and throwing away the key. But you have to admit, if this happened to anyone of Middle Eastern descent, there's not a chance he wouldn't have been detained and subject to a barrage of investigations.

<comment><USER21> There is no way anyone who's phone battery ignited on a plane would be in prison, but beyond that, I'm just watching the arc of this thread bend towards dumbness and surprised to see you on it at all.

Do I think racism is alive and well all around this country? How about, just guess, and then we can keep the discussion off HN. A few years ago, this might have been a thread about battery chemistry. Now it's about the TSA. I have to believe you think that's sad too.

<comment><USER20> There's really not much meat to the topic, after all - lithium battery explodes... this is pretty much an everyday occurrence everywhere, about as newsworthy as "car crash on freeway" and "pen explodes in pocket". Spectacular and scary, sure, but this is a topic that is neither surprising nor particularly alarming to a bunch of gadget geeks.

Is it really any surprise that the bulk of the discussion is applying to meatier, more interesting/controversial tangents?

In any case, my OP is not really meant to be a lightning rod for Yet Another TSA Bash(tm), but rather just an exasperated, cynical quip.

<comment><USER21> I clicked through. You know it's "car crash on freeway". I didn't! One or two posts stabbed at clarifying --- if you could see them through the conspiracy fever stuff and the "derp derp held the wrong way derp" comments.

Anyways, I'm not trying to bag on you. My problem is with the whole site.

<comment><USER16> I find that since removing karma from comments made me less inclined to participate and read the comments here. My participation is way down.

My time is valuable and the comment scores, albeit a flawed metric, served a good purpose to filter out some of the less useful/insightful comments, I wish there was a toggle in the preferences that would allow people to turn it on per user.

<comment><USER20> I do have to agree. Traditionally HN has given token upvotes to cynical quips, jokes, etc, but the bulk of upvotes have always gone to really insightful comments. It's one of the things I enjoy about this community.

With the karma removed from comments, though, "witty joke with 7 upvotes" is now completely indistinguishable at a glance from "extreme insight with 100 upvotes".

I don't think it's realistic to expect people to stop joking about topic X, or making short quips about things... logically it makes sense to bring back some kind of way to differentiate these posts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Google Lithium Ion Thermal Runaway

<https://www.google.com/search?q=lithium+ion+thermal+runaway>

<comment><USER23> Bunnie Huang's great blog has a post with some nice informative anecdotes about Lithum Ion thermal runaway. <http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=220>

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> He was just holding it wrong

</comment><comment><USER25> Assuming if this would've been reported had it happened before, all it means is 'iPhones have one in 70 million chance of combusting.'

</comment><comment><USER26> Yowza. But yeah, lithium batteries do this sometimes on airplanes. Some of the smaller ones don't allow lithium batteries in the cabins for this very reason. That it's an iPhone isn't surprising in the least, and hardly front-page material.

My theory is that it was already compromised somehow (maybe defective), and the pressure decrease popped the container(s). And to people claiming OMG CASE MOD, look more closely. A crack goes right through the line that would form the glasses. It _could_ be a mod, but I highly doubt it.

</comment><comment><USER27> It seems plausible to me that when the phone came out of airplane mode, it increased radio transmission and/or CPU use. Due to some fault in one of those systems, the thermal throttling didn't kick in, and caused enough heat to melt open the battery. Perhaps the phone was jailbroken and overclocked?

<comment><USER28> Perhaps the phone was jailbroken and overclocked? So it's the user's fault?

<comment><USER27> If it was jailbroken and overclocked, then yes, it was the user's fault.

<comment><USER28> I find it both amusing and telling that that is the only possibility you consider. Perhaps there was a manufacturing flaw in the battery, or it was damaged by dropping, yet 'blame the user' seems to be your knee-jerk reaction.

<comment><USER27> I started this by saying "Perhaps" the phone was jailbroken. I don't assume that is the case, I just provide it as a plausible option. Also notice that the Apple logo on the phone back has been modified.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Time to ban all cellphones abroad any plane.

<comment><USER30> Don't give the politicians any ammo ...

<comment><USER31> Actually, that may finally trigger the backlash that injects some sanity into the process.</comment></comment></comment>


10,000 hours vs genetics - <AUTHOR> http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/03/10000-hours-vs-training-debate-no.html

<comment><USER2> After I read Outliers, I actually believed 10,000 hours myth for sometime until I realized Gladwell is journalist who can convince you with any argument with series of anecdotes as opposed to scientist who gathers data and calculates stats. The turning point for me was mountaineering training which IMO is one of the most demanding "sport". It was very quickly apparent to me that for same amount of conditioning efforts I was no where close in performance to people who were "born with it". As I read more books on mountaineering it was clear that elite or even moderately competent people in this field has significantly larger lung size, fast lactic acid clearance and extremely efficient slow burn metabolism. Most of these comes from genes and with practice you can improve things to some degree and get much better with it but you simply can't climb 8000m without Oxygen like Ed Viester did or do North Face under 2.5 hours like Ueli Steck or speed climb 3 major Yosemite walls in 24 hours like Dean Potter does.

All nature vs nurture debates end in one simple conclusion: It's not neither nor or either or, it's both.

<comment><USER3> Okay, so I've been meaning to get this off my chest -- I'm a bit peeved by the fad of deriding Gladwell for a panoply of accounts. All of a sudden it seems that everybody's hopping on the cool wagon where the new thing is scorning Malcolm Gladwell. The 10,000 hours model is rather loosely made in the Outliers book. He does not say '10,000 hours exactly' will give you worldclass skill in area x -- he says roughly 10,000 hours, with expert instruction, constantly pushing the boundaries, etc. will get you mastery.

Just like Norvig does not say 10 years exactly will make you a worldclass programmer. [1] It's said in loose terms. Basically, it's just a more marketable and fun way of saying 'Practice makes perfect' -- and I applaud both Gladwell and Norvig for once again saying it again and inspiring people to really work hard at whatever they want to be good at.

[1] <http://norvig.com/21-days.html>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> >Consider this: height is a pretty straightforward characteristic, and it's known to be highly heritable (tall parents = tall children). In fact, 80% of the variance in height is known to be genetic

The genetics of human height is much more complicated than he summarises here. In short, environment has a lot to do with height, and there's regression towards the mean too, which leads to children of tall parents being smaller (but still relatively tall). Wikipedia has a good article on it (citing 60-80% heritability): <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height></comment>


Five Hundred and Seven Mechanical Movements (1908) - <AUTHOR> http://507movements.com <comment><USER2> This is awesome, and reminds me of Animagraffs [0], which has also come up on HN from time to time.

[0] [https://animagraffs.com](https://animagraffs.com)

<comment><USER3> I didn't know this website, it's absolutely beautiful and even works in a mobile browser (Firefox Focus). Thank you for sharing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This one's my favorite (although I haven't read the whole thing):

"This movement is designed to double the speed by gears of equal diameters and numbers of teeth—a result once generally supposed to be impossible. Six bevel- gears are employed..."

[http://507movements.com/mm_226.html](http://507movements.com/mm_226.html)

<comment><USER5> I read and re-read this for a solid 5 minutes and I have no idea how it produces the result. I get that gear D spins orbitally around the left-right axis instead of rotating clockwise, but I can't seem to grok how that would produce 2x rotations.

<comment><USER6> A differential is an adder.[1] This is a differential hooked up as a doubler.

Mechanical analog computers, especially gun predictors, had lots of setups like that.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1i-dnAH9Y4&t=757](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1i-dnAH9Y4&t=757)

<comment><USER7> Thanks for that video. Very informative... like many of the videos from that age. There's something about training videos and physics videos from the 50s / 60s that makes them much better than what people produce today; it's hard to say exactly what it is, but they do feel cruft-free.

<comment><USER8> Not just the 50s/60s - this video explaining differentials is from 1937 and is a marvel of pedagogy:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYAw79386WI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYAw79386WI)

<comment><USER7> Oh yes, that's legendary! I forgot it was pre-war! Speaking of war, I also recall pretty well-made video explanations for bomber pilots, about how to fly the planes to avoid anti-aircraft fire.

So I guess I should extend my original statement to the 1930s-1970s range.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Great for assisting with mechanical engineering problem solving. I just sent this to my team. If you like this sort of thing, we also discovered an awesome set of mechanical animations on Youtube done by an experienced Vietnamese mechanical engineer in a similar vain (but 3D drafted). URL not handy, hopefully someone can find/share.

<comment><USER10> Potentially: [https://www.youtube.com/user/thang010146/videos](https://www.youtube.com/user/thang010146/videos)

<comment><USER11> thang's videos are awesome - quick, simple and to-the-point, and quite prolific in volume.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> These types of books are helpful and proof that it's hard to innovate mechanisms. However the animated GIFs are not the clearest. I'm more of a fan of this guy's Youtube channel with carefully modeled animated 3D CAD of tons of amazing mechanisms. [https://www.youtube.com/user/thang010146](https://www.youtube.com/user/thang010146)

</comment><comment><USER13> This is a dying art.

The modern way to achieve any kind of complex mechanical motion is to attach a servo to the thing and use a computer to set a motion profile.

A bit of a shame really.

<comment><USER14> I think it will always have its place.

For example, I predict the increasingly suffocating digital zeitgeist will give rise to a form of competition which would be the mechanist's version of a demo scene.

People will compete to "hack" non-digital mechanics as far as they can go, from analog sensors to mobile, programmable, multi-function automatons such as Theo Jansen's _Strandbeests_ [0].

Resources like this, even if their maintainers have long gone, will become coveted gold mines.

[https://www.strandbeest.com/](https://www.strandbeest.com/)

<comment><USER15> Already sort of happened in the mechanical watch space. When the quartz crisis hit in the 1970's all the traditional Swiss watchmakers had to move upmarket with fancier complications.

I expect the same thing to happen to ICE automobiles. To become luxury/jewellery pieces.

<comment><USER16> > Already sort of happened in the mechanical watch space.

So-called "Tourbillon" escapements, for instance:

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

Fantastic (and expensive) works of mechanical movement art, but it goes well beyond this.

Some "watches" (the fanciest ones aren't really wearable, but could be considered "portable") contain an amazing number of various mechanical functions and movements (called "complications"), of utter insane complexity:

[http://reference57260.vacheron-constantin.com/en2/the- worlds...](http://reference57260.vacheron-constantin.com/en2/the-worlds-most- complicated-watch)

Similar such works are done in the clock space as well.

I wish I had the wealth to be able to afford such a piece (then again, if I did, I'd probably have a 3rd iteration of the Difference Engine commissioned first - sigh).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Can anyone explain movement 38? [1]

Two identical gears start moving at the same speed. Suddenly, one gear slows down, then lurches forward at a much faster speed, and then returns to its starting speed.

While the other, identically shaped gear, spins at a constant speed the whole time.

[1] [http://507movements.com/mm_038.html](http://507movements.com/mm_038.html)

<comment><USER18> Others have talked to the changing ratio, however I think the possible implications(use cases) of this are also interesting. I'm imagining making room for something, also rotating at a the same speed, to slip into place by arresting the second gears speed before catching it up.

I'd love to get into watch building which likely utilizes a lot of these tricky movements.

<comment><USER19> I have recently became interested with the inner workings of watches and found this 1949 video to be a perfect explanation of the underlying concept of a watch movement mechanism: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYBvt9kA3bE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYBvt9kA3bE)

<comment><USER18> That was a great video. Tourbillon from scratch; one day.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I used to spend a lot of time chasing a mower around the yard while trying to design a continuously variable transmission that used (for lack of the term of art) direct engagement (eg gears) rather than friction on bearing surfaces like belt-based cvt's.

Came up with a few tantalizing geometries but would always find a problem after thinking it through.

Makes me wonder how many if these were deveoped under similarly mindless activities. Also makes me wonder what a genetic algorithm or ML-based optimization/search algorithm could find.

<comment><USER21> > a continuously variable transmission that used (for lack of the term of art) > direct engagement (eg gears)

I believe the term is "positive engagement". And yeah, it's such a shame that all practical CVT's are friction based!

<comment><USER22> I'm curious, I saw this ratcheting CVT on YT[1], and since I have no experience with mechanical engineering wasn't really able to judge how useful it was or whether it was practical, but it looked like the real deal?

[1]: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9-N-nIqc4g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9-N-nIqc4g)

<comment><USER21> To be clear, I'm no mechanical engineer either!

There is some information about ratcheting CVTs (and CVTs in general) here [0], although the page looks a bit sketchy. From what I've seen, they are not very practical or widely used. Maybe there is a niche where their capabilities and drawbacks are a good fit but I have not come across it.

One thing to keep in mind is that these days it's not hard to beat (both on price and power/torque capabilities) sophisticated transmission mechanism (meaning - expensive and containing many fragile mechanical parts) by simply using a larger electric motor with variable speed control and fixed gearing. Torque output at low speeds (which would be the advantage of CVT) is going to be limited by mechanical design and weight constraints of the transmission mechanism.

[0] - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuously_variable_transmis...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuously_variable_transmission#Ratcheting)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> This is so cool!

[http://507movements.com/mm_123.html](http://507movements.com/mm_123.html)

[http://507movements.com/mm_185.html](http://507movements.com/mm_185.html)

This is basically how the pantarouter by Matthias Wandel [0] works:

[http://507movements.com/mm_246.html](http://507movements.com/mm_246.html)

Or take a look at this weird engine:

[http://507movements.com/mm_423.html](http://507movements.com/mm_423.html)

I am a bit nostalgic/sad about the fact that many young people who would've wanted to learn this craft a century ago are today choosing software engineering.

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wZ1v4PIsYI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wZ1v4PIsYI)

<comment><USER24> Making movements like these are really popular in the 3d printing community.

Like this video about number 049, a crank that only turns clockwise: [https://youtu.be/y44_xMFsPQQ](https://youtu.be/y44_xMFsPQQ)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> This type of thing is very dangerous for me. I can end up browsing these for hours. Very similar to knots, how each one is tied, what it's pros and cons are, the history behind them, etc. I wish like knots these mechanical movements had names instead of just the index number.

<comment><USER16> > I wish like knots these mechanical movements had names instead of just the > index number.

Some do have "names" (most don't), but you have to go to the movement itself to see it:

[http://507movements.com/mm_212.html](http://507movements.com/mm_212.html)

This one is common, and known as the "Geneva Mechanism" or "Geneva Stop":

[https://www.britannica.com/technology/Geneva- mechanism](https://www.britannica.com/technology/Geneva-mechanism)

The actual book the animated site is based on:

[https://archive.org/details/fivehundredseven00browiala/page/...](https://archive.org/details/fivehundredseven00browiala/page/n1)

...the index (table of contents) references them by name.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> There's a great 1953 Navy fire control computer training film that explains some of these: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1i-dnAH9Y4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1i-dnAH9Y4)

<comment><USER27> That's different. The original link aims at mechanical contraptions while yours at mechanical computation. Still equally impressive and interesting

<comment><USER26> True, but there's a lot of overlap in the mechanisms. The video explains how they can be used for computation, which I find even more interesting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Although not animated, the book makes for delightful bathroom reading:

[https://www.amazon.com/507-Mechanical-Movements- Mechanisms-D...](https://www.amazon.com/507-Mechanical-Movements-Mechanisms- Devices-ebook/dp/B008TVLYPC/)

<comment><USER29> The book is also well outside of its copyright:

[https://ia800205.us.archive.org/1/items/Mechanical_Movements...](https://ia800205.us.archive.org/1/items/Mechanical_Movements_507/Mechanical_Movements_507.pdf)

<comment><USER30> As a completely unrelated remark: it felt strange for me to see a so ancient text but without Yat[1] and hard signs[2] at end of the most words. You know, I've never seen so old english text, only russian ones. Typography is recognizably ancient, but where are those old letters. Cognitive dissonance as it is.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yat) [2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AA)

<comment><USER31> If you go back a bit further you start seeing some things like that in English, for instance the thorn[1] and a "long s"[2].

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorn_(letter)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorn_\(letter\))

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_s)

<comment><USER30> It is striking for me to see that alphabet might be changed without intervention of a state.

<comment><USER31> Here's the start of the Wycliffe Bible from the 14th century:

> In þe firſte made God of nouȝt heuene and erþe. Þe erþe forſoþe was veyn wiþ > ynne and void, and derkneſſis weren vpon þe face of þe ſee; and þe ſpiryt of > God was born vpon þe watrys. And God ſeide, Be maad liȝt; and maad is liȝt.

NIV Bible (20th century):

> In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was > formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the > Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, "Let there be > light," and there was light.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I like [http://507movements.com/mm_398.html](http://507movements.com/mm_398.html) which is a programmable drive system. Constant rotation input can give you a cyclic but irregular and arbitrary output movement.

Another good programmable mechanism is a spring made from sheet metal. Take a flat piece and cut a spiral with the width of the material proportional to the force you want at that part of the spring's travel. Stretch it out to form a little tower, with the base on a solid surface, and the load carried on the center of the spiral.

<comment><USER33> > _Constant rotation input can give you a cyclic but irregular and arbitrary > output movement._

Arthur Ganson has used that to make kinetic artworks:

[https://www.ted.com/talks/arthur_ganson_makes_moving_sculptu...](https://www.ted.com/talks/arthur_ganson_makes_moving_sculpture?language=en)

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> The book is a real joy

[https://www.amazon.com/507-Mechanical-Movements-Henry- Brown/...](https://www.amazon.com/507-Mechanical-Movements-Henry- Brown/dp/1614275181/)

<comment><USER35> The kindle edition [https://www.amazon.com/507-Mechanical-Movements- Mechanisms-D...](https://www.amazon.com/507-Mechanical-Movements-Mechanisms- Devices- ebook/dp/B008TVLYPC/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=507+Mechanical+Movements&qid=1558518166&s=gateway&sr=8-2)

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Does anyone have a good source for buying these types of odd parts?

Years ago there was a website called "smallparts.com" but this was bought out and no longer exists.

<comment><USER37> I don't remember exactly what SmallParts carried, but their closest competitor might be McMaster-Carr?

[https://www.mcmaster.com/](https://www.mcmaster.com/)

And SmallParts I think is now Amazon Supply or something, but dear god would I not trust Amazon for that sort of purchase. Especially PPE like allegedly 3M respirators. Who knows how much of this is counterfeit.

<comment><USER38> Small Parts used to be an indispensable source of well cataloged parts for my projects. They shipped quickly and reliably and had a nice parametric search system.

Sadly they were acquired by Amazon and effectively ruined. In theory Amazon sells the same parts but Amazon's search for specialized parts is dreadful, and when you find a part it's often out of stock or available with a long lead time from a dubious supplier.

To me Small Parts is the classic example of how Amazon is systematically stamping out smaller but better suppliers. I'm not sure why Amazon even needed to acquire them. They could have sold those types of parts anyway. I wonder if they simply wanted the smallparts.com url, which now leads to Amazon.

I should clarify why I liked Small Parts vs McMaster Carr: I'm in Canada and Small Parts would ship to Canada, but McMaster Carr would not ship here unless you had a business, but my work was for a hobby.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Given that these animations aren't interactive and run continuously as well as have a fixed resolution (I thought they were SVG at first, but zooming in disproves that), I feel like plain old GIFs would be far better for accessibility and maybe even bandwidth --- GIF's delta-frame encoding is surprisingly effective, especially for art like this.

<comment><USER7> s/accessibility/generic utility/ \- I'm not sure I understand why would one want to use Canvas and code the animations where a GIF would do. Only two reasons come to mind - maybe the future plan is to make them interactive, or maybe the authors found it easier to hand-code the animations rather than bothering with an animation editor.

<comment><USER16> The author is the same guy behind the animated engines site:

[http://www.animatedengines.com/](http://www.animatedengines.com/)

He explains how he did those animations:

[http://www.animatedengines.com/howto.html](http://www.animatedengines.com/howto.html)

Which was rather laborious; perhaps his CAD and programming knowledge made it so that creating a physical animation engine was easier than other methods?

Regardless, I wish he'd open source it; he mentions that he might - but it's been a few years now, so...

</comment></comment></comment><comment> gene-h There's also DMG-LIB[0] and KMODDL[1] which contain mechanism animations along with CAD models of some mechanisms. It's been mentioned before, but thang010146's youtube channel also has many of these mechanisms, sometimes they even have CAD models available of their models. I suspect that thang010146 might actually have the largest digital repository of mechanisms.

[0][https://www.dmg-lib.org/dmglib/main/portal.jsp](https://www.dmg- lib.org/dmglib/main/portal.jsp) [1][https://engineering.library.cornell.edu/kmoddl](https://engineering.library.cornell.edu/kmoddl) [2][https://www.youtube.com/user/thang010146](https://www.youtube.com/user/thang010146)

</comment><comment><USER40> > [http://507movements.com/mm_015.html](http://507movements.com/mm_015.html)

"Power as 1 to 7". I don't think so: the cable's tension is paralleled six ways against the load, so 6 times the force.

<comment><USER41> This is not a standard pully system.

<comment><USER40> There is only cable. Unless the pulleys are stuck due to friction, the tension is equal in all sections of the cable. The load is being lifted by six segments of the cable, so 6x the tension: the machine's advantage is 6x.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Those who find it interesting may also be interested to check out Polhem's mechanical alphabet [1], which was created nearly two centuries earlier. Fun fact: I learned about it from a Pettson and Findus tale I read to my children, and I was lucky enough to see parts of it in the museum in Stockholm [1] during last summer.

[1] [https://www.tekniskamuseet.se/en/learn-more/swedish- inventor...](https://www.tekniskamuseet.se/en/learn-more/swedish- inventors/christopher-polhem-the-mechanical-alphabet/)

</comment><comment><USER43> What a great project. I have a very similar book (1800 Mechanical Movements, Devices, and Appliances) and have a blast flipping through it. It is great to see the illustrations come alive. Great great job!

<comment><USER16> There are actually a great many of these "mechanical movement" books from that time period, circa 19th to early 20th century.

They are contemporary with similar books on "electrical machinery" (generators and motors, mainly), "steam engineering", "home and farm improvements/implements", and many other similar subjects.

Some were aimed at the professional engineer, while others were meant or accessible to the ordinary person with such interests or needs.

I enjoy discovering and adding these books to my collection when I can find them at used and antiquarian bookstores.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> #9 is basically a constant velocity transmission (CVT) that's used in many small cars these days (and motorscooters)

</comment><comment><USER23> A few months ago, this video [0] from the 30ies explaining a differential was posted on HN. It also is extremely interesting to watch. Minute 5 is very illuminating.

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYAw79386WI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYAw79386WI)

</comment><comment><USER45> This is wonderful, but I am a little disappointed that it wasn't about mechanical watch movements.

<comment><USER2> Have you seen [https://animagraffs.com/mechanical- watch/](https://animagraffs.com/mechanical-watch/) ?

<comment><USER45> No, thank you for that!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Also excellent, along the same lines:

Mechanisms and Mechanical Devices Sourcebook

[https://www.amazon.com/Mechanisms-Mechanical-Devices- Sourceb...](https://www.amazon.com/Mechanisms-Mechanical-Devices- Sourcebook-5th/dp/0071704426/)

</comment><comment><USER47> This is the only link I'm always happy to see resurface when posted here on HN. Every single time (maybe this is the 5-10th time?) I end up watching mesmerised for 50 movements or more.

</comment><comment><USER48> here is the index which describes high leverl what each movement is for.

[http://507movements.com/toc.html](http://507movements.com/toc.html)

</comment><comment><USER49> Used to work with Matt Keveney, the author. Pretty cool guy.

</comment><comment><USER50> Yet another site here: [https://www.mekanizmalar.com/](https://www.mekanizmalar.com/)

</comment><comment><USER51> This could be useful for design problems if they were cataloged or tagged, e.g. identifying input as rotary or rectilinear, and type of output.

</comment><comment><USER52> Curse you - I won't be able to get any work done today until I have seen all 507 of them :-)

</comment><comment><USER53> Anyone up for building all of them with legos and creating a museum of mechanical movements?

<comment><USER16> Some of them would be virtually impossible to build with Lego, as they rely upon machining just not really available in the Lego space (unless there's a wizard of Lego out there that could fashion such parts using certain strange Lego parts from certain sets, like the Bionicle series and such).

But a lot of the more basic mechanical movements could be easily constructed; those with simple pulleys, gears, levers, etc.

So you might not be able to construct all of them, but you probably could construct a great many.

<comment><USER53> We could 3D print some parts? Or scale up the whole thing to allow building complex parts from smaller LEGO pieces?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> I truly love it. Still, could be better with some SPA love.

</comment><comment><USER55> It's surprising that this crowd seems uninterested in the non-https status of the (otherhwise very cool) site. Have we decided it doesn't matter? No sarcasm intended. I'd really like to know.

<comment><USER56> HTTPS Everywhere is dumb security theater that desensitizes users to potential issues when it should otherwise matter.

When only important shit you _really_ wanted to encrypt was encrypted and you get a cert warning you took notice. Now one in 10 sites with an "easy/free ssl cert" that expired has normalized cert warnings on pages with cat pictures and bank sites alike.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> Best distraction ever. Thanks for sharing</comment>


Ask HN: What do you pay hourly customer support folks? - <AUTHOR>

I'm looking to add on part-time customer support for one of my projects. Is there a "going rate" for this type of work? The support person would be working from home (in the US), 1hr/day, answering customer account questions, monitoring Twitter, responding to other FAQ-style questions. They'd pass "too-difficult" questions up to me if necessary.<p>What's a reasonable amount? <comment><USER2> $10-$12/hour for someone competent but lacking in the way of relevant skills/experience.

<comment><USER2> s/relevant/specialized & relevant/</comment></comment>


FedEx Charged With Shipping Drugs For Illegal Online Pharmacies - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/07/17/332400444/fedex-charged-with-shipping-drugs-for-illegal-online-pharmacies?sc=tw <comment><USER2> This is stupid.

I've had severe asthma since I was a small child. It's hospitalized me a couple of times. I'm fairly healthy now, but I still try to keep a rescue inhaler within 20 minutes' reach all the time, because something might still trigger an asthma attack and it can get deadly really fast.

Those stupid inhalers have only gotten more expensive and more difficult to get over the years. Sans insurance, a few years ago I used OTC Primatine, which wasn't great, but mostly did the job. Then those were all banned in the U.S. because of the accelerant they used and nothing showed up to take their place. (Oh, except for homeopathic rescue inhalers, now sold on shelves at major drugstores throughout the U.S. -- so just to bruise this dead horse a little bit more, in the U.S. real emergency medication for a common medical condition is hard to get, but magic water for the same thing is available everywhere.)

After paying a visit to a doctor and going through the whole 20 minute interview and all that nonsense, I can be given a prescription for a $70 inhaler.

 _Or_ , knowing exactly what I need, I could order it from a Canadian pharmacy where the cost of exactly the same inhaler _is less than the cost of shipping_.

$70 and a doctor's visit isn't a big deal for me anymore. But a few years ago it was, and it still is for an awful lot of people.

<comment><USER3> Asthamtic here; I feel ya. However, I can also walk into a pharmacy here (Ireland) and explain to them that I'm an asthmatic, and need a releiver inhaler. They will give an "emergency" inhaler, (same inhaler, no questions asked) over the counter and ask me nicely to go to the doctor for the next one.

You're probably an edge case. The vast majority of people who are ordering from online pharmacies are doing so because they think they know what they're doing, and because they feel X or Y, they should take Z. This isn't really a problem with inhalers per se, because the amount of them you are required to ingest is actually pretty damn high before you are in any danger, but for stuff like prescription painkillers, people are self medicating and avoiding doctors visits for issues that they should be seeing a professional for.

<comment><USER2> I tried the pharmacy counter approach once at several pharmacies, they wouldn't do anything without a prescription from a doctor. In the U.S., asthma inhalers are used by a few silly teenagers to get "high" (for those without asthma: effective rescue inhalers are corticosteroids that as a side effect also accelerate your heart rate). The reaction in the U.S. of course has been to make the rescue inhalers difficult to get for the ~25 million people in the country with the condition.

I would want to see some estimates on how many people are actually abusing online pharmacies to harm themselves or others vs. people using them legitimately to get medication that's otherwise unavailable or too expensive locally. I know at least a couple of women that use them for birth control, because there's a product available that way that isn't available in the U.S., that has less of a hormonal impact than the usual stuff. (I don't know the name of the product or anything else about it, though.)

As far as abuse goes, I suspect that abuse of ADHD drugs might be somewhat common, and I'd bet there are at least a few on HN doing that (because it's been discussed before), and honestly I find it difficult to care at all about that kind of abuse.

I don't think that further removing access to affordable medication is the right way to get people to see a doctor.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> From an internal memo about more stringent credit policies for internet pharmacies: "Many of these companies operate outside of federal and state regulations over the sale of controlled drugs, which require diagnosis and prescription by a licensed physician. Drugs purchased from these sites may be diluted or counterfeit."

To believe that FedEx lacked knowledge of illegal activity, one must believe that they assumed some of these pharmacies were genuine and that while it was feasible to create special policies to ensure FedEx was paid, policies to verify the organizations legitimacy (which would also increase the chance of them being paid), were impractical. However, that will be difficult because one executive told another that: "...these types of accounts will _always_ result in a loss at some point. They have a very short lifespan and will eventually be shut down by the DEA." (emphasis added)

They certainly can't argue, as many others in this thread have, that the companies weren't identifiable: They were doing it to enforce this policy. The credit department maintained a list of pharmacies that, at one time, had 600 entries on it.

<comment><USER5> Based solely on your quotations, I would use the following analogy:

Suppose you like to buy and sell bags full of chocolate eggs. You know from past experience that roughly 10% of the foil-wrapped eggs are spoiled, but the only way of knowing _which_ 10% of the foil-wrapped eggs is to cut them all open, which would be uneconomical _and_ destroy the entire value of the product.

So maybe FedEx knew that P(illegal|pharmacy) was greater than P(illegal), but that P(illegal|pharmacy) was still too low compared to P(pharmacy) to justify shutting down all pharmacies.

<comment><USER4> Always is an odd characterization of something that occurs 10% of the time.

Edit to respond to comment: The context is a an executive talking about whether accounts that FedEx classifies as internet pharmacies should be counted towards sales goals used for bonuses. That means they could classify new accounts as belonging to this group or not. It's worth noting that their definition is likely not synonymous with the plain meaning of internet pharmacy. Rather it means that subset that they expect the DEA will put out of business. I'm sure Caremark isn't excluded from normal sales metrics and subjected to extraordinary credit requirements.

<comment><USER5> "Always" could be referring to the x% subset. Does the context of the quote say which interpretation is correct?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The DEA wants to be able to inspect these packages, under the guise of catching drugs. They ask FedEx, let us just come in and open what we want, and they said fuck off.

So now the theory is, just prosecute FedEx for not being law enforcement. FedEx has two choices; fight a costly battle and possibly lose, or settle the charges in exchange for letting the DEA run hog wild.

Putting on the squeeze.

<comment><USER7> And everyone starts using another carrier.

<comment><USER6> It seems like all the major carriers cooperate to some degree. This is an interesting article from back in 2012, with many good quotes from UPS/DHL/FedEx: [http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/11/16/183045/99/crimenews...](http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/11/16/183045/99/crimenews/DEA- vs-Fedex-and-UPS-Why-a-Criminal-Probe-)

The parts about opening up direct database access to law enforcement was disappointing but not surprising.

USPS in theory actually provides better protection because US mail has stronger legal protections than handing your package off to a private entity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It'd be one thing if people were mailing stinky weed and FedEx were turning a blind eye, but how are they supposed to check every package for substances / make sure every recipient has a prescription for controlled ones?

<comment><USER9> The part about setting up special credit policies for these pharmacies so that FedEx wouldn't lose money when said pharmacies were shut down is pretty clear that they knew there was something wrong, but they turned a blind eye anyway.

<comment><USER10> That's actually pretty standard when dealing with _any_ small business. So I wouldn't say that argument has any weight.

<comment><USER11> If FedEx is signing up these businesses under special terms like this (even if they are the same ones used for legitimate businesses), it would seem (from the outside) like they were looking closely enough at the business to recognize that something was fishy.

This is different than if FedEx was just accepting packages regularly from someone that kept dropping by at the local FedEx b&m store.

I don't have the full story, so I'll I can do is say that it raises the likelihood (even just a little bit) that FedEx could have known. I guess one of the relevant questions to ask would be: "Is it standard for FedEx to be so hands-off when signing these businesses up that they have no clue what the business even does?"

<comment><USER5> _" Is it standard for FedEx to be so hands-off when signing these businesses up that they have no clue what the business even does?"_

As far as I'm concerned it certainly should be. Is it next going to be illegal to sell snack foods to someone with munchies? Let the police be the police.

<comment><USER11> I'm not saying how anything _should_ be. These types of deals are risk- management for FedEx. It seems highly unlikely that FedEx did no homework on businesses that it was entering into risk-management deals with.

> Is it next going to be illegal to sell snack foods to someone with munchies?

Why do you feel the need to trot out strawmen already?

I was just saying that FedEx entering into such agreements just increases the _likelihood_ that they knew _something_. I didn't even say by how much. I definitely said nothing about whether they should be criminally or civilly liable for anything. The question that you posted wasn't even meant to be rhetorical. I was actually raising the question because it's relevant information.

I'm basically siding with no one here, and just making passing observations. It would be nice to not be attacked for it.

[Edit: I guess I should add that the 'something' they might have known need not have been actionable information, or even information that makes them liable for anything. I'm just stating that it makes them more involved with said companies than, say, me if I ship a package from a FedEx store. FedEx, for example, probably knows about their revenue and shipping logistics to be able to evaluate their risk-management formulas...]

<comment><USER5> I didn't intend my comment as a personal attack, or even a direct reply. So I apologize that my wording gave that impression.

However, I stand by my position that it shouldn't matter what FedEx knows or "could/should have known." FedEx is not the police. I also stand by my slippery slope straw man, because history has already shown that this type of expansion of civilian liability and law enforcement powers doesn't have an end goal. There is no "enough."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> While I understand this is a (unsolvable?) problem, a bunch of cowboys from the DEA throwing their weight around is a terrible outcome. The last thing anyone needs right now is more regulation around core economic activities like shipping and e-commerce.

<comment><USER13> This is one way that the government forces businesses into law enforcement. Look for a settlement that has FedEx reducing anonymity, snooping in packages, and snitch...er, disclosing evidence to proper LEOs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> It's frustrating that there's no link to the actual indictment. I want to form my own opinion, not have it formed by a news article.

<comment><USER15> Here you go: [https://consumermediallc.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/fedex-i...](https://consumermediallc.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/fedex- indictment-july-17-2014.pdf) [1]

[1] [http://consumerist.com/2014/07/17/fedex-indicted-for- shippin...](http://consumerist.com/2014/07/17/fedex-indicted-for-shipping- drugs-for-illegal-pharmacies-denies-allegations/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Federal Highway Administration shares some responsibility in this, as well.

<comment><USER17> This made me chuckle, because now I'm imagining that all taxpayers could also be considered partially responsible. We send money that is used on road improvements and projects and therefore critical to the transportation of controlled substances!

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> A couple of days ago one of my kids asked me I could give an example of something that was illegal but not immoral. We had a nice conversation working through the difference between the two. It was interesting to break things down into categories of:

1\. Immoral and should be illegal.

2\. Immoral but shouldn't be illegal.

3\. Moral but should be illegal.

4\. Moral and shouldn't be illegal.

Stories like this seem to me to be category 4 but I can understand how some people may see it as a 1.

<comment><USER19> I'd be interested to hear more about category 3.

<comment><USER20> The two examples most familiar to me are the Jean Valjean scenario (stealing for survival) and the Jack Bauer scenario (coercion or torture to save lives).

In both cases, there's an argument that the underlying activity (theft, torture) should remain illegal. It would be difficult or impossible to codify all the permissible extenuating circumstances, and leaving the question open- ended and letting it be decided in court would be a disaster, much worse than existing carve-outs like self defense as an excuse for homicide (which is itself kind of a mess, legally).

Certain dour strains of penal theory would argue that the 'virtuous criminal' still requires equal punishment (Chinese legalism, for example), but I think the more popular stance in the modern day is that judges and state executives (governors, presidents) should have the option of leniency. This takes the fate of Jean Valjean outside the sphere of law and exposes it to popular opinion -- an unreasonable act of clemency would be faced with blowback (just ask Mike Huckabee).

<comment><USER5> _...the Jack Bauer scenario..._

I find 24 to be much more interesting when I view Bauer as a second villain, rather than the unquestionable hero as it seems he's portrayed.

<comment><USER21> Indeed, the series is far more enjoyable if you picture Bauer as the pawn of an elusive cryptoregime furthering its dark agenda. Lots of things work better that way. I kept waiting for the character in the video game "Splinter Cell" to figure out that he was being played by global corporatist puppetmasters, but unfortunately the plot never got there.

<comment><USER22> _I kept waiting for the character in the video game "Splinter Cell" to figure out that he was being played by global corporatist puppetmasters, but unfortunately the plot never got there._

Brilliant idea for a community remake or mod!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Surely some form of "common carrier" applies. Otherwise innocent service has no reason/obligation/expectation to evaluate what they're transporting (be it data or products), and short of the gratuitously obvious/heinous has no responsibility for anything other than successful delivery.

<comment><USER24> _Surely some form of "common carrier" applies._

I'm not sure what you mean by that. (I'm not sure if you are writing as a lawyer, or as a member of the general public.) I remember attending a trial in the late 1980s in which a UPS driver testified that he discovered an illegal drug shipment because he thought the shipment looked funny and he opened up the package. Further testimony at that trial disclosed what we should all know if we read the fine print of our contracts with common carriers like UPS or FedEx: the carrier has the right to open any package for any reason or no reason at all (in the interest of the safety of the carrier's employees, safety both from actual physical danger and safety from legal liability). The person who delivers packages to your door through the service of one of those companies can do a lot by way of inspecting those packages before delivering them to you, unless something very radical has changed about those contracts in the years since I heard that trial. (Does anyone here on HN have a full standard form contract of carriage from FedEx to post here for us to check the current wording?)

AFTER EDIT: Of course I found this myself with a very easy Google search. FedEx's standard terms and conditions include:

"9\. Right to inspect. FedEx may inspect the shipment at any time and may permit government authorities to carry out such inspections as they may consider appropriate. FedEx, in addition, may reject or suspend the carriage of any prohibited items or one that contains materials that damage or may damage other shipments or that may constitute a risk to FedEx equipment or employees or to those of its service providers."

[http://www.fedex.com/mx_english/services/nacional_terms.html](http://www.fedex.com/mx_english/services/nacional_terms.html)

<comment><USER14> FedEx may have the right to open a package, but do they have the obligation?

I think the government's stronger case is that FedEx maintained a special credit policy specifically for online drug pharmacies who were at risk of being shut down by the DEA.

One important question that I don't know the answer to: Are any online pharmacies legal in the US? If they're unilaterally illegal in the US, and FedEx had a special credit policy for online drug pharmacies, then it would seem to be straightforward to prove they were knowingly shipping controlled substances. If some online pharmacies are legal, and FedEx was maintaining special relationships with online pharmacies, then was FedEx required to verify that those weren't conducting illegal activity?

I don't like that the government is forcing its citizens who are running private businesses to be concerned with whether their business is being used as an accessory by drug dealers. The government should go after the source: the dealers. But in this case, FedEx was making a lot of money (enough to noticeably affect revenue) by knowingly acting as a conduit.

<comment><USER25> Shipping prescription drugs via mail is legal in the US, though it obviously isnt legal to sell them without a prescription. Not sure how the law applies if the pharmacy is in a foreign country, or if the drugs are scheduled, though.

<comment><USER26> And, in case anyone missed it, there are things that are OTC here in Canada that are Schedule III in the US. My personal favourite is what is variously called AC&C or 222, a tablet containing 375mg ASA, 15mg caffeine and 8mg codeine phosphate — perhaps the best safe combination for occasional migraine- type headaches. (You need to register and sign for them in Quebec, a measure that's intended to prevent bulk purchases, but you're on your own say-so elsewhere; you merely need to ask at the pharmacy counter and they'll give you the safety drill if you're a first-timer.) Useful damned things to have around if you're susceptible. But totally illegal to have without a scrip in the States.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> This is insane. We need to end the drug war.

<comment><USER28> This isn't even the drug war. It's middle aged men buying Viagra from pharmacies in India. I'm probably a minority, but I would prefer to sign a waiver and then buy my own drugs. Rather than have to pay a doctor to prescribe me something I already know I need. I'm insulin dependent, and monitor my blood sugar regularly, and will continue to do so for the rest of my life. I know far more about how my body reacts to insulin than the doctors do. I should be able to buy it without a prescription. True story: 8 years ago I was hospitalized for several months due to a bad motorcycle accident. The doctors kept prescribing me insulin that I told them was too much, and badly timed for me, but the did anyway. After a week it compounded, until my blood sugar was in the high 20s (coma territory.) of course because I was bedridden and doped up on Demerol I couldn't feel the signs of hypoglycemia. After that they relented and told the nurses to (within a wide range) administer the amount I asked for.

<comment><USER29> They didn't check your blood sugar while busy giving you this? Jesus, which country was this?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Shoot the messenger much</comment>


Ask HN:Max age for YC program application - <AUTHOR>

I have an idea for a mobile app,my age is 29.Is it acceptable? <comment><USER2> Of course. There is no age limit at YC (that I know of!).</comment>


Nothing to worry about, just mutant fruit flies invented by a neural network - <AUTHOR> https://aiweirdness.com/post/186072231337/nothing-to-worry-about-just-mutant-fruit-flies <comment><AUTHOR> It's scary how easily GPT-2 slips into writing absurdist humor.

I used to be able to tell pretty easily when people were making up "an AI wrote this" stories and jokes because they were absurd but made too much sense. A context was held for too long. But this is starting to push it into the realm of possibility.</comment>


John Carmack Doom3 Source Code Interviews - <AUTHOR> http://fabiensanglard.net/doom3/interviews.php <comment><USER2> It's funny - reading through some of these interviews he seems like someone fairly easy to work with. I always imagined him to be like a typical rockstar, but he presents himself rather humble and introspective.</comment>


Infinity Computer - <AUTHOR> http://www.theinfinitycomputer.com/arithmetic.html <comment><USER2> (At least somewhat) related: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_number](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_number), [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_differentiation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_differentiation)

</comment><comment><USER3> Any recommendation on where to start looking?

The site has the link to buy the book, links to various articles (although some of them seem to just be applications of the theory) and names of presentations. I have no idea where to look first.

<comment><AUTHOR> Some of the selected papers might help:

[http://www.theinfinitycomputer.com/The_second_paper_to_read_...](http://www.theinfinitycomputer.com/The_second_paper_to_read_\(Lagrange_Lecture\).pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm sure this is would be pretty cool, but I can't help but instinctively close it because the layout, colors, etc. look so much like that of a turn-of- the-millennium site to buy fake "male enhancement" pills from some guy's basement in Kazakhstan.

</comment><comment><USER5> The font used is very difficult to read naturally (blurred edges) which stopped me from making any significant progress within the game. I understand it's going for the Monochrome look and I like the authenticity although it takes away from the experience.

I'm a big fan of text based adventure games, I will definitely be giving this one a go if the legibility is sorted.

<comment><USER6> Meant to post here? [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7882179](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7882179)

<comment><AUTHOR> probably not, but the comment did make me laugh</comment></comment></comment>


Terminal cancer patients in complete remission after one gene therapy treatment - <AUTHOR> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/02/28/terminal-cancer-patients-complete-remission-one-gene-therapy/ <comment><AUTHOR> Direct link to their press release: [http://ir.kitepharma.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=1014817](http://ir.kitepharma.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=1014817)</comment>