Motel 6 to Pay $12M after Improperly Giving Guest Lists to ICE - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/2019/04/05/710137783/motel-6-to-pay-12-million-after-improperly-giving-guest-lists-to-ice <comment><USER2> This is... strange.

When the federal government comes asking for your help, I think it's pretty normal for people to provide that help.

In a just world, if the government asks for something inappropriately, then the party at fault is the government. (In other words, Washington should sue ICE, not Motel 6.)

If we want companies to require a subpoena to share information with the federal government (and personally _I do want that_ ) then we should set that standard in law. And we should enforce it fairly, not based on the hot political topic of the day. (How much information does the CIA and FBI vacuum up from Washington telcos in a day in violation of this law, and why isn't anyone held to task? Maybe because they have better lawyers than Motel 6.)

Helping the federal government do its job and then getting sued by the state seems like mom getting mad at you for doing what dad asked you to.

<comment><USER3> Isn't it your duty to protect the privacy of your data and your customers regardless of who is requesting data? I thought companies like Twitter and Google routinely rebuffed requests for information from government agencies and opposed restrictive rules, e.g. in China, and are praised for it. The concept of resisting government requests for information is well established.

If the police called and asked for my customer list, I'd check whether they had that authority and many other issues before turning it over. I think we had an article on here earlier about 'second order thinking' that would cover that... getting an invasive request from the government, and fulfilling it regardless of consequences because you want to 'help' or consider them to be like Mom and Dad is first order thinking.

I'm no expert, but it seems increasingly common to have state laws that oppose or are stricter than federal laws, and you do have to be aware of all laws for your jurisdiction down to the county and city. Especially in any voluntary action, you have to consider whether it violates other laws or duties, and if they weren't legally compelled to do this t was voluntary.

<comment><USER4> > The concept of resisting government requests for information is well > established.

Well established for whom? For many poor Americans, the thought of resisting a local PD seems impossible, let alone a federal agent who comes knocking. Try to imagine being on your night shift at a rural Motel 6 when a few strange individuals start waving badges, making requests, maybe threatening to escalate things if you don't play along. Maybe you would have the courage to stand up to them, but I think a lot of people would fall to the pressure and abide by the request. One big difference is privilege.

I believe ICE should be responsible for illegally attaining this information. They should also bear the cost of educating the Motel 6 workforce on their rights to resist requests from law enforcement agencies.

<comment><USER3> Well established for companies who safeguard vast amounts of consumer data such as google and twitter, as I said.

Right, 'The hotel said at the time that the practice was implemented "at the local level without the knowledge of senior management."'

Obviously, if you are working at a motel and law enforcement enters and start demanding things, you -contact your supervisors-. Not sure how 'privilege' is involved, other than having the education or training to understand this. It's possible that the individuals involved at the motel were not coerced and participated enthusiastically.

Of course ICE should also be obligated to follow the law and not encourage others to break it. However, it's up to Motel 6 to train their employees, protect customers' privacy and enforce their own policies.

<comment><USER5> It's hard to keep up with laws. ICE is very much a bully, just like TSA is. They can make your life miserable for a while until you get yourself a lawyer (which most people can't afford, and can't lose time).

But then who's gonna police the police ?

<comment><USER3> It would be interesting to know how ICE obtained it. Did they, in fact, threaten or trick the motel staff or management? I would think that the staff is not personally in legal jeopardy from refusing to comply. I think most people would know that, too. Passing it on to higher-ups would surely be proper corporate protocol, and wouldn't they be the ones to suffer legal jeopardy or harassment, not Joe Night Clerk?

Edit: checked into this. An older story has more details [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post- nation/wp/2018/01/0...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post- nation/wp/2018/01/03/motel-6-gave-guest-lists-to-ice-agents-looking-for- latino-sounding-names-lawsuit-alleges/)

"ICE agents, who are tasked with arresting people who are not legal residents for deportation, would be given a guest list from the hotel's receptionist, along with a form to sign confirming the lists' receipt. The roster included information such as guests' driver's license number, room number, date of birth and license plate number."

an article linked within the earlier one says even more. [https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/motel-6-calling-ice- und...](https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/motel-6-calling-ice-undocumented- guests-phoenix-immigration-lawyers-9683244) It appears to be a voluntary practice and they may even sell/be compensated for the list by ICE.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Why would ICE run "latino-sounding" names through and not just _all_ names through whatever ICE database they're cross-referencing? Did they get a 10,000 page print out instead of a spreadsheet file? (why not Scan + OCR + cross reference with database - would be way faster)

Just seems like ICE employees are only targeting latinos... intentionally. And that's the most bothering part of this to me. We're cool with Swedes overstaying their welcome...

<comment><USER7> Well anyone who has dealt with ICE, Border Patrol this does not even remotely surprise me. I had a French-American friend who went to France without his daughter's American passport. When he returned back the Agent did not even ask to see the little girls passport.

Had this guy been Latino he would be called a child smuggler.

<comment><USER8> Strange stuff happens when exiting France when you're not white too. I was in line at the exit control, and the black family ahead of me had issues because they couldn't provide the passport they entered the country with (they came for renewal of their French passport, the Prefecture had it, they were exiting on their Canadian passport). I was completely baffled at the policeman harassing freaking Canadian citizens exiting the country.

<comment><USER9> The passport control officers were probably upset/suspicious because they couldn't establish when the family entered the country (or schengen zone), and thus couldn't confirm that they hadn't overstayed.

From the officer's perspective, here's this Canadian with no entry stamp in their passport. One would assume that the usual procedure for expats to renew their passport is to do it through the embassy or consulate in their country of residence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > "Motel 6's actions tore families apart and violated the privacy rights of > tens of thousands of Washingtonians,"

What? I'm pretty sure ICE's actions were what tore those families apart. Why aren't they being punished for illegally requesting the data without a warrant? Maybe the Motel 6 employees who wrongfully gave the data felt pressured, given that ICE is a government agency just like the DOJ?

<comment><USER11> How was it illegal for ICE to request the data? It certainly wasn't ethical, but what is right and what is legal are not the same thing. Hell it sounds like the only law broken according to the article was a Washington State consumer protection law. Hence the settlement is against Motel 6 and not against ICE.

<comment><USER12> Part of the trouble is ICE's "requests" are not always purported as requests.

See recent attempt in New York by ICE agent that he had a legally enforceable warrant and that his goal of detaining a vehicle occupant was not simply a request. [1]

The ICE officer in this case even quotes a statute that implied the driver might face penalties for not complying with the officer's demands.

Given this behavior, I wonder what the Washington state ICE agents' conversations with the motel employees were like.

This is not the only concerning incident with ICE in Washington state, recently ICE officers boarded a Greyhound bus and demanded a Portland-based comedian and grantee of legal US asylum come off the bus and forced him to show papers. [2]

This one struck home for me because I had seen one of this comedian's performances (an act which includes discussion of race and nationalism issues) not far from where I live a week prior.

The pattern of behavior from ICE is deeply upsetting.

[1] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/03/29/an- activist...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/03/29/an-activist- used-legal-argument-stop-an-ice-arrest-he-says-others-should-do- same/?utm_term=.b1ddb0db433d)

[2] [https://www.oregonlive.com/today/2019/01/portland- comedian-s...](https://www.oregonlive.com/today/2019/01/portland-comedian- stopped-by-border-patrol-says-he-felt-dehumanized.html)

<comment><USER13> If ICE had compelled Motel 6 to hand over the lists, that would be a very different thing and we would be having a very different conversation.

But that's not what happened, and let's not pretend like that is what happened.

ICE asked nicely, expecting to be turned down by Motel 6 like most other hotel chains did. But Motel 6 went along with the request _without any sort of coercion_ and in fact in violation of local consumer protection laws prohibiting such data release absent a countervailing legal requirement (such as a subpoena) requiring them to turn over such information.

<comment><USER14> Do we know how ICE asked for these records? Because, from everything else I've ever seen about law enforcement making such requests, there's nothing nice about it, and there's everything coercive about it.

And it's a scary kind of coercion because they do have the force of the state backing them up, in a way that plays on our built-in desire to please authority, built-in desire to not rock the boat, and built-in fear of consequences of the crushing weight of the state pummeling down on us.

People generally regard law enforcement with a mix of fear and antipathy, because we know that, despite the checks and balances that exist, they can ruin lives and face no consequence for doing so.

So when ICE comes and asks, however nicely they may actually phrase it (though I don't expect they said "please" and "thank you,"), they're also coming at these hoteliers with a very big stick.

It's just shitty that the hoteliers did, in fact, cave and hand over this data.

<comment><USER15> This isn't like it was just people caving to law enforcement in the moment, it was codified Motel 6 policy:

> 4.3 ICE's usual practice was to come to Motel 6's reception desk and request > the guest list from the receptionist. The receptionist would print out the > guest list and give it to the ICE agent, along with a "law enforcement > acknowledgment form" for the agent to sign, acknowledging receipt of the > guest list. The ICE agent would review the guest list and identify > individuals of interest to ICE.

<comment><USER10> This could just mean that it was the management that was pressured and not the receptionists.

I just don't see any other reason why they might willingly endanger their business and customers for absolutely no benefit to themselves, besides governmental pressure.

<comment><USER13> Please do some more research before you keep throwing out hypothetical complaints about something that didn't happen.

Motel 6 didn't just go along with ICE's request, per the complaint, Motel6 actually trained their employees to turn over such information even before ICE came calling.

The reason? Motel 6 is owned by the Blackstone Group. Most of the directors and executives of the Blackstone Group are die-hard Trump supporters and have espoused hard-line views on immigration. The benefit to themselves was supporting their president's policies.

<comment><USER10> > The benefit to themselves was supporting their president's policies.

Interesting, well if that was the motive then I certainly can't have any sympathy for Motel 6 here. But I still believe that it is unfair for ICE to go without penalty, whether or not the law addresses this situation.

> per the complaint, Motel6 actually trained their employees to turn over such > information even before ICE came calling.

It's not clear to me from the complaint that Motel 6 trained their employees as such prior to any communication from ICE. Your explanation regarding their republican alignment does make sense, but I'm not sure this specific point is accurate.

> Please do some more research before you keep throwing out hypothetical > complaints about something that didn't happen.

This is a forum for discussion. It's not Snopes. I just want to share my layperson's opinions and also hear your (and others) expert feedback about them. By the way, I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my comments.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Selling you minute by minute geolocation from your phone: Acceptable. Credit card companies and retail companies selling your purchasing history: Acceptable. States selling license data and even your license photo: Acceptable. Municipalities selling property tax information to anyone: Acceptable. Unicorn companies monitoring your every move and everything you do on the internet: Acceptable.

Motel 6 employees giving registration information to law enforcement for free: NOT OK.

</comment><comment><USER17> Only as a data point for comparison, here in Italy (due to a Law originally established in the '70's for counter-terrorism purposes) when you check in (in a hotel, B&B and similar[0]) you need a valid document and you are registered (name, surname, date and place of birth, current address and type and number of document) and this info is sent (nowadays electronically) to the Police within 24 hours.

[0] a recent extension to the Law now requires the same also for the "short rentals" which then include also all AirBnb and similar

<comment><USER18> Yeah, we're ostensibly not big on that kind of surveillance here.

<comment><USER19> We run it unregulated in the private sector instead.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I can't believe the number of people who are defending Motel 6 here. Anyone who works for a mid-large sized company in certain departments will know that government agencies and police departments are _always_ asking for stuff. It is not illegal for them to do so. The correct answer to 99% of these requests is "this is confidential/proprietary information" or "come back with a warrant". There is zero excuse to do anything illegal because someone official-sounding asked you to do it.

<comment><USER21> It is the norm in many industries to cooperate with any law enforcement request received. In some, doing so is the only way to avoid being named a defendant in your customer's unlawful actions (or being hit with fines for violating an endless list of regulations that are violated by everyone in your industry and effectively impossible to not violate).

So you may be seeing some amount of guilty consciences here...

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'm really surprised at the amount of people defending the actions of ICE and Motel 6 in this instance. ICE has clearly demonstrated tactics that are anti- immigrant (legal or otherwise).

How quick some are to forget the importance of immigration in the startup community!

<comment><USER23> You can support immigration in the startup community but not support illegal immigration. Of course ICE is going to target illegal immigrants; it's part of their mandate. This doesn't excuse ICE exceeding their authority, which requires a patch via legislation.

China, India, Canada, and Mexico (countries with large populations and those that border the US) would all give me the boot if I tried to illegally immigrate there (and rightfully so). Sovereignty and the rule of law are important.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I can see a day where every guest of every hotel in every country is photographed and submitted to the government for things like warrants and visa status. It could happen seamlessly at check in rather than randomly pulling records in bulk after the fact.

<comment><USER25> Something similar happens in China already. Any place you stay as a visitor (whether a hotel or a guest house) your passport is scanned and submitted to the police. If you don't check in within 24 hours, they may come looking for you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Good, hopefully this deters others

<comment><USER27> I, too, hope this will deter other companies from illegally handing over the customers' data for frivolous fishing expeditions by law enforcement.

<comment><USER28> Is GP getting downvoted because we're assuming this isn't what they meant?

<comment><USER27> That was my reading of it, but on second thought it's almost perfectly ambiguous.

There's a certain glibness about it that fits better with the malevolent interpretation. Plus hoping for a fine to serve as an example seems just too obvious to merit writing it down?

It's almost a work of art. Or maybe a Rorschach test. Will the internet interpret your statements in the best or worst possible light?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> > Motel 6 also has signed a legally binding commitment to no longer share > guest information without a warrant at any of its locations nationwide

That's convenient. They've made other agreements with police departments to provide guest information at particular locations. This sounds like a way to prevent being subject to such shenanigans.

</comment><comment><USER30> Putting aside the fact that companies can definitely challenge these requests... What tech stack is ICE storing and managing all of this data with that companies keep handing over to them?

</comment><comment><USER31> $12M plus roughly a few hundred since I will never ever stay in a Motel 6 or invest in anything Blackstone Group ever again. Even if they leave every freaking light on.

</comment><comment><USER32> This settlement seems grossly inappropriate. It seems very likely that this practice, which lead to deportations, caused far more than $12 million in damages.

</comment><comment><USER33> The government told Motel 6 to comply with a request and then the government sues Motel 6 for complying with the request.

Sounds like par for the course to me!</comment>


Waterloo chemists create faster and more efficient way to process information - <AUTHOR> https://uwaterloo.ca/news/news/waterloo-chemists-create-faster-and-more-efficient-way <comment><USER2> Paper at [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41565-018-0096-0](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41565-018-0096-0)</comment>


Microsoft to Linux faithful: Send us your resumes - <AUTHOR> http://www.zdnet.com/article/mark-russinovich-the-microsoft-azure-cloud-and-open-source/ <comment><USER2> "Works with Linux For Sure." ™</comment>


I changed my opinion on Color after seeing this Interview with Bill Nguyen - <AUTHOR> http://arnorhs.com/2011/03/30/i-changed-my-opinion-after-seeing-this-interview-with-colors-ceo-bill-nguyen/

<comment><USER2> There is a really simple solution to the problem that color tries to solve: Put your phone away, go to the group of people you want to interact with and say Hello. This is something that can be practiced and improved over time. You might feel like an idiot for the first 5 times or 10 times. Or even 50 times. Who cares? I can go up to anyone and talk to them, so can you. It's a matter of practice.

Hiding behind a stupid app that lets you see pictures of the people around you doesn't solve the problem of social interaction in any way, because you are still separated from them until you walk up and say Hi. What the app really does is make you complacent in your comfort zone.

It's kind of funny that the author talks about proximity, since proximity truly benefits the most of having real people around you and interacting with them in the good old fashioned way. Talking to the guys, flirting a bit with the ladies. There is really no need for an additional layer of abstraction (like the Color app).

<comment><USER3> I think they're trying to enable "introverts," give them confidence and an icebreaker to approach people around them. Your solution, "put away your phone" is easier said than done, especially for introverts. Personally I hate being glued to my phone in public as many people are, because it reminds me of how far apart people are by using their phone as a crutch to not interact.

Its hard to predict how color might affect an outdoor street atmosphere, but their goals are admirable.

<comment><USER4> Introvert and social recluse are not the same thing.

I'm an extrovert (happy speaking publicly, I think out loud and so on) but not by nature particularly sociable. At least one good friend is the opposite.

Introversion / extroversion is a way of interacting and thinking, not a measure of desire to interact with people socially.

<comment><USER5> You are correct that being introverted and a social recluse are not the same thing.

Extroversion is the characteristic of being outgoing and comfortable in social interactions. It has _nothing_ to do with speaking publicly which is more about controlling performance anxiety, many actors and other performers are introverted in private life.

People who self declare to be "not by nature particularly sociable" may be introverts, some of them may be social recluses, what they aren't is extrovert.

<comment><USER4> I agree with the speaking in public, that's a bad example.

But in terms of people who self declare themselves "not by nature particularly sociable" not being extroverted, I disagree and offer myself up as an example.

I am an extrovert. Psychological testing confirms this (and I'm a strong extrovert, not just marginal and this has been tested more than once) and no- one who has ever met me or worked with me would suggest anything else.

But I am also not by nature particularly sociable. I am an only child and by default prefer my own company (or that of a small number of close, established friends). I could happily spend days on end alone and often turn down the chance to go out because I don't particularly like the experience.

Extroversion is a way of thinking. While it may correlate with sociability, being an extrovert and being anti-sociable are in no way mutually exclusive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> If you have ever worked with GPS you would know that it is terrible in near- field applications. for eg. you can't pin a user to an exact location, let alone which floor of a building they are on. Color's attempt to solve this problem by using bluetooth, image recognition, the microphone etc. is very important.

That alone could be a killer application.

Thinking back at the Color launch, I don't know what they could have done different. They had a lot of coverage, but the lead story was criticism over the amount of money raised.

This leads me to think that the startup and tech audience today is a lot more pessimistic when fundraising is involved. Only a few years ago raising $41M from Sequoia would get a lot of positive attention. It would be something that every entrepreneur would loved to shout from the rooftops. The lead story would be 'there must be something interesting here' as opposed to 'wtf are they smoking'.

The attitude may have changed because of the financial crisis, or general pessimism, or because the audience is expecting every startup now to be bootstrapped and funded with $10k.

Color did find themselves in a tough situation with a reaction that they likely didn't foresee. I wish some of the initial coverage was in-depth and analytical as some of the follow-up coverage has been. The entire point of pre-briefing and embargo's is supposed to be to avoid the rash quick judgement.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, Color's technology is impressive. Especially if it can detect which floor you're on etc..

I'm betting they have some hidden tech or application or some sort of insight which causes the valuation. It's also very possible that Sequoia just really wanted to get into the space and just needed a team to team up with and make something epic.

Time will tell

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Most of the time when I would use such an app the people locally around me are not connected to me in any way - like in a bar or a cafe.

Will a social recluse build the next social network? It seems a bit counter intuitive, but then it's supposed to have worked for Mark Zuckerberg. Certainly a lot of people would appreciate networking without investing any work. No more "become my friend" button - just stand next to somebody and kaboom, you have a new friend.

<comment><USER8> _Will a social recluse build the next social network?_

Quite possibly, if only to mop up the "long tail" left by Facebook.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think the average person just flipped at the moment they saw the big 42 beside a new software they have never seen. I'm pretty sure if we would have seen the Color app and idea by its own, we would have taken much more time to investigate the story and potencial of the app rather than the reason of funding.

</comment><comment><USER10> May be i am wrong. But I think that pr funding news will kill early adopters. Gmail, facebook, twitter early adopters in the most active parts are geeks. Geeks love cool and new ideas. But when you know that millions are put on the stake, that will encourage not to use their product. For tech audience stakes are high and i cannot imagine pressure in colors ofise:) Everyone will expect kind of "magic". The first product iteration is not enough polished to justify prelaunch money. After seeing interview it's clear that they didn't have communication strategy and all information storm got them off guard. There is another problem with this big funding -the message clearly is we are sure you wil love it because we are betting big. Bad pr move guys, for company to succeed, and to get followers you must have mantra for your selves and clear public message like no evil company in case of google. Perception is reality. Now the message reads: color.com(domain name for 350 000 usd) have 42 millions on their hands to change the world by making something useful (social app) and to have profit by selling data to third parties. Guess what, if facebook was communicated in public eye like color.com, they will be dead long ago.

</comment><comment><USER11> I'll be honest: my experience with Color on my iPhone still sucks mightily, but Mr. Nguyen is a terribly articulate, charismatic and obviously intelligent individual, and the interview embedded on that page has really left me a lot more inclined to check back and see how they're doing as Color iterates.

</comment><comment><USER12> I've said before that the bad PR is by no means a death knell for Color.

After watching this interview, I'm firmly convinced that they're going to find some way to make it work, or find that one little piece of the app that people latch on to and build that out. One of the things Bill said got me really excited, and that was the idea of being able to walk into a room and see something like "you might like to talk to Jason because you both work in the technology field, here's his LinkedIn profile".

$41 million gets you a lot of leeway to experiment and make it work.

</comment><comment><USER13> Calacanis is right, the launch was a huge success. If you can't cause mass enthusiasm, the next best thing is mass controversy. Now everyone is falling over themselves trying to figure out what Color is all about. Whatever they do, they'll have no trouble getting noticed.

</comment><comment><USER14> _I changed my opinion on Color after realizing that saying as much in a blog post would get me a ton of page views._</comment>


Habit Fields - <AUTHOR> http://www.alistapart.com/articles/habit-fields/

<comment><USER2> Pretty fascinating stuff. I like to create rituals for the same purpose (i'm sure the OCD crowd is familiar with the idea). For instance if I'm about to embark into a particularly challenging or critical piece of coding I'll meticulously clean my desk before I start. If I'm about to write music in my studio / home office there's a whole bunch of things I have to do first.</comment>


Review my app - Guestlist: online event registration made simple - <AUTHOR>

Guestlist is an online event registration app that focuses on making event registration simpler by removing as much as possible. Our team consists of two programmers and one designer working on it in our spare time for the past 7 months. A lot of effort was spent making our app enjoyable to use though great UI, engaging copywriting, and lightning-fast reflexes.<p>http://www.guestlistapp.com <comment><AUTHOR> Link is <http://www.guestlistapp.com>

</comment><comment><USER2> I'm building an app in a related space (project planning for event planners) and bumped into a potential competitor on a message board. Turns out he is more in your space than mine. We got on Skype and he gave me a tour of his app. If you want to see the feature set of a mature event registration app for enterprise, you should shoot him a note and request a demo. Looks like your market is decidedly not enterprise, but rather casual event hosts, but you might pick up a cool feature or two.

<http://event-master.com/regis.html>

Simon was the guy who gave me the tour.

</comment><comment><USER3> You'll need a few features

.

* Tally feature to check guests in, correlate to web list after event.

.. A4 Pages of guests to cross out via pen 0-200 guests

.. Barcode scanner db 200+ guests (-idea- maybe an iPhone app with db sync?)

.

* Generate tickets and ticket address labels

.. Customers can print out their own voucher perhaps?

<comment><AUTHOR> If you go to the attendee or order list we do have an option to print a list. Its formatted nicely to print on any size sheet and will allow you to cross people off at check-in. We also export attendees and orders to CSV so you can pull it into Excel and format it to your specifications.

The other features we are hesitating on because we aren't convinced that people really need them. Doing less, but doing it significantly better is what we are aiming at. We realize that we will not be getting the really large events to move to us, but they are not our target market. We are aiming for the smaller events that don't have professional planners that take care of everything.

That said, we have a list of features that we think we need to add. We plan to add most of them before we exit beta. Features on our list include a public attendee list, ability to ask for custom information per attendee, and uploading of custom background images for events.

<comment><USER3> I guess you'd also want to do a White Label version of your engine so that small-medium Bed&Breakfasts and Hotels could use you as their guestlist provider.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm impressed by your landing page. You often see sites put up for review on YC that give little attention to the landing page, even though any PPC advertiser will tell you it can often mean the difference between a user clicking 'Signup' or 'Back'

Your landing page let's me know what the app does, how much it costs (kind of) and the benefits to me of using it. Building on that last point, the only thing I'd consider changing is renaming "Manage your event" to "Why use guestlist" and listing the benefits in a bullet list.

Well done on a great design and landing page. Good luck with it

</comment><comment><USER5> I checked out your app yesterday, after seeing that you'll be presenting at DemoCamp. I was very interested in this idea, because I've needed or been asked to develop this type of app in the past.

I'm very impressed with everything I've seen so far. I played around with it as much as I could, stopping short of making any actual payments, and it all looks great.

Best of luck!

P.S. I'd also be interested in hearing about what tools you used, particularly on the front end.

Edit: just remembered one tiny thing that bugged me: I couldn't immediately figure out what the "Quantity" field referred to. I thought it might mean that tickets could be sold in sets. Maybe you could fit in a less ambiguous description like "Number of tickets for sale".

<comment><AUTHOR> You have a point about the Quantity label. I will see about including that in my planned revamp of the ticket type lightbox.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Nice job on putting this together. I recently used <http://eventbrite.com> to plan an event. Seems to be quite similar to what you've put together and has a pretty nice UI (a big improvement over evite anyway) - they also have the ability to charge for tickets, manage your event, etc. Are you thinking the field for "beautiful" event management apps is still small and you're going to go after some of that?

<comment><AUTHOR> We are definitely going after the "beautiful" market. But it is not just about beauty. It is very much about usability. Apps like Eventbrite and Amiando are very feature rich, but their aesthetics and user experience is not for everybody. If you just want to host a simple event you can get lost in all their options and may not even find the few options you do want.

<comment><USER6> I guess that wasn't really my experience. It took me about 5 minutes to set up an event so as an administrator of an event, it was extremely easy and the UI was fine. What they kind of sucked at is the options to display an event. Templates were limited and I'm feeling our event is a bit cookie cutter at the moment. Perhaps that's a differentiating factor to focus on too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The 'create your event now' button on sub-pages appears to go nowhere. I didn't sign up but otherwise, love the design.

<comment><AUTHOR> It does appear that the signup button on the tour page is dysfunctional. Thanks!

<comment><AUTHOR> It has been fixed. Thanks again.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> What tech did you use to create the app?

<comment><USER9> Merb with Postgres on the backend, jQuery + jQuery UI on the front, served by Nginx reverse-proxied to Thin. The website is statically generated using Jekyll.

<comment><USER8> Thanks for the details!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Nicely done site. Love the layout and design. Very clear what you offer on the landing page. The tour was also nicely accessible. I didn't sign up because I don't really have any events to plan right now.

As an aside, my site, launchly has just started offering free web startup launches again today so if you wanted to list it there for some additional feedback and exposure we'd be glad to have you. <http://www.launchly.com>

</comment><comment><USER11> I can't say I gave it much time to explore all features - but two comments. 1) Why is the app limited to US users with the time zone options? What about the rest of the world? 2) Extra attendee information would be great - I'm often involved in online registration for sailing competitions and currently use a rather clumsy custom system. Your design is top notch so I was really interested in looking at your app for our use, but we have to record things like boat numbers.

<comment><AUTHOR> Custom information is high on our priority list.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Overall this is a very clear and concise first page to land on. It explains clearly what your app does and why I should sign up.

Once I did those things I like the step-by-step flow of filling out details of my event.

Sites like eventbrite have endless options, but I find that I do not use most of them. When I need to find something it is usually hidden, but this is not the case.

Beautiful and simple design with a quality backend usually work best.

</comment><comment><USER13> I really like the user interface and simplicity. You're right, there are sites out there with too many unnecessary features. I liked your approach to only keep what's absolutely needed and present those features in a lovely way. The creative and clean placement of Edit links on the event page especially captured my attention.

Great job and best of luck with this!

</comment><comment><USER14> Great UI and simple design.

But it can use a more testing.

* I created a test event and tried to add attendees, but pressing the button doesn't do anything.

* The signup/login page could use a link to the main page. I pressed login instead of signup and the only way to get out of that page is to hit the browser's back button.

<comment><AUTHOR> The button is disabled if you have no ticket types. We added a tool-tip to make that clearer. Thanks for the feedback!

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Really nicely done app. Fits well in between eventbrite and manually organizing things yourself.

One thing I'd think about in terms of increasing conversions would be to allow people to test drive the process of Creating An Event without the need to set up an account. You can always gather that info later on in the process.

</comment><comment><USER16> Time-zone doesn't include IST. (GMT+05:30)

</comment><comment><USER17> The contact form doesn't show error messages. It just displays a dialog with "submit" set as the text.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! will get that fixed.

<comment><USER9> fixed.</comment></comment></comment>


'We're doomed': Mayer Hillman on the climate reality no one else dare mention - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/26/were-doomed-mayer-hillman-on-the-climate-reality-no-one-else-will-dare-mention <comment><USER2> As someone who was actually around in the industry and saw the massive efforts that were made to successfully fix things, it shits me to tears when people talk about the Millenium Bug as some kind of crying-wolf moment.

I saw some of the awful bugs that were fixed first hand. I have no reason to doubt that my experience wasn't replicated in important "legacy systems" right across the industry. Things only passed so smoothly _because_ of that effort.

</comment><comment><USER3> Here's the part that I don't get (and I would be afraid to admit to this in a non-anonymous setting among my peer group).

I completely accept the evidence and the consensus that human action is causing global carbon levels and therefore temperature to rise. The part I don't get is what exactly happens to the planet, our species and other animals given say, a 2C rise by 2200. Say that's a 2 metre sea level rise. Ecosystems and societies are pretty robust to that level of change over 200 years. There would be very bad effects on some low-lying coastal cities, and the areas of the earth that are productive for different kinds of agriculture and habitats would change.

This is bad and we should work to avoid it, but I think that we lose credibility when we speak of the end of civilisation, or even major threats to our normal way of life globally.

<comment><USER4> _I think that we lose credibility when we speak of the end of civilisation._

It won't take much of a change in the climate before we see significant conflict over access to water. India and Pakistan have a treaty they both signed in 1960 regarding access to water from 6 rivers they share ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Waters_Treaty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Waters_Treaty)). These are two nations that have nuclear weapons... if that treaty fails and results in a war, that'd almost certainly end up being World War III, and could very well result in the end of civilisation.

This isn't speculation on my part. We're _already_ at the point where nations have civil wars over access to natural resources like water and agricultural land. It was a key factor in civil war in Sudan. Wars around the middle east between Israel and it's neighbours are rooted in religion but are often _also_ about access to water from the Jordan basin.

Climate change isn't simply things getting hotter and sea levels rising. People literally go to war over resources. It _really_ matters.

<comment><USER5> That is clearly very bad, but people also go to war because of scarce resources. The US doesn't have a Special Relationship with Saudi Arabia because the Saudi's are lovely people.

Climate change isn't the threat, the problem is that population growth is exponential. We don't have a reliable mechanism to shrink population apart from run out of resources and have a war. Claiming that climate change is making resources scarce isn't grappling with the fact that in 100 years at 2% population growth, resources are going to be scarce anyway.

<comment><USER6> Population growth is an S-curve, not an exponential. Fertility rates will stabilize once developing nations catch up with the rest of the world.

<comment><USER7> Sigmoid is one option. Overshoot/crash another.

And, in the short term, exponential may be a reasonable fit. Doesn't make it a long-term guarantee.

<comment><USER8> For the last 5 decades or so we've been stuck on linear growth. ~ +80m/yr, 12-14 years per +1b. That looks like it might be the middle straight line part of a sigmoid curve that started exponential and transitioned to linear.

There's no real evidence yet in the stats for the next transition to a drop in the absolute growth numbers per year.

<comment><USER9> Just to be clear, who is "we" in that? I'm assuming it's "people living in industrialized nations," but if it's just "humans," then that seems like it could be misleading -- linear growth internationally with exponential births/deaths (net effect -- linear) in undeveloped nations, combined with scarce essential resources is _already_ a severe problem, leading to global strife.

<comment><USER7> "We" is global human population growth. Trend is no longer exponential, since ~1970, but it is still growing linearly.

UN historical & projected data:

[https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Graphs/1_Demographic%20Profiles/...](https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Graphs/1_Demographic%20Profiles/World/Line%20Charts/Total%20Population%20by%20variant.png)

[https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Graphs/DemographicProfiles/](https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Graphs/DemographicProfiles/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> 'We're doomed'

I kind of grew up with that phrase. It was all over in my childhood climate nature science books etc. But the real world today looks far from it. I mean we have many problems, sure. But doomed?

So maybe that's why I can't really take people serious who start with that phrase.

"He believes that accepting that our civilisation is doomed could make humanity rather like an individual who recognises he is terminally ill. Such people rarely go on a disastrous binge; instead, they do all they can to prolong their lives."

And I rather believe that really doomed people don't care anymore about long- term cancer risk when they allready are full of it. Optimistic people who want to live long and prosper care about that. I mean, we are all going to die anyway, yes. But usually our children live on. But if I would believe the world is doomed, how can I possible raise children with good hearts? But if I and everyone else, stop raising children - then we are indeed doomed.

<comment><USER11> Have you read the article? It talks about what will happen in 100 years and what, based on the data we currently have, is inevitable if we don't take drastic changes (which is unlikely to happen until it's way too late).

<comment><USER10> I skimmed it. And the main point I took is the one I cited: that people should first all acknowledge doom in order to do something against it. Which I think is stupid and achieve rather the opposite. Either by people starting to ignore doomsday-people and their "climate hoax" or by giving up hope and therefore truly making way for the stupid, careless people.

It is a difference between saying "we are doomed".

Or

"if we continue this, we are doomed".

<comment><USER11> The whole point of the article is that we're past the return point, i.e. even if we stopped burning fossil fuels completely now, the temperatures will continue to rise albeit more slowly, so the critical point would be reached later.

<comment><USER10> Bu even have in the worst case scenarios we are not doomed.

Under heavy pressure and possible temporary decline, yes, but doom means extinction to me and this I don't believe. Especially not with all the technology we are going to build in the next 100 years. I bet we could live allmost sustainable on mars by then. And no matter how devastated the earth will be a some point, it will allways be easier to live here. Even if the whole food supply comes from sealed greenhouses. Those we can (and do) build. As long as the sun shines, I see no problem. (And even if the sun don't shine for some years, we could survive. Related: I will start playing Frostpunk tonight..same topic, even though in the scenario they survive by coal, while I would bet on nuclear)

<comment><USER12> Humans will never go extinct from anything like that. Even if there are nuclear wars worldwide, some of us will always survive.

Other species will not. Through climate change we have brought ill effects to the whole ecosystem of Earth. And irreversible phase already started. That's why doom is used often. You can always say we are not doomed because humans are selfish and don't want to take the blame. Or take as little blame as possible or just plain ignore.

Regarding giving up hope and being careless, I can say one thing. Saying doomed does not make people give up. But saying it's not as bad as it looks definitely makes people be careless. Because they now things it's ok and we will survive anyhow, so why should I put effort and suffer. That's what I have seen with climate change deniers.

<comment><USER10> "Saying doomed does not make people give up."

No, because they don't believe it (anymore). Thats why. But I like to use words by their intended meaning - so I don't see it positive yelling Doom! to get the information to people, that we have a problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The future doesn't stop at 2100. There are people being born now who will see it. We are starting to badly need some narratives for the 22nd Century and beyond.

As for Pinker; the techno-optimists don't seem to get that the Limits to Growth forecasts predicted substantial exponential growth. The huge success and progress we've seen and celebrated by them doesn't invalidate LtoG. The lesson is not that they didn't or can't happen. It's that they can't continue for ever and will inevitably result in over-reach, peak and crash. And that's the part that Pinker et al won't accept. They're attempting to portray and an unlimited rosy future without really looking at all the implications.

<comment><USER13> Thats a bit of a straw man. Most people even Pinker would agree that there are limits to growth they just don't agree that we are currently at the limit.

<comment><USER7> Julian Simon. Herman Kahn. John Maddox. William Nordhaus. Thomas Piketty. Paul Krugman. Milton Friedman. Christine Lagarde. M.A. Adleman. Robert Rubin. Robert Bryce. Stewart Brand. Ray Kurzweil. Michael Lynch. Robert L. Bradley. Peter Huber.

Milton Friedman (Nobel Prize in Economics, 1976, also awarded the National Medal of Science (1988), the Presidential Medal of Freedom (1988), and the John Bates Clark Medal (1951)), in "The Energy Crisis: A Humane Solution", 1977:

 _You will all recall [ "Limits to Growth"] was a report in which engineers were saying we have finite resources -- a finite amount of coal, a finite amount of space, and so on and so on; things grow at exponential rates, and so long as things grow at exponential rates they are ultimately going to become infinite; and since resources, are finite, we're going to bump into it and therefore we are faced with a terrible future in which sooner or later we are going to run out, of steel or coal or whatever you want to name. We're going to run out, and we really have to adjust our sights; we can no longer take the view that we can have growth forever; we must recognize that there are, in their title, limits to growth and reconcile ourselves...._

 _Now this approach, whether adopted by the Club of Rome or by Mr. Schumacher or by the CED, is completely wrong. The plain fact is that from an economic point of view the volume of resources available to us is larger today than it has ever been in history. We are less dependent today on natural resources than we have ever been._

[http://0055d26.netsolhost.com/friedman/pdfs/other_commentary...](http://0055d26.netsolhost.com/friedman/pdfs/other_commentary/BP.1978.1.pdf)

(I've made a small hobby of collecting all the action figures: [https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/search?q=cornucopians&r...](https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/search?q=cornucopians&restrict_sr=on))

<comment><USER13> "The plain fact is that from an economic point of view"

Thats a different discussion than the one I read the parent talking about.

<comment><USER7> You're welcome to read Friedman's remarks in full to see that, as I understand your comments, it isn't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> _"...Instead, says Hillman, the world's population must globally move to zero emissions across agriculture, air travel, shipping, heating homes – every aspect of our economy – and reduce our human population too..."_

That's quite breathtaking. "Reducing human population" is a phrase that can only have so many meanings: controlling reproduction, removing access to healthcare, or killing people. There are no other options I'm aware of.

You can go to just about any physics site and see lists of things physicists still don't understand. Some of them are so far out in the woods that they're even debating the role of empiricism and the scientific method. (If the math looks good, and we could never perform an experiment, isn't that good enough?)

Yet here we have an expert in the social sciences suggesting we do something about having too many humans.

Hillman has had a fine career. I wish him the best in his continued efforts. Articles like this exist to praise people of note, also to poke at folks like me who might find some of their statement a bit over-the-top. Better to generate controversy and readership.

But we really need a more serious discussion on climate. Not pandering to the end-of-world folks, not pandering to the "nothing to see here, folks". Something substantive. There's a lot of religious and magical thinking in climate science, many times by people who would consider themselves uber rationalists. (They're the worst). The vast majority of the public has had about enough of the extremists and self-promoters. There may be an opportunity to start a reasoned discussion.

<comment><USER15> Voluntary control of reproduction is one of the great success stories of the 20th century; we just need to expand it to those few places where it's not regarded as an important right.

We should replicate the work of Bangladesh: [http://www.futurehealthsystems.org/news/2013/11/25/understan...](http://www.futurehealthsystems.org/news/2013/11/25/understanding- the-bangladesh-health-miracle.html)

"Bangladesh has achieved high (62%) contraceptive prevalence and a rapid fall in fertility from 6.3 births per woman in 1971 to 2.3 in 2010—a rate unparalleled in other countries with similar levels of development."

<comment><USER16> 2.3 is approximately the replacement rate, it's stopping growth but not reducing the population. With zero growth we'd still be as much a cause of climate change as we are now; a Japan-like population decrease (if achieved everywhere) might cause a meaningful decrease in multiple centuries, but we don't have multiple centuries.

Voluntary control of reproduction is a nice thing, but it won't achieve population reduction, it will only stop/limit growth.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The article recounts Hillman predicting many problems and suggesting solutions, but not getting them implemented.

If we want to solve environmental problems we have to separate science and engineering from leadership. Scientists' and engineers' training and skills make them effective at collecting data, analyzing it, and making predictions.

They rarely have training to influence people, especially billions of people. JFK's speech advanced us more to the moon than the work of any single scientist or engineer.

Hillman recognizes that we all have to change our behavior. His track record implies he is unskilled at leading others to change their behavior so he conclude's we are doomed.

I don't think looking to scientists or engineers for leadership will help. Data, predictions, implementation plans, yes. Leadership, no.

I believe leadership in the style of Mandela, King, Gandhi, and Havel, suitably adjusted for today's needs, is essential to reduce environmental problems.

<comment><USER11> These new leaders would a hard time doing their work. Imagine having everybody against you. Almost all industries, media, lobbyists, and most of all - ordinary people who depend on burning fossil fuels (directly in transportation or having someone burn them for most daily-used products). It really seems impossible until some terrible things already start happening.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> > While the focus of Hillman's thinking for the last quarter-century has been > on climate change, he is best known for his work on road safety.

It seems to me that Hillman's position on climate change follows from his background of opposition to car usage, not the other way around.

I think that a primativist approach to solving climate change is bound to fail. The reality is that motor vehicles offer a convenience that drivers (and voters) are unwilling to sacrifice. If we genuinely want to solve climate change, we should focus on changing our technology rather than our way of life. I believe that if we're to make a genuine difference, it will be from shedding our energy's dependence on fossil fuels, not from shedding our dependence on energy.

</comment><comment><USER19> Social Scientists gives doomsday proclamation on runaway climate change. Why don't we consult Snoop Dogg on his speculations of the existence and smoothness of solutions to Navier–Stokes? Seems logical to me.

</comment><comment><USER20> Social scientist != actual scientist.

Read up on current state of the data and modeling done on oceanic thermocline, it will cheer you up.

<comment><USER21> The first part of this comment is a blanket statement and it's needlessly dismissive and unfair.

But for the second part, can you link any of the research you're talking about or explain why it should make me feel better?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The key element of this piece is its recognition of the social, political, institutional, model-and-frame, and epistemic roadblocks to addressing the hyman predicament.

People, writ large, don't want to hear this. Happy stories are far more compelling. Complex stories with unhappy endings, not so much. And all systems stories are complex. (They don't all have to have bad endings, though many do.)

Politics, particularly large-scale democratic systems, hew away from intellect and sophistication. Aristphanes wrote of this in ancient Greece, _The Frogs_. One of the most accessible and concise developments I've seen is H.L. Mencken's 1926 essay, "Brayard vs. Lionheart", on the Coolidge-Cox U.S. presidential race. Highly recommended.

[https://amomai.blogspot.com/2008/10/hl-mencken-bayard-vs- lio...](https://amomai.blogspot.com/2008/10/hl-mencken-bayard-vs- lionheart.html)

Our institutions, cultural, governmental, commercial, and otherwise, can address the situation at best poorly, and often directly contribute to the problem. I don't have a handy argument as to why, though I'm thinking much on that. The "P Literature" \-- Parkinson's Law, the Peter Principle, Putt's Law, and Stephen Potter's Gamesmanship seem to form part of a core. I'd add the Jevons paradox, Gresham's Law, and John Gall's _Systemantics_ as well

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putt%27s_Law_and_the_Successfu...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putt%27s_Law_and_the_Successful_Technocrat)

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

Broken models and frames -- theory and ideology -- contribute hugely. I've been focusing particularly on economics and its general failures to properly address both costs and value. (The realisation that "cost", "price", and "value" are three distinct, and frequently only tenuously-related concepts, is a breakthrough in understanding.)

And failures of understanding, communication, and processing of information -- our epistemic system -- are another wrench thrown in the works. Not trivially addressed, and perhaps best considered a fundamental system constraint rather than a bug.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for that. I submitted this because, although environmental issues come up here relatively often (the collapse of civilisation will, of course, affect tech), I have seen very little with regards to the long-term consequences of our anemic approach to the situation (even the Paris accord is like a band-aid on a shotgun wound). It was nice, for the most depressing value of "nice", to see someone who has shown prescience to just come out and say that there is not much reason to think that we'll get out of this one with an intact civilisation, and to address that Teslas and reusable grocery bags aren't going to fix this. I also thought the mention of focusing on music and love and the things that used to mark a well-lived life as opposed to greater economic extraction might be the best approach.

We've been taking out loans from the atmosphere for a couple centuries without too much trouble, but nature is eventually consistent.

<comment><USER22> > the collapse of civilisation will, of course, affect tech

I've been wondering about that for a few months. I am fully aware that the current organisation of the world will come to an end in like, ten to fifteen years; is it wise for me to continue working with computers, which I love, hoping they will still be of some use _after_ the collapse of civilisation?

<comment><USER7> As far as vantage sites to observe what's occuring, it's not a bad one. Some skills are transferrable, if you consider them well.

Timing societal collapse is even more fraught than timing the market.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Really? No one else dare mention? No one dares _not_ mention more like...

</comment><comment><USER24> The Guardian loves to blame everything on "capitalism", but the reason there are a lot of e.g. flights isn't so much capitalism as people liking to go places. Indeed capitalism provides the most practical mechanism for resolving things like carbon emissions: if we agreed a cap-and-trade system (like we previously did for sulphur dioxide emissions) then carbon impacts could be priced into the costs of things like flights. As the article says, individual and even national action is as good as futile - we need to act on an international scale, and markets are the only coordination mechanism that can work at that level.

Of course even zero emissions may not be enough, and it's good to see that getting acknowledgement - if we have a consensus that we're past the point where we could stop global warming by reducing emissions, then we can start looking at active measures to counteract it (i.e. geoengineering). It won't be easy, or cheap, or safe, but there are no safe options any more.

</comment><comment><USER25> Sounds like "the climate reality no one else will dare mention" is unmentioned because it's nonsense.

Solar / wind are dropping Moores law fashion, governments could crank up action if doom looked likely, the earth has had far higher co2 in the past. 100 million years ago it was about 5x what it is now but life wasn't wiped out.

<comment><USER26> Did you actually read the article? You are being downvoted because you repeat canard with no real data, and nothing is topical in your comment.

<comment><USER25> I skimmed it and edited a little. I guess I'm more optimistic about tech fixes that the author. Does anyone sensible think we're actually doomed?

<comment><USER27> Ah yes, tech fixes.

<comment><USER28> The excess CO2 in the atmosphere, with a volume of 400,000 Empire State Buildings, is ripe for disruption!

Source: [http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....](http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081648)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Typical example of Anti-Humanism. The same idiotic believes people have been peeling for 200s of years. From Malthus to the Nazis to modern Environmentalist moment all the same idiotic believes.

First of all, while climate change can be disruptive, it will absolutely not wipe out humans or anything even close to that. The changes are gradual enough that continues adoption will resolve the waste majority of problems without much issues.

Fossil fuels cause climate change, but the also cause that people went from 30 to 70 years of avg live. Far more people live in China because they have energy from coal. Denying people cheap energy because of climate change will be MORE harmful to them then climate change.

The poorest people on the world who die the earliest are those that don't have access to energy.

Starving our-self of energy is not in efforts to consume less, is a futile effort and will never solve anything.

We should be concerned and adopt solutions and think about the future, but this sort of pessimism is totally unwarranted.

> Hillman doubts that human ingenuity can find a fix and says there is no > evidence that greenhouse gases can be safely buried.

The cycle for carbon is understood and we could put carbon into lime stone and put them into the ocean again. Its just an energy problem.

<comment><USER30> First, calling anything idiotic is not going make you gain much credibility here. It's not facebook, we expect you to come up with argument, not name calling.

Secondly, you make a lot of assumptions on which you base you reasoning. What if the changes are not that progressive ? What is there is a tipping point ?

Then you also assume thzt we couldn't have done overwise, that our lifestyle and how we achieved it was not only inevitable but the only way it is worth it.

Your part about self starving is espacially revealling of a narrow view deeply rooted, not only in materialism, but also in rejection of the idea anything else would be good for the human specie.

Now i do appreciate the confort of our modern life, but ignoring the price of it, denying the usefulness or even the possibilities of alternatives and promoting the statu quo is very limiting.

<comment><USER29> > What if the changes are not that progressive ? What is there is a tipping > point ?

Maybe there is maybe there is not. His point is that there is no hope, and that is false.

> Then you also assume thzt we couldn't have done overwise

Please tell me all the cases in human history where large amounts of people voluntary restricted their energy use?

Carbon growth comes from the developing world, and we can do nothing to restrict that.

> Your part about self starving is espacially revealling of a narrow view > deeply rooted, not only in materialism, but also in rejection of the idea > anything else would be good for the human specie.

If you want to voluntarily starve yourself of energy, go ahead have fun. However suggesting it as a solution for a global problem is a non-starter. Even a western person starving himself of energy will still use many X more then most Indians. An most Indians would like to use as much energy as westerners.

> Now i do appreciate the confort of our modern life, but ignoring the price > of it, denying the usefulness or even the possibilities of alternatives and > promoting the statu quo is very limiting.

I have never denieded the usefulness of alternatives. All I have said about the status quo is that it is actually saving millions of peoples lives and giving them a higher standard of living. That is often ignored and it should not be, because it misses literally the biggest improvement in human welfare in world history.

<comment><USER30> > Maybe there is maybe there is not. His point is that there is no hope, and > that is false.

The man spent his life in metrics indicating that trend, which made him pessimistic. It's fair. If you see somebody drinking, smoking, and eating burger all life, your wouldn't have much hope either, but to somebody who have just heard about it, not watching it, it seems a "severe" judgment.

> Please tell me all the cases in human history where large amounts of people > voluntary restricted their energy use?

> Carbon growth comes from the developing world, and we can do nothing to > restrict that.

You could have used the same argument about slavery not so long ago.

"Humanity always've done it. All our achievements used slaves. Our lifestyle is based on slaves. Please tell me all the cases in human history where large amounts of people voluntary restricted their use of slaves ?"

Then we did it this one time.

> If you want to voluntarily starve yourself of energy, go ahead have fun. > However suggesting it as a solution for a global problem is a non-starter. > Even a western person starving himself of energy will still use many X more > then most Indians. An most Indians would like to use as much energy as > westerners.

"If you want to voluntarily starve yourself" are such strong worlds. There is a lot of margin between eating meat every day + running all oil engines + changing phones each years + everybody having children... and living in a cave.

Beside, if you have 10 men in a cabin in Artic, and everybody must either poop on the floor or get terrible cold and poop outside, people may poop on the floor for a while. But it's not sustainable. Sooner or later somebody will have to say that they should all go outside. Or find an alternative. And your argument is pretty much "you go first".

> All I have said about the status quo is that it is actually saving millions > of peoples lives and giving them a higher standard of living. That is often > ignored and it should not be, because it misses literally the biggest > improvement in human welfare in world history.

Yes. And now that we've done it this way, we know the price of it. We have the feedback and the scientific knowledge to understand the system we live in, the consequences of exponential growth in a finite system and what our needs are as a specie.

Some very intelligent yet with nothing to gain from it are saying that we are doing very badly. They said it clearly, loudly, respectfully, repeatedly, with strong arguments.

There is nothing more they can do.

It's now our job to act on that.

<comment><USER29> > The man spent his life in metrics indicating that trend, which made him > pessimistic.

Well then he was looking at the wrong metrics. Because during that time we observed the largest expansion of human prosperity.

It seems that he deliberately wants to pick these metrics to fit his Anti- Humanist agenda.

> You could have used the same argument about slavery not so long ago.

There are many ways this is a different case. But I don't want to get into a side argument.

> Yes. And now that we've done it this way, we know the price of it. We have > the feedback and the scientific knowledge to understand the system we live > in, the consequences of exponential growth in a finite system and what our > needs are as a specie.

Yes, and what we have learned is that people who don't have energy are very unhappy and die young. So when we think about the future of the species we should not simply think of some abstract species that we need to save globally, rather we should realize the real world constraints such as the benefits of the current system provides for all humans.

So if your solution means depriving lots of people of energy, then first of all that's just cruel. Second it is politically infeasible. Third, reducing human population is a terrible way of making the future better.

I think there are lots solutions out there but HIS point is that he does not believe in these solution because he believes the ONLY way we can solve the problem is by restricting consumption. That is the same 'finite resources' zero sum thinking that has plagued the world for such a long time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Horseshit. Given the exponential nature of technological progress I'm almost certain we will see a technological solution to global warming in my lifetime. Fusion powered carbon capture or reflective stuff in the upper atmosphere etc. Who knows what form it will take. But nobody will just sit idle and watch billions of people die. The major flaw of the current suggestions is that they either aren't affordable, or lower the standard of living, or both. Outside the 1% bubble it's been less than 100 years since people had a decent standard of living to begin with, so quite understandably they prefer to drive huge trucks, buy large houses, and fly to Hawaii every year. Shit if it's ok for Al Gore and Leo DiCaprio to fly private to climate change summits, surely the hoi polloi can partake as well.

<comment><USER32> And yet we sit by while at least 9 million people die from hunger every year ( [https://www.mercycorps.org/articles/quick-facts-what-you- nee...](https://www.mercycorps.org/articles/quick-facts-what-you-need-know- about-global-hunger) ), and some groups estimate the number is much higher.

People can, unfortunately, easily ignore problems that aren't right at their door, and most of the people who are affected the most aren't in North America or Europe.

<comment><USER31> Bzzzt, wrong answer. A lot fewer people die from hunger now than even a decade ago. And the number is much less than that overall.

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

<comment><USER32> First, please be polite.

Second, the Wikipedia article you link to doesn't provide clear information. The number my source cited was from 2016, which is still quite recent. If we're down from 36 million in 2006, that's good news, but it still means that millions still die every year due to starvation and malnutrition.

<comment><USER31> Where was I not polite? The figures you quote are cooked. While it is true that malnutrition is the _indirect_ cause of the majority of those deaths, most people counted do not really die from malnutrition per se, but from a combination of malnutrition and infectious disease. Both malnutrition and lack of vaccination are being addressed, and the rate of death is dropping like a rock as a result. Maybe not as quickly as one would like, but it's just disingenuous to say that nothing is being done or people are "ignoring" anything about this.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Kandji MDM locks out customer with no notice or explanation - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/dguido/status/1287800680946819073 <comment><USER2> Having some small experience in the compliance space, it looks like the company in question (Or an employee of it) has been flagged via some government database of Dangerous parties. When a company churns you without notice or explanation, it's usually a good signal they have reason to believe you're a criminal or a terrorist.

If I were the company in question I'd pay for a KYC AML service and run my own info to see if anything came back up.

</comment><comment><USER3> What's the path forwards when a company breaches their own terms of service like this?</comment>


Airlines are finally fixing the middle seat - <AUTHOR> https://www.fastcompany.com/90377949/airlines-are-finally-fixing-the-middle-seat <comment><USER2> So this seat has the same poor legroom as others while being much lower, continues to share armrests (but now they're thinner/less useful), and in exchange you get a couple of inches of width to compensate in the middle row (while armrests are thinner in all three rows)? Plus the uneven rows make it that much harder to exit/pee from the window seat.

Their whole "the passengers will share a single armrest!" idea completely ignores how people work with regards to personal space (plus they installed their annoying "dual height" armrest in rows that don't share armrests, effectively cutting the armrest's length in half for no value at all).

<comment><USER3> The unwritten rule is that "the middle seat sucks, they get both middle armrests". Sadly, not everyone knows that rule.

> "The seat you paid for has borders. Middle-seat elbow ownership ends on the > armrests (you're entitled to both)"

[https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/travel/article-a- parent...](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/travel/article-a-parents- airplane-etiquette-rules-for-other-adults/)

<comment><USER4> Whoever takes the armrest first gets priority. It may cause your lifetime happiness to have a little more volatility but since everyone has the same random chance of getting the middle seat, still fair.

<comment><USER5> To whomever can take AND hold the armrest go the spoils of victory. What care I for plaintive cries of "fairness" when nature provided me the means to take the armrest I deserve from less capable arms?

<comment><USER6> That's why I always begin a flight by bludgeoning my neighbor into unconsciousness.

<comment><USER7> I personally smear my own feces on the armrests, having come prepared with plastic arm sleeves so that it doesn't get on me.

<comment><USER8> Please don't do this here.

<comment><USER7> Sorry, won't happen again.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This works nicely until the guy in the window seat gets up to pee. He runs into, or tugs on, the seat back that is in his way as he tries to exit the row, annoying the occupant of that seat.

<comment><USER10> Once as he leaves and once as he returns. I'll take it over being smushed. What drives me batshit is when there's a kid in the seat behind me who uses my seat back as a punching bag and just goes all out on it with hands and feet.

<comment><USER11> I have always felt the same way. Flying with other people's children is infuriating. (So is dining with other people's children, or taking public transit with other people's children. Or a car-share pool with other people's children...)

Conclusion: Sharing an environment with other people's children statistically sucks. We may win some victories here and there with tact, diplomacy, and/or luck, but that's the reality.

And I am especially sensitive to this, as when I fly to Europe and am stuck in this cacophony for six to eight hours, I usually have a presentation or essay I'm working on and could really use a distraction-free environment.

So I'm both irritated and feeling stressed that I can't work effectively. This is suboptimal personally and professionally. So what are my options?

I chose to fly economy. I could have gotten rich and bought my own plane, but no. I could have spent money flying first class (which filters a LOT of families out). But no. I chose to fly economy, where the price of my ticket was low PRECISELY because families are also flying economy, subsidizing my ticket.

If an airline offered an "Absolutely no kids allowed" flight for anything except a vacation charter, the seats would be more expensive. So instead, they offer first class, and "comfort economy," and if I want a seat not subsidized by unruly toddlers and crying infants, that's what I purchase.

It's harsh, but the universe is no more "fair" to me than it is to people who want affordable housing in San Francisco.

<comment><USER12> you've got a choice in the matter. other people's children can be wonderful travel companions who distract you from the drudgery of your economy seat existence. or you can wallow in your own annoyance and inability to focus on something else. happiness and contentment come from changing perspectives, moreso than changing circumstances or other people.

i (try to) remind myself of this when i get annoyed with other people on both roads and walkways.

<comment><USER11> Most definitely. Sometimes when I ride public transit, a fellow passenger will confide in me that some child is making an "inappropriate ruckus."

I usually reply with mild sarcasm, "Shame we both picked today to give our chauffeur the day off."

But for the most part, children being children are entertaining.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is the second article I've seen about this and neither has a picture of people actually sitting in the seats. All I want is before and after pictures with people in the seats.

<comment><USER14> My non-cynical guess is that with people in them, you can't visually see much of a difference. The same way way I can't really eyeball the difference an extra inch or two of legroom will make for me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Staggered seats feels gimmicky.

I'm 6'1" and all I want is like 2 more inches of knee room, like planes used to have, so that when the person in front of me drops their seat back it doesn't go right onto my knees. I have nowhere to go other than widening my stance and encroaching on the people on either side. The new ultra thin / no pading seats some airlines use really hurt when they land on your knees.

[https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/...](https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2017/06/27/house- panel-asks-faa-set-minimum-legroom-airlines/429358001/)

"[Average length has decreased from] 35 inches before airline deregulation in the 1970s to about 31 inches today. During the same period, the average width of seats declined from 18 to 16.5 inches..."

</comment><comment><USER16> I read it as "Airlines are finally fixing the middle EAST", and thought wow, that's an unexpected twist to a complicated problem.

<comment><USER17> By helping to diversify petro-state economies in the gulf, you can sort of make the case that they're helping?

<comment><USER16> Yeah in a squint-hard kinda way.... ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I fly in plenty of middle seats being a government employee. Nearly all of the window and aisle seats are booked by the time we schedule the trip, and we can't pay extra for premium economy. I'm an average size guy, 5'10, 170 lbs, and never have an issue sitting middle next to average weight people. On Southwest, I actually go for them first to get within the first couple rows and get off the plane quicker. I've never had someone fall asleep and rest their head on my shoulder as I've seen on TV. But I do have a small bout of anxiety as I'm walking down the aisle for the chance I have to sit next to an overweight person. You can't help but be touching hips the entire trip, and arm nudges quite often.

This solution poses a whole new set of issues already mentioned, but the real solution in my opinion is to relegate a few rows with only 2 seats for overweight people, priced accordingly. Public perception wouldn't allow requiring overweight people to book those seats, but I think a lot of overweight people would out of courtesy and their own comfort. They would be available to anyone who wanted the extra width as well, but you'd be less motivated to pay extra for it if you didn't need it.

<comment><USER19> > but the real solution in my opinion is to relegate a few rows with only 2 > seats for overweight people, priced accordingly

Don't planes generally already have this? Most planes I have been on have the business class (or whatever it is called) seats at the front, with just two seats beside eachother, and then the rest of the plane being three seats. I guess it is not targeted at people who are overweight, but it is available.

<comment><USER20> The fat people say it's discrimination that they're expected to pay more for a seat (such as in business class as you suggest) than thinner people.

Also, it doesn't help that in America, fatter people tend to be poorer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This looks like the thing you do to park benches to stop homeless people from sleeping on them.

I fly with two little kids (and a tiny wife), any of which can lay across a row of three seats like a bed. If you can find a non-full international flight, that can make all the difference. Unless of course you have hobo spikes on the plane.

Pass.

<comment><USER22> Now this is a smart move: travel with little kids and a tiny wife, and leave the full-size ones at home!

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I find the armrests are the main problem - if you get two large or selfish pax on either side who both decide the middle armrest is theirs, you're left with no arm rest at all, or some kind of territorial fight. Fixing that would go a long way to equity.

Or just charge less for the middle seat.

<comment><USER24> In a way they already are "charging less" for the middle seat, in the form of paying money to select a seat. I think in the past 15 times I've flown I've always gotten the middle seat unless I pay to select a seat.

<comment><USER23> Haha yes, where that's an option, of course you can pay _more_ not to be in the middle.

What was I thinking suggesting they charge _less_ for the middle, lol

<comment><USER24> And they do, it's just pretty transparent I guess :).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> It still sucks; those changes do not make up for the discomfort. Better than nothing, i guess?

But how about addressing the issue economically/psychologically? Make the seat cheaper! People put up with discomfort happily if they think they made a good deal.

<comment><USER26> My last flight was Ryanair (a European budget airline). It was about $30 for the flight and $5 extra for choosing a seat. Effectively I got the flight 15% cheaper by accepting that I might get a middle seat.

<comment><USER25> The thing is, while you actually end up paying more for a window/aisle seat in the current system and my proposed one, it "feels" better to explicitly pay less for a middle seat. Humans are weird.

<comment><USER27> In your system, your airline would be at a disadvantage when customers are comparison shopping on OTAs, because your displayed price is "price for a window/aisle seat" and your competitors would be displaying "price for a middle seat".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Airlines will never adopt these seats en masse until people show a willingness to pay more for them. That isnt how airlines work - they are cargo companies, not customer service companies, and adding millions of dollars in expense so the cheapest customers feel better doesnt fit the model. People in the middle seat fly less often, are more price conscious, and generally dont matter to airlines because there is no loyalty by those customers.

(250k flying miles a year here)

<comment><USER29> Genuine question here: Do you, or would you, buy CO2 offsets to do something about the horrendous carbon footprint of your 250k miles/year?

<comment><USER28> Not sure why you got down-voted, it's a fair question. My answer is that it's not something I've considered. I do a number of things that are "good" for the environment (recycling, composting, don't own a car, etc.) but I haven't ever even explored CO2 offsets. Just never occurred to me.

<comment><USER29> In fairness I think it's a fairly new thing for individuals (as opposed to large companies) to even be able to buy offsets, but I'm betting it will become a much larger trend quite quickly, perhaps even required in some jurisdictions. It's not a 'perfect' solution, but at least a step toward doing /something/ rather than shrugging off CO2 emissions as a merely inevitable consequence of air-travel.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Where does that extra width for the middle seat come from? Taken from the window and aisle seat width?

<comment><USER31> Slightly narrower corridor.

<comment><USER26> I don't think a single-aisle plane has 6 inches of corridor to spare.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> For those of us with broad shoulders, being set back a few inches is going to turn me into a pretzel. Yes, I understand that with a "normal" seat, my shoulders violate my seat mates space. The only option I've found is to claim a window seat where my shoulder is aligned to the window cutout. As there's no way to determine this arrangement with online booking tools, I prefer Southwest where my status allows me to always get that shoulder/window seat. And my company also doesn't pay for seat upgrades, so I'm stuck gaming the reservation system to land a southwest flight.

<comment><USER20> You should try to get flights on Airbus planes instead, as they usually have wider seats. Southwest only flies 737s, which have terrible seat space because it's an ancient narrowbody design.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> The solution I like most is flying on Embraer 170/190 aircraft for short (within Europe) trips, because they seat 2-2 instead of 3-3 like a 737. Also solves a big part of the carry-on luggage issues and boarding goes much faster.

Longer trips Air France has 1-2-1 seating on the 777 in business class, really like that for long flights alone for work. Enough to accept a 1 hour layover in Paris for it, because it means you can sleep all night on your way to Asia or on the way back from the US.

</comment><comment><USER34> And the last middle seat in the entire plane? What happens there?

<comment><USER35> Do you believe the last seat in a plane is generally completely flush with the galley wall?

<comment><USER36> It's not unusual for the last row on planes to already have limited recline, so there's not an abundance of space behind them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> 2019 and we're just figuring this out now.

<comment><USER38> It's because most people running air travel over the decades had a military background. "You'll sit in straight lines and you'll _like_ it!"

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> I'm worried the window seat would trigger claustrophobia in me.

I'd feel trapped in based on the arrangement shown in the images there.

<comment><USER40> The exit row window seat on my flight yesterday was pretty tight left to right. At some point airlines shrank the buffer space between the window and window seat to zero, so there's no longer space for your arm on the window side. Squeezed between a full-sized adult on my right and the wall to my left was no way to spend four hours. tl;dr: Airlines need to stop shrinking the distance between seats on the same row.

<comment><USER20> They probably shrank the buffer space because everyone was complaining about the seats being too narrow. Do you want buffer space, or a wider seat?

<comment><USER40> >Do you want buffer space, or a wider seat?

Both. I want to go back to reasonable seat sizes even if costs go up because as it stands I'm choosing to fly less and less with the current seat pitch. In fact I _did_ pay $100 out of pocket to upgrade my seat to economy plus and was lucky to snag a business row seat, or so I thought. It was in fact a miserably crowded experience.

<comment><USER20> The ticket prices back in the days of "reasonable seat sizes" were much more than your economy plus ticket cost. One of the big reasons flying is so affordable now is precisely because they can cram so many people in.

<comment><USER40> What a difference an inch makes! Southwest happily competes with United with very similar pricing yet they have 32-33" seat pitches with some jets using 31" vs United running 32-31" pitches with some seats now down to 30". Weirdly it looks like Jet Blue has even larger pitches, peaking at 34". Since Jet Blue and Southwest are considered discount carriers vs United clearly pitch isn't exclusively about price. It's also about profit, particularly when Southwest also has _wider_ seats than United.

Seriously I'm glad we had this discussion because despite living in Houston I think I'll by flying Southwest in preference to United from now on.

[https://www.businessinsider.com/america-airline-legroom- guid...](https://www.businessinsider.com/america-airline-legroom-guide-seat- pitch-2017-3#delta-air-lines-2)

<comment><USER20> I'm not talking about Southwest vs. some other American carrier in 2019, I'm talking about American carriers in general in 2019 vs. American carriers in 1985. They had more room back then, but ticket prices were much more than they are now, after adjusting for inflation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Oh great, now anytime the window seat needs the restroom we get a little hug on his / her way.

<comment><USER38> Maybe this new arrangement would make that phenomenon worse, but it already happens now, doesn't it? I've long thought that there should be a sort of grab bar hanging from the overhead locker, like you see on subways, to help people who have difficulty staying balanced while entering and exiting the row.

<comment><USER42> There's generally a lip on the overhead storage locker thingies, and they're definitely load bearing.

<comment><USER38> It seems like many of the people who need this worst are the least able to flex and reach that lip... also it's hard to reach from the window seat.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Only chance this gets adopted in America (assuming it works as promised) is if airlines can upsell them as premium++ middle seats while cramming the premium+, premium, and sardine classes even further.

</comment><comment><USER44> It looks like window and isle passengers will push their elbows right in the torso of middle passenger. But it is hard to judge without actually sitting in such seat.

</comment><comment><USER45> I would kill for a standard middle seat compared to the middle seat I get stuck in sometimes on my hour long commuter train.

It's a three seater that comfortably fits two. Not only is it a tight for for three, but there are no arm rests, meaning you are squeezed shoulder-to- shoulder the whole time.

I've taken other trains (notably NYC) that don't seem to have this. Only the MBTA seems cursed with this layout. Wouldn't be a huge problem if the train wasn't standing room only (for at least a half hour) meaning people are squeezed as-is.

<comment><USER46> Metra trains in Chicago have the opposite problem. The standard 2x2 seats in the main floor are way too wide, leaving 8-12 inches between two chubby adults. This results in the aisles being too narrow and everyone getting clobbered with purses and backpacks as passengers move down the aisles.

Don't get me started on the inane layouts of the upper levels of these cars (half forward and half sideways seats, guaranteeing each passenger getting on and off a crowded train car has to trip over 12 sets of legs).

The sad thing is that rail cars cost hundreds of thousands and are customized to each railway customer. A bit of cheap mock-up engineering before purchase could allow maybe 10% more passengers per car, and much faster and more pleasant loading and unloading.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> The slightly wider width is a game changer; if this catches on, I'd happily spring for middle seats for that alone.

</comment><comment><USER48> Meanwhile, companies like Frontier are installing the thinnest plastic 'bowls' they can legally still cause a seat and stripping inches of legroom.</comment>


YesGraph For Teams: Get Your Whole Company Engaged in Hiring - <AUTHOR> http://blog.yesgraph.com/yesgraph-for-teams/ <comment><USER2> Just tried out your free product and its great. One thing that really prevented me from using it more was it was hard to pick connectors.

I wish the system matched my linkedin contacts to my gmail contacts so I didn't have to go find each email address in gmail. Most of the suggestions required me to enter an email address.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback. We're going to make an invite link much more prominent, which will help you get more people invited.

Also, we're going to try to correlate emails with facebook and linkedin social identities to make it easier to message them.

If you want to help make our system better, connect all your data: [https://www.yesgraph.com/account/settings/connections](https://www.yesgraph.com/account/settings/connections)

I'd actually love to come by your office for a sourcing session: [http://blog.yesgraph.com/searchlight- meetings/](http://blog.yesgraph.com/searchlight-meetings/)

firstname.lastname@example.com

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> We didn't run a comprehensive study on pricing. We're probably going to get a lot of people asking for a site license and maybe a discount. At least we didn't price based on fees for placement, as mentioned in the post.

Any thoughts here?</comment>


FortLeague, the iOS app that gives players a ranking in Fortnite - <AUTHOR> https://itunes.apple.com/app/fortleague/id1406431166 <comment><AUTHOR> FortLeague lets you visualize your level in Fortnite. There are 5 tiers and 5 divisions. The idea is to give a context for the player.

You just need to search your Epic Name, there is no need to login.

The app provides a sense of competitiveness as you can see if a player has a better ranking than you, or even try to better your stats in order to have a higher ranking.

The latest update lets you visualise your game history and how it is affecting your ranking.

You will finally have the proof that you're the one carrying the squad!

We would love to know which rank you guys are!</comment>


Legends say China began in a flood. Scientists find evidence the flood was real - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/08/04/legends-say-china-began-in-a-great-flood-scientists-just-found-evidence-that-the-flood-was-real/ <comment><USER2> Interestingly the Chinese symbol for "boat" or 船 is made of 舟 (which means vessel), 八 (meaning eight) and 口(meaning mouth); 船 literally translate "eight people in the boat". This character was used in the ancient Chinese story of Noah's ark. Many other non-christian countries have similar story line of Noah's ark in the Genesis' account of the Bible. Indians, Sumerians, Egyptians, American Indians and the Peruvians wrote historical account about a universal flood.</comment>