What we can learn from the 1918 flu pandemic - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-we-can-learn-from-the-20th-centurys-deadliest-pandemic-11583510468 <comment><USER2> [https://archive.md/BzVSx](https://archive.md/BzVSx)

<comment><USER3> Thank you

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is a really good article, and the contrast in the outcomes between Philadelphia and St. Louis is such a clear example why aggressive social distancing is so crucial right now. Thanks for sharing!

</comment><comment><USER5> I was watching this clip of Michael Osterholm on Joe Rogen:

[https://youtu.be/B6IgMdsZHbM](https://youtu.be/B6IgMdsZHbM)

He said the covid-19 would eventually slow once enough people get it then we'll have sufficient immunity that it won't spread.

Of course, he also said a lot of people are going to get it and we're at the very beginning of a multi-year problem.

<comment><USER6> In other words it's following a logistics curve. This is what every pandemic does: the problem is that we can't know when the inflection point is. Sometimes it's quite early on, and sometimes it isn't. Plan for the latter, hope for the former.

<comment><USER7> Unless Chinese officials are still lying about their cases, and international observers are being fooled despite now knowing to look carefully, it seems (only tentatively, not saying it's the case at this point) that China is already reaching an inflection point. The number of new cases has dropped heavily and the death count is shrinking too apparently. That this is possibly already happening in such a densely populated region could bode well for the rest of the world for the initial surge in cases leveling off sooner than some are predicting.

I've seen a surprising amount of panic and unfounded assumptions towards the worst from many commentators here on HN and though it's perhaps to be expected from a crowd with a notable number of visible hypochondriacs, it's disappointing to see too. This isn't to say that concerns about the virus should be neglected or that people shouldn't take practical precautionary measures seriously but someone leaping to cataclysmic conclusions based on early figures is no more substantive than another person dismissing the whole thing as nothing major. Both are based on notions without backing and impossible foreknowledge.

<comment><USER8> >> Unless Chinese officials are still lying about their cases

Is/was there a whole lot of evidence of this? Was it a local problem in some parts of China? Or was it unfounded? It seems to me there's been just as much of this going on in the west + we're doing a much worse job of handling the epidemic than China has done. I don't have any personal opinion on China generally but the amount of China bashing + hypocrisy in the last few weeks has been astonishing. Supposedly they are even at the point where they are shipping supplies they no longer need to Italy (masks + other equipment) and considering sending people to help too.

<comment><USER7> I in no way intended my comment to be seen as China bashing for its own sake, but in the early days of the epidemic in Wuhan, there were noted incidents of at least local officials claiming false information about how contagious COVID was and how far it had spread. It's difficult to generally trust any authoritarian regime that has a vested interest in downplaying things which in part worsened because of its own bad initial response but no, nothing right now gives a solid reason to doubt the current numbers on cases, fatalities, recoveries from China and if indeed they are true as they likely are, the reduction in new cases is visible, and even if that's being achieved through strict measures, it's heartening to see, because it shows that COVID spread can indeed be mitigated to some extent through social measures while medical resources brace themselves

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The Spanish Flu was previous to really having cars or dual incomes.

I'm not sure you can learn the same lessons.

I don't shop in the same stores as any of my friends for instance. I only occasionally see acquaintances at the shops.

H1N1 case study in Texas is interesting.

Italian Grandparents Step in as Schools Close Amid COVID [https://time.com/5797637/italian-grandparents-coronavirus- ba...](https://time.com/5797637/italian-grandparents-coronavirus-babysitters/)

<comment><USER10> About the grandparents caring for the children: it's true that this could pose a risk, however it also keeps the risk confined to a single family circle, which wouldn't be the case with a nanny who could then potentially spread the infection to her own family or other families kids.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> For a fascinating, in-depth look at the Spanish flu of 1918 check out John Barry's "The Great Influenza" [1]. The book was amazing and gives you a real sense of what one of the worst pandemics in history must have been like.

[1] The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History [https://www.amazon.com/dp/0143036491](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0143036491).

<comment><USER12> FWIW, I recently ordered a Spanish Flu book by Gina Kolata, and it took more than a week to arrive instead of the normal two days. Kindle version might be a better bet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> If it spreads to infect a large proportion of the world's population, it way be beneficial to get it now, before the healthcare services are overwhelmed.

<comment><USER14> might've been an option a month and a half ago. but: exponential growth. most western countries are _days_ behind italy. if you're destined to downturn, it'll take you a week or more to need the ventilator, and you'd be on it for some time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Paywall

</comment><comment><USER16> I know about archive.org etc, but it's really striking to see public health reporting behind a paywall.

<comment><USER17> Yeah, and FTA:

> In the face of highly variable responses from public officials, the media > served as an essential ally of the public health community in fighting the > pandemic.

<comment><USER18> This can be true in this particular context.

However, the difference between private media outlets, such as WSJ, and the public health administration is that the latter is being paid for by taxes. Your taxes.

The only "free" media are public media such as public broadcasters. Even so, those aren't "free" as in "free beer", they are part of a fiscal budget and the only reason why you can consume them with little restrictions is because that's foundational to public policy.

It's perfectly acceptable for private ventures, such as WSJ, NYT or WaPo, to put their articles behind a paywall. Put differently, even during the 1918 pandemic, you would still pay the paperboy on the corner of the street a few nickles to get a copy of the daily.

If you think that the WSJ or NYT are mere outlets for public health administration, you're very much mistaken. The "independence" of the Press serves one goal in particular: to critically assert public governance. That independence is a constitutional right, but it's not a guarantee nor an entitlement.

Good journalism needs to be paid for. The digital age didn't suddenly deprecate the expense associated with doing research and writing a good piece.

So, the statement needs to be amended:

> the media served as an essential ally of the public health community in > fighting the pandemic, but it can only do so if the audience is willing to > pay for the efforts.

Yes, I understand that in modern economics, particular outlets are part of larger corporations. A newspaper can be a losing proposition if the costs can be covered through other income channels.

The downside of that is the reduction of quality as media channels devolve in sheer revenue machines (ads, subscriptions,...) or heavily biased outlets. Hence why I feel that supporting journalist organisations, who aren't "brands" bought by larger corporations, is where audiences can really make a difference if we hope to let a true "free and independent" press survive.

TL;DR: The "free" in "free press" doesn't mean free lunch.

<comment><USER19> You don't need to be for-profit to be independent, and you don't need a paywall to get paid - see Guardian: [https://www.theguardian.com/global/2019/may/01/the- guardian-...](https://www.theguardian.com/global/2019/may/01/the-guardian- break-even-katharine-viner)

<comment><USER18> > You don't need to be for-profit to be independent

When I stated "private", I implicitly referred to for-profit and non-profit organizations a-like.

I could go on a tangent about the merits and differences between public and private legal entities, non-profit and profit based organizations. I could even dive into the rabbit hole of private organizations who receive grants from public endowments and such.

It's an interesting discussion. But that would be splitting hairs.

It should be clear that organizing any media outlet implies incurring costs and expenses, regardless. Those need to be covered somehow. And the strategic choices made in picking sources of revenue are going to affect independence in subtle and less subtle ways regardless.

> and you don't need a paywall to get paid - see Guardian

I didn't say news outlets "need" a paywall. I said that there is no such thing as a free lunch and someone always pays for putting the news out.

The last paragraph in that op-ed explicitly states how necessary it is to pay for content:

> In the last three years, more than one million people around the world have > chosen to support The Guardian financially. Thank you to all of you who have > supported us and we hope more of you will consider joining us on this > mission — you can do this through voluntary contributions, subscriptions to > the Guardian, the Observer and Guardian Weekly, or as part of our patrons > programme. As we approach the Guardian's 200th anniversary in 2021, your > support will help ensure we can keep holding the powerful to account, with > purpose, for many generations to come.

I was also well aware of the choice made by the Guardian. I omitted the example because their choice entails taking a calculated but huge risk: politely asking their audience to pay for free content could have gone horribly wrong. The audience of the Guardian was willing to follow suit, but another audience might simply indulge in freeloading without limits.

<comment><USER19> Thanks for elaborating! I think we mostly agree. Perhaps the biggest question is whether it's ok to profit from the pandemia? I would say in general it's ok as long as your prices are reasonable and there is no surge pricing, but media outlets can have a conflict of interest between reliable reporting and attention-seeking. For WSJ, the middle ground might be to fund their pandemia coverage from their profits elsewhere, and to profit indirectly via new readership.

<comment><USER18> Exactly! News doesn't "happen", it is "made". Hence the phrase "that made the headlines!". Reporting is mirroring events as they happen, and in doing so creating a narrative that explains why things happen and how they unfold.

This is where context matters and Marshall McLuhan's "The medium is the message" starts to make sense.

> He said that a medium affects the society in which it plays a role not only > by the content delivered over the medium, but also by the characteristics of > the medium itself.

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

> Perhaps the biggest question is whether it's ok to profit from the pandemia?

I think it's hard question to answer because you're implicitly asking "can we find a universal standard that provides a consistent answer in different contexts?" and the answer is "no" because ethical and moral standards are always based on a collective consensus emerging from the interplay between many individual, contradicting beliefs. This is why moral standards can also shift and change over time.

It's worth observing that there will always be unscrupulous outlets ready to profit from a good crisis ("don't let a good crisis go to waste!").

This is where it's up to society to define their own moral standards and give individuals the leverage through education to critically assert the value of the news. Is this item truly informative or is it clear fearmongering and not worth the paper it was printed on? And how much do we value voicing our own dissent or disagreement with what was printed?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I've been extremely pessimistic since early January when I started following this obsessively - and I still think it's going to get far worse before it gets better.

But there is a silver lining here. This is probably the first time in history that a disease will have this much attention from so many researchers. There's a good chance someone will find a cure or prophylactic relatively soon, even if a vaccine is unlikely.

Also any potential drug will be put on rush evaluation so things should move quickly - there's Hope yet.

<comment><USER21> I agree. And yet there are swarms of people complaining the media attention is alarmist or that this is no big deal.

Pretty sure public response so far, at least stateside.

<comment><USER22> It's my anecdotal observation that there are more people hysterical _over the hysteria_ than there are people legitimately hysterical over the virus. But that's probably not representative. I hope.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Link around the paywall: [http://apkmetro.com/what-we-can-learn-from-the-20th- centurys...](http://apkmetro.com/what-we-can-learn-from-the-20th-centurys- deadliest-pandemic/)

<comment><USER24> That's a very odd link. It's mostly the same but has many transcription errors. Maybe to ward off automated takedown notices or something?

<comment><USER9> I assume they run it through a translator and back. Other ideas?

It's just to wash it for copyright.

It's actually a good business case for GANs (In the underground)</comment></comment></comment>


Where art thou Rubyist? - <AUTHOR>

Apparently Ruby developers are non-existent in NYC? We're about to raise a substantial Seed/Series A from top NYC investors/VCs - any lead/senior Rubyists in or looking to relocate to NYC, interested?<p>josh[@]goodcrush[.]com <comment><USER2> There's quite a few: <http://nycruby.org/wiki/pages/Members></comment>


Crocodoc (YC W10) Sets Its Sights On Adobe Acrobat With New Update - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/19/crocodoc-edit-pdf/

<comment><USER2> Finally! Now ... umm ... certain people I know won't have to pirate stupid Acrobat. I hate that program.

The funny thing is that Adobe could probably make the same thing in about three weeks, but they won't because they hate change.

<comment><USER3> Foxit is a great desktop replacement for Adobe Acrobat. I love their products..

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is exactly what I've been looking for -- I've been trying to find a way to collaboratively edit a draft PDF of a newsletter, without dumping a lot of money on Acrobat.

</comment><comment><USER5> This kind of evolution to the cloud is inevitable, I'm glad to see a team making it happen for a piece of software that is so essential to business.

</comment><comment><USER6> Hmm, they're taking a bit of a risk with being flash-based for pdf-export. Hitting your platform vendor for one of their (presumably) cash cows is asking for a response.

<comment><USER7> It's not like Adobe has some kill switch for Flash apps or can deny them new versions of Flash or anything.

If they were putting something that competed with Apple/AT&T in the App Store, that would be one thing because Apple could find (or invent) some TOS violation and then flip a switch and delete it from all the iPhones everywhere.

But Adobe can't do much to kill a Flash app they don't like. I guess they could add some "if domain = crocodoc.com {crash()}" type line to a Flash update, but it would be hard to do in a way where they wouldn't get caught, and that would be a horrible anti-trust case for them.

Besides, for a very long time, Crocodoc won't be taking appreciable market share. Plus I don't see Crocodoc as much of an Acrobat competitor. Acrobat is for creating and editing PDFs; Crocodoc is for marking them up with edits. I doubt very many people that actually need Acrobat could get away with just using Crocodoc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Hm, a bit slow on my top of line MacBook Pro, Chrome, latest Flash... just trying to draw on a small PDF...

<comment><USER9> crocodoc developer here. This generally depends on the complexity and number of pages in the PDF. If your PDF has a lot of images, graphics, etc or has a lot of pages (more than 60-80) or some combination thereof, Flash becomes...shall we say, unhappy.

Feel free to contact myself or crocodoc support about the issue and we'll take a look at it.

<comment><USER10> I always appreciate active customer support/outreach like this. Keep up the awesome work

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Very encouraging. I tried to "print to PDF" a sample doc I had been plying with, but it just reported some unnamed error.

Assuming that sort of stuff gets fixed and polished up, this site solves a few real problems for me.

</comment><comment><USER12> Looks good! Are notes added on the site compatible with Acrobat Reader, though?

<comment><USER9> I'm a developer with crocodoc. Yes, all annotations you make in crocodoc will show up in Acrobat Reader, Foxit, etc.

More detail: Sticky Notes and highlight comments are saved as native PDF comments. All other annotation types (highlights, strikeouts, and drawings) are drawn in to the PDF file.</comment></comment>


7 no-nonsense tips to master JavaScript - <AUTHOR> http://blog.debugme.eu/master-javascript/ <comment><USER2> _THIS_ is what they think that you need in order to "Master" JavaScript?!?

These are all beginner steps! There is no mention of Prototypical inheritance (upon which the language itself is built). There is no mention of closures. There is nothing to help someone understand the nature of JavaScript and how it can/should be used.

This post is trivial, surface-level information, and has as much to do with "Mastering" Javascript as training wheels do to riding a motorcycle.</comment>


It May Not Cost You More to Drive Home in a Climate-Friendly Car - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/2016/09/27/495534164/it-may-not-cost-you-more-to-drive-home-in-a-lower-emission-car <comment><USER2> I had more questions about the specific parameters they were using, so I followed the link ([http://carboncounter.com/](http://carboncounter.com/)) in the article and checked out the "Customize" tab. Pretty sweet.

</comment><comment><USER3> I thought that they would have overlooked taxes. In fact, I can't see how this is anything other than stacking the deck:

"Each vehicle's price is based on its official manufacturer's suggested retail price (MSRP) without tax. In addition, we evaluate the impact of federal tax refunds on the lifecycle costs of PHEVs, BEVs, and FCVs. The federal refund scales with the capacity of the battery up to a maximum value of $7500.45 Finally, we inspect the added effect of a best-case state tax refund. Assessed for the case of California, this contributes $1500 for PHEVs, $2500 for BEVs, and $5000 for FCVs.46 Some other states have similar programs, but they were not analyzed in detail."

In California, sales and license taxes are about 18% of purchase price (half up front, half over the next 11 years). But they've chosen to take California for the rebate, but not include higher taxes on the purchase price (hybrids have higher purchase price but lower operating costs).

Similarly a caption on one of the charts. "(d) a BEV-friendly energy price scenario, using average inflation-adjusted prices from Washington State in 2012 ($3.88/gal for gasoline and $0.086/kWh for electricity) and combined federal and state (CA) tax refunds."

This analysis is cherry picking pieces of the equation from different scenarios, and so paints a more rosy picture of the cost of alternative energy than _any_ single consumer could possibly have faced.

I don't doubt that electric cars will get there, but saying they are there now is a lie.

</comment><comment><USER4> if one concerns about 'climate', he should learn there is no such thing as a 'climate friendly car'

</comment><comment><USER5> I think if climate friendly options were available in more chassis options and body styles, people would adopt them faster. I think people want to do the 'right' thing in switching to an EV/hybrid option, but there isn't a climate friendly, cost effective pickup/SUV option available.

Tesla has the right idea in offering a low cost EV option that doesn't look stupid with the Model 3. If there were Camry/Corolla and Accord/Civic EV options with the same off-the-lot price tag and same exact body style available, I think we would see more widespread adoption.

Additionally, if we were to see more electric utility vehicle options available with body styles identical to the gasoline powered ones we see on the road today, I believe that would capture another large swath of consumers. Of course, this hinges on the manufacturers to offer these options in spite of their gasoline producer friends urging them not to.

<comment><USER6> For fun -- you can almost get the "MPGe" equivalent of a Tesla S in a Geo Metro or Honda CRX

[http://jalopnik.com/5558345/how-to-get-997-mpg-from-a-geo- me...](http://jalopnik.com/5558345/how-to-get-997-mpg-from-a-geo-metro)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> What's missing from the article is an analysis of the break-even point. How long do you have to own your hybrid before the high initial cost pays off? There's also the problem that there are not "climate-friendly" equivalents for many vehicles. The article mentions the Chevy Suburban; there's no electric option that big. Obviously big SUVs are going to be more expensive to operate than sedans, which makes me wonder if they are even comparing apples to apples here.

<comment><USER8> The model x is the closest to a suburban, 3 rows of seats are available, it can tow.

<comment><USER7> I think you're right. I also think that if you told a suburban owner that they should trade for the Model X, they would laugh.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I live in a city and park my car on the street. How am I supposed to charge it.

<comment><USER10> You are what they call "high hanging fruit". People like you won't be part of the equation until deeper into the adoption curve. But the answer is: your car will charge itself somewhere and drive itself to you.

<comment><USER11> Not saying that won't happen eventually, but it seems a lot more likely to me that on-street public charging facilities will proliferate as EVs gain popularity.

<comment><USER10> There will be some, but car ownership will collapse as soon as it becomes more expensive per mile than being driven around by the Uber/Tesla/Google fleets. And it'll be much easier politically and financially to replace your car with a fleet than to get new infrastructure installed in cities. It will happen in specific places (Portland, Helsinki, etc) but I think the adoption curve of street charging will be dwarfed by the adoption of self-driving cabs by 2025.

Self-driving cabs don't have to be allowed everywhere for that to happen, they just have to be allowed in more places than there are electric street charging infrastructure projects.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> _sigh_ Another one of these that focus on new cars. Most fiscally minded people, like myself, exclusively drive used cars. Even a lightly used model that is only a couple of years old is significantly cheaper than a new car.

As I get more environmentally conscientious, here's what I really want to know: What is better for the environment manufacturing a branch new EV and driving it around for 5 years or picking up an existing junker that's going to be scrapped and doing the same.

<comment><USER13> Get a used EV! The Nissan Leaf is highly recommended as a used car. We have to build new ones -- and sell them -- before there are used ones available.

[http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1098554_should-i-buy- a-u...](http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1098554_should-i-buy-a-used- nissan-leaf-or-another-electric-car)

<comment><USER12> Interesting, I had assumed that EVs maintain their value better, but this link says the opposite. I'll have to check it out. Thanks!

<comment><USER8> Tesla have held their value better because there was a shortage, but increasing supply and competition / availability of other models is putting downward pressure on used prices. But all these cars have advancing technology. My view is buying a slightly more expensive electric car today is jumpstarting the future for other people. And if you prefer, you can buy a very cheap used ev today - if doing so, the key thing is to figure out if the car has reduced range. Teslas don't generally have a problem with this because they cool the battery pack when recharging, not other cars do that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Is there much research on how information like this actually affects consumer decisions? It looks good on paper, but the up-front cost is still generally much higher than higher-emission vehicles. My impression is that people will generally ignore these long-term benefits in favor of the more immediate reward of a lower investment at the start, but perhaps that coupled with the environmental factors could sway more minds than usual in this case?

<comment><USER15> I'm not sure of the research, but I think your impression is correct to a point.

I think for lower-income buyers, the initial cost is prohibitive - even with long-term savings and benefits. And I'm guessing some banks would hesitate to give the extra loan money as well if you don't have the income to support it.

It is kind of like buying a decent pair of shoes. If you are working retail, it muchly benefits you to buy good shoes. But you have to save for those shoes because of income limitations: If your current shoes wear out before you can buy new ones, you get sucked further into a cycle of cheap new shoes.

It really doesn't matter if you get long-term benefits or have a great desire to be environmentally friendly if you can't afford to do so. I think once we have a decent used car market with them and the price comes down to soemthing on par with higher-emission vehicles, there will be a much larger change.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Can I ask a couple of naive questions (I'm not very well informed on these issues):

1\. Since electric cars may well be powered by coal, not gasoline, might they not be more heavily emitting?

2\. Does the environmental impact of creating and disposing all the batteries in electric cars counterbalance any emission gains?

<comment><USER17> EVs are still better taking both these issues (and some others that aren't immediately obvious) into account:

[http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric- vehicles/life-...](http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric- vehicles/life-cycle-ev-emissions)

Cleaner Cars from Cradle to Grave

 _" Over their lifetime, battery electric vehicles produce far less global warming pollution than their gasoline counterparts—and they're getting cleaner."_

 _" We found that battery electric cars generate half the emissions of the average comparable gasoline car, even when pollution from battery manufacturing is accounted for."_

<comment><USER18> According to the graph in the OP, battery-powered EVs have roughly 1/2 the lifecycle emissions. That's certainly lower and a good thing, but not a fundamental change given what needs to be done.

I'd have to do the math, but it would seem that the switch from gas to electric is roughly as beneficial as the past switch from carburetors to fuel injection. It looks incremental rather than revolutionary. And I think there is much improvement to be made. These numbers are American cars, so I assume they aren't diesel and are for generally larger cars than in europe. Has a diesel-electric hybrid ever been sold in the US?

<comment><USER19> As electricity sources get cleaner, so will electric cars. Diesel and diesel- hybrid will stay the same.

Solar, wind, and storage are getting so cheap that they will completely change the electricity generation profile over the next few decades.

Even without that, a factor of 2 would be considered a revolution by pretty much any measure.

<comment><USER18> >> Diesel and diesel-hybrid will stay the same.

Really? Development is done? I think there are plenty of engineers out there working on efficiency. Engines today are more efficient than they were a generation ago, and will be better in the future. In the realm of personal transport we can talk of going all-electric but for things like shipping, the heavy+distance things, there don't seem to be many non-IC options. Development therefore must not be abandoned.

<comment><USER20> Your car stays the same. Unless you're replacing your car all the time, you're not enjoying these higher efficiencies.

Existing battery-electric vehicles become cleaner as their electricity supply becomes cleaner.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Anecdotally: I wanted the cheapest possible new car for commuting around the Bay Area. After some research, I found the Spark EV for only $60/month after rebates. With insurance it's only$5/day. I assumed electric cars were defacto expensive until I actually researched it. No idea why more people don't pick up these cars.

(Probably because it only goes 80 miles)

<comment><USER22> Hate to say it but this is part of the problem. There's nothing sustainable about these manufacturer/government sponsored lease deals. California is the biggest offender with the largest incentives and unreal regulations. A car is a long term consumer good, the energy that goes into building one outweighs the 2-3 year leases these cars are offered at loss prices. What happens when these leases are up? Most owners will walk, because why pay big bucks to buy out the car if you can get into another one for $50/month. These cars will end up being bought back en masse by the manufacturers and it's a big question what will happen then. Very likely to be scraped and, again, lots of energy wasted. All thanks to Californias EV credit system.

Edit: lol downvote all you want, the reality won't change. If you understand the economics of these leases (see my other comment) you'll see it too...

<comment><USER13> Your argument is pretty thin. I would imagine the best way to alleviate your concerns would be to require aggressive recycling programs for an EV.

Long-term, the sale of these cars is allowing the EV market to mature. Already the price of the batteries has gone way down. The nextgen EVs coming out this year and next with 200+ miles of range were only made possible by this "unsustainable" consumer good. Maybe my 2012 EV with 75 miles of range is already in a land-fill somewhere. But a car like a Tesla S keeps its value surprisingly well and should last for quite a while.

The Chevy Bolt is a compelling car that someone could own for a decade. Your main complaint is that the cars are evolving so fast that there are better options available every time your lease is up. Big deal!

I think the battery is the most hazardous component. It's also the most valuable from a recycling perspective.

Firstgen EVs are not popular in the aftermarket: [http://blog.caranddriver.com/tesla-aside-resale-values- for-e...](http://blog.caranddriver.com/tesla-aside-resale-values-for-electric- cars-are-still-tanking/)

Battery recycling is an emerging market as well: [http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1093810_electric-car- bat...](http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1093810_electric-car-batteries- what-happens-to-them-after-coming-out-of-the-car)

<comment><USER22> You're comparing a 100k luxury Tesla with a $80/month lease. Yes I understand the EV market is maturing and will find more niches while it develops but least not ignore the reality of the $49/month EV (yes you can lease a Golf EV at my local VW dealer for that little). See my other comment on how these leases work and why they're not economically sustainable. There's also the issue of California's EV credits that force every manufacturer to have an EV. Why do you think Fiat sells the 500 EV? Not because the couple thousand they sell a year are worth it economically, I can say that much.

<comment><USER13> Sorry for mentioning Tesla. I realize it's an annoyingly expensive luxury car. The larger point is that getting a "usable" firstgen EV required getting a luxury car. A nextgen EV with 200+ miles of range will be available for "affordable" prices by the end of this year (from Chevy).

EV incentives weren't meant to be unsustainable. That's why they're limited to 200k cars per manufacturer. Tesla will be the first EV maker to become ineligible for tax credits because they will have hit the limit. They're also the first EV maker to deliver a car that keeps its value. Others will follow this year and next.

How the EV tax credit works: [https://cleantechnica.com/2016/04/19/how-the-ev- tax-credit-w...](https://cleantechnica.com/2016/04/19/how-the-ev-tax-credit- works-tesla-model-3/)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


C Pointer Conversions - <AUTHOR> http://alessandrodimartino.com/c-pointer-conversions.html <comment><USER2> Not good advice. This violates the strict aliasing rules, and is not guaranteed to give the results you might expect.

Strict aliasing is off by default in MSVC, which is why he might get the results he expected here, but bear in mind that it's on by default when optimizations are enabled in GCC.

As a general rule when blogging about some programming language features - follow the language specification and not some implementation specific behavior.</comment>


GitLab Flow (2014) - <AUTHOR> https://about.gitlab.com/2014/09/29/gitlab-flow/ <comment><USER2> Thanks for posting this, I'm always interested in how to advise our users better so feel free to ask questions or disagree. BTW We're trying to keep [http://doc.gitlab.com/ee/workflow/gitlab_flow.html](http://doc.gitlab.com/ee/workflow/gitlab_flow.html) updated with the latest learnings although it is very similar to the blog post.

<comment><USER3> Yo thanks for being so active here and answering questions so helpfully

<comment><USER2> Thanks for having me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Everybody is talking about GitLab these days but actually I am interested to see number of those who are ready to migrate to it for real... It still a lot of talk and little realization...

<comment><USER5> Been following Gitlab pretty closely. At raintank we run a fairly large open source project on Github: Grafana. We're pretty frustrated with a lot of limitations on Github.

These limitations are becoming more painful as we grow our team, and deal with more issues across more repos.

Gitlab seems to be iterating pretty quickly. Github glacially.

For us, the killer feature that Github has is the network effect. We want to make it as easy for people to contribute code/collaborate on Grafana, and Github is where all the action (developers and code) is.

I suspect that many medium/large OSS projects have the same mindset.

<comment><USER2> We love Grafana, it allowed us to make GitLab.com issues three times faster this week [https://gitlab.com/gitlab- com/operations/issues/42](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/operations/issues/42)

I understand if you don't move to GitLab yet because of the network effect. Just so you know, GitLab allows people to log in with their GitHub account.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I still haven't seen a better git branching model than [https://gist.github.com/17twenty/6733076](https://gist.github.com/17twenty/6733076) (aka feature branching model). I've found this model works well for smaller apps and can scale easily with modularization and feature flags.

<comment><USER2> That is not a bad model and you'll prevent merge commits. However in GitLab flow I advocate against rebasing of commits you pushed: "However you should never rebase commits you have pushed to a remote server. Somebody can have referred to the commits or cherry-picked them. When you rebase you change the identifier (SHA1) of the commit and this is confusing. If you do that the same change will be known under multiple identifiers and this can cause much confusion. If people already reviewed your code it will be hard for them to review only the improvements you made since then if you have rebased everything into one commit." I think that "Your codebase should be clean but your history should represent what actually happened.". But if you want to use your model GitLab does support it, GitLab EE and .com allow you to rebase and merge from the web interface [http://doc.gitlab.com/ee/workflow/rebase_before_merge.html](http://doc.gitlab.com/ee/workflow/rebase_before_merge.html)

<comment><USER7> I basically use the model described in this gist and dislike the fact that our review history is basically lost when we rebase to fix the commits. Rather than "what actually happened", we prefer logical commits so that when you run `git blame`, you can see a commit that makes sense rather than "WIP". What we really want is a code review system that has _changesets_ so that we can keep our git history clean, but also have a full history of our code review. I'm really surprised that in all of these GitHub discussions, there hasn't been much raised about their insufficient code review system.

<comment><USER8> [https://reviewable.io](https://reviewable.io) deals with changes in this way and has no problems with rebasing, even distinguishing between deltas in the branch vs the base when diffing. Only works on top of GitHub, though, sorry. (Disclosure: I'm the founder.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Yup, that's usually what I prefer to do myself anyway.

Working on teams we usually commit to '$username/$feature' branches though, to keep it reasonably clean and not potentially pollute others' namespaces. We're also not allowed to merge in our own PRs (usually, unless it's tiny) to force code reviews, which generally works out quite nicely.</comment>


The New CEO's First Moves - <AUTHOR> http://blog.dilbert.com/post/153905823756/the-new-ceos-first-moves-and-trump <comment><USER2> Reading Scott Adams is exhausting. I feel like his posts are a writing exercise to see how many times one can use the words persuasion

You don't need a business filter to understand that politicians love high visibility projects. A common thread with Adams posts is that he fetishises anything Trump does as genius and, prior to the election, demonizes everything Clinton did as manipulative. That and he gave a lot of credit to conspiracy theories. Honestly I think he's trolling by now.

<comment><USER3> > Honestly I think he's trolling by now.

You're giving him more credit than I think he's due.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Conspiracy theories aside, rational, open discourse is necessary for a free society. Another HN user put it very eloquently:

      This U.S. election has been an important inflection point in displaying the bias and application of bias
      by "apparently" disinterested entities like Twitter, reddit and the like - places that claim
      to advocate diversity and openness, yet struggle to do so in the face of conflict.

<comment><USER5> > struggle to do so

I don't think they're struggling very hard. If anything, they're struggling to make it look like there's anything except complete bias.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> was Scott Adams always insane and he got exposed this election, or did something happen to him?

Edit: To be clear I mean the constant "I'm being watched/I'm being abused/they want to kill me" conspiracy theories that have been coupled with his lavish praise for Trump.

<comment><USER7> He was always insane, it was just better hidden. See the very end of his 1997 book "The Dilbert Future" where he essentially tells us how he bends the universe to his will with "The Secret" style positive thinking.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> > Facts don't matter. What matters is how you feel.

This is why democrats lost the elections. Facts matter. You can't justify war on ISIS based on their barbaric laws and think Saudi Arabia financing HRC is the best thing ever. People can see the dissonance.

<comment><USER9> Except "Saudia Arabia financing HRC" is not a factual statement.

<comment><USER8> > Saudi Arabia has been a particularly generous benefactor. The kingdom gave > between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation. (Donations > are typically reported in broad ranges, not specific amounts.) At least $1 > million more was donated by Friends of Saudi Arabia, which was co-founded by > a Saudi prince.

Ref: [http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/hillary- clinto...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/hillary-clinton- presidential-campaign-charity.html)

<comment><USER10> The Clinton Foundation is a global healthcare charity. [https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summar...](https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680)

It does not personally benefit the Clintons (other than the prestige). I've donated to Michael J. Fox's foundation. Does that make me his benefactor?

<comment><USER11> Is this why Clinton Foundation donations have massively fallen sense she lost the election?

Are we now assuming every charity is on equal moral grounds?

<comment><USER12> > Is this why Clinton Foundation donations have massively fallen sense she > lost the election?

If you are already see Clinton as corrupt, you'll see the reported drop in, particularly, foreign-government-linked donations as Clinton having less influence to sell.

If you already see Trump as petty and vindictive, or even merely widely perceived as such, you'Lloyd see it is people who may need to deal with the Trump Administration avoiding antagonizing that Administration.

<comment><USER11> How about the Qataar donation of a million dollars to the CF which they never reported?

> The Clinton Foundation has confirmed it accepted a $1 million gift from > Qatar while Hillary Clinton was U.S. secretary of state without informing > the State Department, even though she had promised to let the agency review > new or significantly increased support from foreign governments.

[http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-foundation- id...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-foundation- idUSKBN12Z2SL)

<comment><USER13> I appreciate your efforts to correct the record ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Ok, ignoring all the other Trump stuff in the post for the moment, I'm confused about something. At the end, he claims to be shadowbanned on Twitter, yet a quick check of his twitter account shows his last tweet was 4 hours ago, and he has visible tweets for every day for as far back as I bothered to check. (about a week)

Am I missing something?

<comment><USER11> He's referring to the fact that his tweets won't appear in peoples streams, this is a way to reduce his influence in the twitter sphere.

<comment><USER14> Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification.

As a side note, I wanted to check if that was really the case so I just created a new twitter account to test with, and even with the "Tailor Twitter based on my recent website visits" option unchecked, Scott Adams showed up as the very first and only suggested person to follow in the "You might also be interested in" section. Creepy...

EDIT: ----

And holy shit, I just refreshed the page and now I see this:

 _Your account has been locked.

(Your Name) @(username) What happened? Your account appears to have exhibited automated behavior that violates the Twitter Rules. To unlock your account, please complete the steps below and confirm that you are the valid account owner. What you can do: To unlock your account, you must do the following: Verify your phone number_

Goddamnit Twitter, you are not doing yourself any favors here.

<comment><USER15> Honestly because of people like you who takes time to fact check and post the method used are the only reason I come to HN. Strangely I have never met people like this in real life. Long live internet.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


20+ Great Greasemonkey Scripts for Improving Your Twitter Experience - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2008/12/17/twitter-greasemonkey-scripts/

<comment><USER2> Number Adjective Plural Noun for Target Audience

<comment><USER3> If you keep on giving away their secrets, the blog mafia is going to hunt you down and make you pay...

<comment><USER2> I won't worry about it until I see "100 Ways to Make GHFigs Pay", etc.</comment></comment></comment>


Thoughts on the Amazon Kindle Fire - <AUTHOR> http://paulstamatiou.com/amazon-kindle-fire

<comment><USER4> > _"One is great for movies with a larger screen (and that is just about the > only thing my iPad gets used for"_

And this is why I think Kindle Fire has a chance.

The author himself admits that his iPad is really only good for movie watching. Well, now you can do it for a shockingly low price of $200, and everything streams from the internet, no long download or sync necessary.

Remember all the people complaining about the iPad being a pure media consumption device, and how that will destroy the creativity of the world? Well, this is that idea taken to the extreme - this device practically _does nothing else_. And I think it will work.

<comment><USER5> Here's what I wonder, though - how often do people watch movies at home on a 7" screen? Don't they have a better (larger) option? The reason I ask is with no 3G and only 8GB of storage, the Fire doesn't strike me as being all that great for watching movies on the go.

<comment><USER4> I have this concern also. I'm imagining the really ideal use cases - <USER2> out at a coffee shop, waiting for a flight, etc... and all of the above have shaky/low-bandwidth WiFi at best. Really, it's only at _home_ where you're likely to get the amount of bandwidth necessary to stream a movie at acceptable quality.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think Paul is missing the point. It doesn't have to be one or the other (e-Ink vs color LCD).

You can't watch videos on e-Ink.

While the market for e-books is large, the market for e-books + videos + color magazines + other content is of course, far larger.

<comment><AUTHOR> I was just hoping for Amazon to bring something new to the table:

"I was talking about the rumored Kindle Fire tablet with my cofounder the other day. My point was that for it to really work, Amazon would have to deliver on both the tablet/media aspect while simultaneously maintaining the solid reading experience — most likely through a hybrid screen that can easily switch to e-Ink when you are outside or wish to read in a glare-free, black and white mode. Such displays have been in the works since 2009 (search for Pixel Qi e-Ink / LCD hybrid), and it would be great to see Amazon pull a home- run with such tech in their latest device."

<comment><USER7> _a hybrid screen that can easily switch to e-Ink when you are outside_

I'm just not buying the utility of this. e-Ink-based Kindles are now at the $80 price point, which for someone who can afford Kindle books is darned close to the "afterthought" level. They don't weigh a lot -- under _six_ ounces! -- because they have an enormous battery life, so they don't need a big battery. So why not just buy an e-Ink Kindle _and_ an iPad?

Just toss them both in the bag. When the sun is out, pull out the one; when it's time for Angry Birds, pull out the other. When it's time to read a book _while_ playing Angry Birds, use one in each hand. Or, when all I want to do is read, I get to save weight and theft risk and damage risk and distraction risk by just carrying the cheapo Kindle around.

Are we going to save money with the e-Ink/LCD hybrid screen? I doubt it: Even if it is ready for prime time, I bet it would tend to add more than $80 to the final price of a Kindle Fire. It's odd, it's new, it's more complicated, and ( _ahem_ ) it's got twice the IP licensing costs, at least, because e-Ink is still patented, is it not? And, worse, it would introduce a big layer of complication into the development of Kindle Fire apps. Isn't Android fragmented enough? Do you really want to force Android developers who want to target the Kindle Fire to have to decide _which layer of the screen_ their graphics should address? All for no greater purpose than pleasing the five users who desperately want a tablet, and who desperately want an e-Ink Kindle, but who can't bear to own both at the same time, one for each hand?

<comment><USER8> This is spot on. All-in-one devices inevitably have to make compromises on features, price, quality, or battery life, which make them less good at any particular thing. This is also why I think Paul Graham is overestimating how much special-purpose devices will be replaced by tablets.

People who actually care about photography won't be happy with a cellphone camera. Book readers probably won't. Mobile game consoles might, but it's not a given. Apple still sold 7.5 million iPods in Q3 2011.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "At first glance the Fire looks like a hybrid between the failed Barnes & Noble Nook and the also 7-inch screen Samsung Galaxy Tab."

About 40% of the people I know who have e-readers didn't give a damn about eInk and chose the Nook.

The rest of this comes off as "Waaaah, I don't want Angry Birds on my Kindle" to which I say: buy one of the _two_ new eInk models...

<comment><USER10> No kidding! Even if I granted that a new brand-space might make sense, if you want a dedicated e-reader, then buy one. I love the e-ink, and I would not buy an iPad/Android/Kindle with a backlight as an e-reader device, but mostly people don't understand and say "wait, I can't read it in the dark?".

I feel the author missed the point almost entirely. Android has been hurting because Google repeatedly fails to deliver on an integrated media experience. Amazon can bring streaming video, TV partnerships, books, music and apps, _today_. All by themselves, in their own ecosystem on their own devices. This is the closest thing to an iTunes (and iTunes' library) competitor.

<comment><USER11> I agree. I feel that the Kindle Fire is Amazon's physical manifestation of it's online services. Whereas Google provides Android as a foundation for other hardware manufacturers to use this is a distinct offering from any other tablet in the market. You have Amazon building a targeted consumption device for apps, games, books, and video.

This is indeed a compelling offering. It's a one-stop shop. Rather than content providers fighting with Apple. Amazon as the content provider is not doing that and making it easier for Average Joe's like me to consume content. Much like Apple did with music and iTunes years ago.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Can't we wait for reviews of the actual shipping product before making sweeping conclusions about its pros and cons?

</comment><comment><USER13> I can't agree more with this evaluation. I'm happy that at least Amazon didn't kill off the e-ink Kindle.

Doing a lot of testing, I use an iPad 1, iPad 2, MacBook, Galaxy Tab, iPhone, and a netbook near-daily. My favorite electronic device is definitely my Kindle, because it doesn't feel technical and encourages me to do things - <USER3> read often, and pay attention - that I want to do in my heart of hearts, not things I'm distracted into doing, like cheap games and so-called social networking.

</comment><comment><USER14> Just buy both? They are different products with different goals. "Kindle" doesn't mean they are both _reading_ devices, "Kindle" means they are both _media_ devices.</comment>


The Sorry State of Copy-On-write File Systems - <AUTHOR> http://louwrentius.com/the-sorry-state-of-cow-file-systems.html <comment><USER2> (2015)</comment>


CSS: Fully Accessible Background Images - <AUTHOR> http://www.cssforums.org/comments.php?DiscussionID=8

<comment><AUTHOR> Watch what happens to the logos at Digg and Slashdot if you disable images...</comment>


Why Amsterdam Works So Well for Bikes - <AUTHOR> https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/10/5-reasons-why-amsterdam-works-so-well-for-bikes/544101/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheAtlanticCities+%28CityLab%29 <comment><USER3> I'm totally confident that we could replicate Amsterdam in any US city if we wanted to. But before we get there, I need an article about what to do about the fact that so many of my fellow Denver Coloradans _hate_ : bike lanes, buses, trains, places to live, sidewalks, wind turbines, solar panels (but also normal road maintenance and traffic). It's like there is a conscious effort to create more smog and traffic jams.

It is boggling. We can't even start to think about having nice things until we diagnose this particular social disorder affecting America.

<comment><USER4> Call me cynical, but: Anything that threatens the current way of life, the current status quo, or is representative of a school of thought that clashes with the aforementioned can cause cognitive dissonance. Simple as that.

Many people don't really _believe_ that driving is wrong, or harmful. But supporting radical infrastructure changes to accommodate an alternative means admitting to that to a further extent that most people are comfortable with.

<comment><USER5> Driving is neither wrong nor harmful. And if you want that bike acceptance, maybe talk about advantages without framing everyone else as "bad". If you do, you are guaranteed to create yet another pointless culture war instead of damm bike lane.

<comment><USER6> If you play good cop, then you're easy to dismiss. If you play bad cop, then you're 'guaranteed to create another pointless culture war'. You can't win.

But jumping the shark with the personal automobile is certainly _wrong_ and _harmful_.

From a social standpoint it manufactures inequality. Access to effective transportation is the single greatest factor in determining an individual's opportunity for upward economic mobility. And if you live in a world built for cars and can't drive, well, fuck you.

It's environmentally destructive. This one's easy, but it's important to note that it isn't just the emissions from the tailpipe, it's all the sprawl and infrastructure built to accomodate the car. Mankind has chalked up a lot of black marks in it's short history, but rendering the biosphere uninhabitable? That takes the cake. In the grand scheme of things, what the hell are we doing if we aren't at least making a nominal effort to leave the place in better condition than it was when we arrived?

Economically it's bad for us too. James Kunstler called the suburbs 'the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of western civilization'. When I first read that it struck me as a sensational and hyperbolic statement, but after having it knock around in my head for a few years, I don't think it is an outrageous claim to make.

One of the inherent contradictions of human nature is that we're surprisingly adaptable, yet stubbornly resistant to change. Nobody likes to be told they're doing it wrong, but what else is there to say? You're doing it wrong.

<comment><USER5> I don't play cop at all. I like biking and use public transport fairly often. I do separate garbage etc. I don't think that driving is inherently immoral. I think that when you are framing it that way, you are overstating individual contribution to bad environment. Otherwise said, you are manipulating and exaggerating and using fear to get your wish.

And better public infrastructure for biking here did came after a lobbying and money collection and what not from activists. They did not used the "you are all bad people unless we get what we want" nor "we are hollier then you" strategy. And yep, such strategy breeds more stubborn resistance - <USER2> while many people are with accepting bike trail and what not (it does not costs all that much in the grand scheme of things), once you insult them you pretty much lost before you even started.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> You missed temperate climate. Yes there is a picture of snow but its rare. As are hot humid days where you get soaked just standing in the shade - which are all too common in much of the US.

<comment><USER8> Montreal is one of North America's top city for biking and has one of the worst climates for it. People adjust in all kinds of ways.

It's mostly about density and culture IMO.

<comment><USER9> Cold is much easier to handle on a bike than heat/humidity. You can wear warmer clothes and take them off at work, but you usually can't shower and change into a new set of clothes.

<comment><USER10> I have to somewhat disagree. I feel so uncomfortable biking in thick clothes and layers, and you absolutely have to cuff up your pant leg to pedal anyway, so cold wind feels awful. Not to mention pedaling through snow/slush if you're on the side of the road is very hard.

<comment><USER11> > you absolutely have to cuff up your pant leg to pedal anyway

You absolutely do not need to cuff up your pant leg. You just need an ankle band to keep your pant leg away from the chain: [https://www.amazon.com/High- Visibility-Reflective-Ankle-Stra...](https://www.amazon.com/High-Visibility- Reflective-Ankle-Strap/dp/B0006ZK8CO)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Culture helps a lot. In the US bikes are seen as an annoyance by many drivers.

I was in Amsterdam this summer and without much knowledge of the city, found it easy, safe and fun to get around by bike.

Went to Paris and Barcelona as well and didn't feel as comfortable on a bike in either of those cities.

<comment><USER13> >Culture helps a lot. In the US bikes are seen as an annoyance by many drivers.

Which is a silly opinion for drivers to have IMO. The more people are biking the less cars that are in my way.

<comment><USER14> True, but with the infrastructure setup in the US, more people biking means more bicycles on the road for you to deal with and drive around. Most places don't have bicycle routes and the ones that do have them usually just have a single, fairly narrow painted lane between parked cars and traffic. In some places, you aren't allowed to ride on sidewalks because you are technically a vehicle.

So while it is a silly opinion to have in some cases, in others there are actual reasons for it which have some solutions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It also helps that Amsterdam is flat and the population density is high.

<comment><USER16> Yeah. That's a big one. There's a huge bike culture in Seattle and for the life of me I have a hard time understanding why, this is one of the shittiest places on the planet to bike. Hills everywhere, wet half the time.

<comment><USER17> And don't forget to mention that with all of the construction downtown over the past few years, even the premier separated cycle-tracks on 2nd and around westlake have been partially shut down and/or re-routed into traffic. A hearty thanks to our Amazon overlords...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> How come none of these are about how absolutely flat Amsterdam is? I have never been to a more flat place in my life than the Netherlands. That definitely played into the decision for us to bike around everywhere while we were there, but continued to be uninterested at home.

<comment><USER19> Cities tend to be on coasts and coastal areas are flat more often than not. It's not very unusual.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> tl;dr Bicycles are first class vehicles in Amsterdam, public transit coming in second, cars last.

This will never work in America because Americans are completely obsessed with three things: 1) Living in suburbs, 2) Owning cars, and 3) Not paying for realistic public transportation.

If Americans had to pay for realistic public transportation, it would be harder to afford a car, and they might not be able to live as far from their jobs as they often do now. It's not exactly a chicken-and-egg problem as much as an eat-my-cake-and-have-it-too problem.

If you live in the county seat of Hunterdon County, New Jersey, you're about 50 minutes drive to Trenton, 1hr to Newark, 1.2hrs to Philadelphia. There is no real public transit to get to a bigger city (one that might have jobs). There are, however, "shuffle routes", basically small shuttles that run four or five times a day inside the county, from which you can take more shuffle routes and eventually buses and trains to get to a major city. But this is more an exception than the rule: to get into and out of Hunterdon County, you must use private transit companies like greyhound and trans-bridge.

Large swaths of the country are like this, and it directly affects cities because people are coming to work in the cities in cars, or via trains and buses after they drive to them. Bikes are not really even remotely an option.

</comment><comment><USER21> Amsterdam's bike-friendliness is at best average compared to the rest of the Netherlands :)

<comment><USER22> As a dutch person: Amsterdam is, in my opinion, a scary place to ride your bike. It's far too busy and people seem to care more about overtaking you than about safety.

I can't imagine what other countries must be like if this is the pinnacle of cycling :P

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I ride my bicycle in Boston year-round, and I found Amsterdam to be pretty stressful to bicycle in. Very crowded streets and very confusing traffic. I'm sure it was much less dangerous than Boston, but I never really adjusted to the pell mell chaos in Amsterdam. Maybe I just wasn't there long enough.

<comment><USER24> You get used to it. It's a different set of skills, and your reaction times also improve over time. Hand signals help too.

Although I still avoid the very center, with all the oblivious tourists walking on bicycle lanes...

<comment><USER14> I have been that tourist. It takes a few to adjust to the heavy bicycle traffic while walking around there because it challenges the "who-goes-first" hierarchy.

The states: Cars go first, and watch out. Norway (Trondheim): Pretty much walk where you will, others will stop. Amsterdam: Bicycles go first, and the others wait.

<comment><USER24> The real hierarchy in Amsterdam is trams > cycles > cars > pedestrians.

<comment><USER14> Heh. Yeah, I forgot about the trams. Its been a bit since I've been the annoying tourist - probably time to go again :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> In Amsterdam when you're on a bike you become a demigod. Crosswalks? Screw that. Traffic signs? Screw that. You're on a fucking bike and you're in amsterdam: you're a demigod. You are the one to rule them all, no pedestrian or car will be able to stop you!

Source: Lived in Amsterdam when I was a student

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Interestingly, too, virtually any American city _could_ copy all five.

</comment><comment><USER26> The trams and tram tracks in Amsterdam is still a problem for bicycles. Cross the tracks wrong and your bike tire gets stuck in the tracks and you go head first in to the street. Trams themselves can be as deadly as cars are to bicyclists. Fortunately they are more predictable and confined to their tracks.

Ideally, both trams and cars would be completely underground or above-ground, and have no possibility of collision with bicycles or pedestrians at all.

<comment><USER27> Can confirm. My mother face planted in this exact way while biking in Amsterdam.

<comment><USER28> For crossing tram tracks it's best to approach with an "angle of attack" greater than 30 deg. to avoid your wheels getting guided by the track slots.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> The "forgotten" reason why Amsterdam works so well for bikes is that they're exempt from all laws and everything & body will be prosecuted and/or lynched when one interferes with their G*d given Rights.

Source: lived in the city's center for 30 years.

</comment><comment><USER30> The main reason why biking is so popular in Amsterdam is mostly because it's flat and secondly all the other things like cars being second-class citizens...

</comment><comment><USER31> also it is very flat.

despite the many bikes here, SF sucks for biking because of the hills

<comment><USER32> With an electric bike everything is flat :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> A pet peeve of mine is how infrastructure-oriented, and therefore how mid-to- far-future-oriented, city cycling discussions tend to be. There are people on the road right now. City planners like to assume that all current cyclists are a distinct breed of weirdos and there are no marginal gains to be made by making marginal improvements. It will take grand action to get "normal" people to ride bicycles. In truth, regular cyclists are just the tail of a larger population of people who want to bike more and drive less, and who occasionally try. Every improvement to safety and convenience means more of those people will ride for transportation more often.

 _1\. All streets are bike streets_

This is already true for people who leave home on a bicycle expecting to handle all their daily business. Please consider that basically everyone who leaves home on a bike is forced to include some segments of "car" streets in their route. Planners like to imagine all of a city's cyclists moving around on the streets and paths they've specifically improved for bicyclists, like they've laid out a model train track and all the toy trains are running on it. If cyclists were restricted to traveling that way, it wouldn't be a practical means of transportation. Educate drivers and take cyclists into account in traffic engineering. Make cycling a little more tolerable now and you'll have more cyclists and more of a political mandate for infrastructure projects in the future.

 _2\. Separated cycle tracks, not bike lanes_

I hate the "not" here. I know the author is describing Amsterdam, but he calls his five points a "template," and "not bike lanes" doesn't belong on any city's template for becoming bike-friendly. Bike lanes are cheap and quick to install, so put them everywhere you can spare the space. I know they're not all that safe. I've been hit in one. At the same time you work on installing bike lanes, work on the grant and bond proposals that will let you build separated cycle tracks in the future. There's grass-roots interest in cycling _right now_ in the United States. People want to bike, and they're trying, despite the lack of infrastructure. Focusing solely on expensive, high-profile improvements that are years out is a disservice to people who are taking to the roads right now, and it could leave a lot of them with a sour taste in their mouths as they struggle to safely navigate the streets near their work and wonder why there's so much excitement about projects that even if fully completed years from now will still leave them many blocks short of their work and other nonnegotiable destinations. Bike lanes might not have a place in the future, but none of us live in the future as of yet.

(I suspect planners and advocates feel pushed towards the most ambitious projects by career considerations, and I can sympathize with that. Everyone wants to be the most forward-looking. Everyone wants to have the highest hopes and standards. Everyone wants, when the future finally arrives in reality, to have been the first to get there in their heads. Everybody wants to be seen as valuing the least advantaged and most vulnerable people who will be the last (in perception, not necessarily in reality) to finally be brought onto the road by the most advanced evolution of infrastructure. Nobody wants to be associated with the suboptimal and downright dangerous compromises we will live with until then.)

</comment><comment><USER34> Queue comments about what a travesty it is that US cities were built to accommodate the automobile.

To be honest, I think it's one of the coolest things that we take for granted. I can step outside, hop into my car right now, and drive literally anywhere in the US. I drive home from the Bay Area to LA all the time and I always find this very cool.

Do I think we need more public transportation? Absolutely. And more bike lines since I ride my bike to work too. While we're at it, better laws to protect cyclists and public facilities for bike storage and repair.

What I'm getting at is that we should embrace multiple forms of transporation and not take for granted what we do have.

<comment><USER35> > I can step outside, hop into my car right now, and drive literally anywhere > in the US.

Where can't you do this? It's possible to drive from London to Beijing if you really want to.

<comment><USER36> And comparatively easy to use trains as well. Likely much more convenient, faster and safer too.

Or if you do not care about climate change, a plane trip is still better than a car trip.

<comment><USER37> > Or if you do not care about climate change, a plane trip is still better > than a car trip.

IIRC it's actually better than a car trip greater than a few hundred miles, especially if you're driving alone.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Obama Campaign Launches Document Archive On Scribd - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/08/02/obama-campaign-launches-document-archive-on-scribd/

<comment><USER2> What's the point of having documents on Scribd? They could just have it in HTML/text on their homepage. Scribd is stupid.

<comment><USER3> It's good if you don't have a domain of your own from which to host PDFs.

But Obama's got domain space to burn, so this seems more an attempt to draw the tech crowd in, since techies influence other people. Almost like a Maven trap.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Just because it's on techcruch covering a YC company doesn't mean it should be on HN....

</comment><comment><USER5> I don't follow politics, but Obama _at least_ seems to have tech on his radar. I couldn't find a thing on McCain's site.

A techie _may_ have Obama's ear, if he's on Twitter and Scribd.

<comment><USER6> McCain said in an interview that he is completely clueless about computers. He said he needed help to check his email. I wouldn't be surprised if McCain still thinks internet is a series of tubes

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Can anyone link to the pdf?

</comment><comment><USER8> God please no... No obama/mccain spam on yc!

</comment><comment><USER9> No. of documents on climate change: 0</comment>


Tesla lags auto industry in quality, finds new J.D. Power study - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/24/tesla-lags-auto-industry-in-quality-finds-new-jd-power-study.html <comment><USER2> Annoyingly, I can't find the original report by J.D. Power. Ars Technica has a more detailed summary.[1] Apparently the study favors cars with fewer features, as that means fewer things can go wrong. The results contradict brand stereotypes. Honda and Toyota are below the industry average. Volvo is one of the worst, along with luxury brands such as Mercedes-Benz, Audi, and Land Rover. The best rated are Dodge, Kia, and Chevrolet. Also this survey reflects initial impressions, not long term reliability.

Seriously though: I would pay money for a news organization that always linked to primary sources. Bonus points for archiving them at the time of publication. I don't need a journalist to play Chinese whispers with me.[2] I'm an adult and I can interpret the information for myself.

1\. [https://arstechnica.com/cars/2020/06/teslas-are-the-most- unr...](https://arstechnica.com/cars/2020/06/teslas-are-the-most-unreliable- new-cars-in-the-us-survey-finds/)

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

<comment><USER3> Well to be honest, I own a model 3, you just have to be a member of the subreddit if not any of the Tesla related sites to know that more than a few people have a nightmarish time with new car delivery. It isn't like these cars loaded with features, I have yet to read anyone having issues with the display and tech as it is always panel alignment and overall fit and finish.

Now if you also read the same you will find the Chinese side of Tesla apparently has an entirely different outcome. Their quality is superb with workers across the plant invested to the point no one wants to embarrass another. So what to do US side? Having had friends and family in the industry where they worked the line you get the same issues you have in any business. There are those who are just there to punch a clock and it is always some other person's job. Please don't try the tired retort of pay, myself and I am sure others here can attest to having worked with people who pay isn't going to fix them.

Well if Tesla cannot insure the people at all stations on the line think otherwise they need to invest heavily on the end of the line and make sure that their delivery centers have no reason to ever have to work on a customer's car. Those employees must be able to fail a car without question. The only acceptable issues at that point would be damage during transit.

I know my next EV will not be a Tesla, they have nothing in their pipeline I want; well let me be honest nothing I should buy but that truck is obnoxious enough to just have; and another fear is they are not concentrating on quality.

<comment><USER4> It's always easy to blame the workers but, in the vast majority of cases, poor quality output is a management issue.

Other car manufacturers have managed to create production lines that churn out high quality vehicles every 90 seconds (or better) for decades now. When it comes to these fit & finish issues, panel alignment etc etc there is no excuse for Tesla not being able to reach the same minimal quality bar.

<comment><USER5> That seems like a reasonable excuse to me. Tesla's only been doing high volume manufacturing for 8 years, and these things take time to build up expertise for. If you buy a Tesla today you should expect you're trading off some fit and finish for their advantages.

<comment><USER6> No, that sort of continued excusing of the manufacturer is why Tesla, after 8 years of production no less, continues to deliver substandard quality. What pressure is there for them to do otherwise? Tesla accepts this, their customers, only occasionally grumbling, accept this, and their die hard fans go to the mat on social media to insure everyone else accepts this.

<comment><USER5> It seems very strange to claim that Tesla's sales aren't impacted by their lackluster fit and finish. I only vaguely follow Tesla news and I've heard this complaint a lot.

Even if this were the case, that prospective consumers _didn 't_ care about paint quality and panel fit... then what's the problem? Why should Tesla focus on a problem you say nobody cares enough to buy a different car over?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is not news. Every Tesla owner knows that if they spent the same amount of money on a Mercedes or even better a Volkswagen that they would get better finish.

But quality isn't just about finish. It's about having the features you want: mind bending acceleration in what is essentially a family or executive car, a good electric car before anyone else had one, a better driver assistance package, a simpler ordering process, a service organization that comes to you to fix things, a user interface built for this century not the one before, a charging infrastructure that not only works but is nearly ubiquitous.

The old car companies could have done all those things but they chose to protect their existing product lines instead.

When they finally get their act together then Tesla will have a hard time, until then, I'll stick with my five year old Model S and to hell with the fact that the finish isn't quite as good as a Mercedes E class.

<comment><USER8> > a service organization that comes to you to fix things

Even if they come to you to service your car, aren't there still issues with actually getting fixes in a timely manner? I recall reading about customers who needed replacement parts and having to wait weeks/months to get it fixed.

<comment><USER7> Yes, it sometimes is a a problem. I have had two mobile service visits. One to replace the 12 V battery that was done under warranty and happened quite quickly and on time; another to replace a smashed door mirror that was delayed by a week because of a mistake in their internal processes.

The biggest problem I have with Tesla (the company not the car) is that they are very bad at communication. Unlike the supercharger network, which is very nearly ubiquitous in northern Europe, their telephone service is almost impossible to use because it is simply permanently overloaded. This is a major problem if you are trying to call them from a mobile phone in an area with poor coverage such as when one has blown out a tyre by hitting a pothole on a rural road in north Devon in the pouring rain.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > Tesla isn't officially part of the study because it doesn't allow J.D. Power > access to customer vehicle registration data.

Interesting quote. Does that mean if I buy a non-Tesla car in the US, that my personal details automatically get passed on?

I'm not always a Tesla fan, and you could always claim this is because 'they have something to hide', but I very much like the sound of it from a privacy perspective.

<comment><USER10> There's a company called RL Polk that Hoovers up basically everything you could imagine about car sales and resells that information for very high prices. Don't know where they get their data but they have a row of data for each car sold.

<comment><USER11> I would guess vehicle registrations is where they are obtaining the data from.

<comment><USER12> Is the government allowed to sell that data?

<comment><USER11> There were quite a few articles. I believe maybe half of US states sell driver's license data, including photos.

[https://www.newsweek.com/dmv-drivers-license-data- database-i...](https://www.newsweek.com/dmv-drivers-license-data-database- integrity-department-motor-vehicles-1458141)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Having priced warranty insurance products in the past, the relative cost of repairs standardised by new vehicle value at the time of sale, JD power ranks were not bad proxies but bit and miss for their mid-field. Toyota being below average in reliability? Not in warranty claims it isn't. Porsche usually does well on JD power but their actual warranty bills (again, standardised for their price) are very high. JD is mostly based oN subjective impressions and electrical niggles in the first 90 days of ownership (niggles including difficulty of operation not necessarily failures). If they have changed the method since I last checked my apologies for spouting nonsense

</comment><comment><USER14> As far as I remember, this was already stated in early assessments by European car manufacturers about Tesla, too. But then again, there is an obvious bias why such statements would come from the competition.

<comment><USER15> No bias required; you can eye-ball a Tesla and immediately see the panel fitting and paint defect tolerances are much higher than say a Jaguar/BMW (for the panels) or a Toyota (the paint).

These are the defects that consumers seem to be complaining about.

<comment><USER16> The paint especially is horrible. When it's brand new if compares unfavorably with a 30-year Toyota.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> J.D Power Initial Quality Study (warning !!! PDF ): [https://www.jdpower.com/sites/default/files/file/2020-06/202...](https://www.jdpower.com/sites/default/files/file/2020-06/2020070%20U.S.%20IQS.pdf)

J.D Power press release : [https://www.jdpower.com/business/press- releases/2020-initial...](https://www.jdpower.com/business/press- releases/2020-initial-quality-study-iqs)

<comment><USER18> Off topic: but why do we always warn for PDFs? It's not as if they contain malware, crash phones or freeze your OS, is it?

I too add a "PDF Warning" to links most of the times, but have no idea why I should continue doing it, now that I think about it.

<comment><USER19> I like PDF. They contain no ads, no javascript and no scroll-highjacking. I know what to expect and it 'just works'.

<comment><USER20> I thought that PDFs could contain JavaScript too!

<comment><USER21> They can but viewers don't execute them with very few exceptions (and even Adobe Reader has it disabled by default i think)

<comment><USER22> Chrome does and it may be one of the most popular viewers currently in use. If you've never seen it, I encourage everyone to try breakout.pdf [0]. I know it doesn't work in Firefox's viewer, but it does in Chrome's. And yes, it's exactly what it sounds like: an implementation of the classic Breakout game in PDF.

[0] [https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/gh/osnr/horrifying-pdf- experiments@...](https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/gh/osnr/horrifying-pdf- experiments@master/breakout.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> > The top-rated brands were Dodge and Kia

Is it possible that owners of certain brands are less likely to notice certain classes of car problems? For example, are people who purchase Kias less likely to care about a squeaking seatbelt?

If I buy a car that costs $70k, I'm going to complain about every minor defect.

<comment><USER24> Whilst that might apply in some cases, I don't think its universal.

my 2009 kia rio has a superior paint finish, and more consistency in fit for doors and windows compared to a showroom tesla. This genuinely surprised me. I wish I had taken some photos to prove my point, because without it its all going to be put down to subjectiveness.

The Kia rio has "generous" gaps around doors, boots and bonnets. However they all have consistent distances, its not like one door sits higher than the other.

The showroom model 3 had one door higher than the other. The weather seals are going to be asked to do a lot there.

Then there is the paint job.

In the showroom all the model exhibited paint issues. Stuff like uneven coating, or incorrect ratios of pigment/mica to binder, so that where there are sharp corners there is bunching, lumps or roughness.

So yeah, whilst I agree, people who own low end models are going to complain less, having seen (and wanted to buy) a tesla, I'm not surprised that fit and finish is such a problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Isn't this what a pre-delivery inspection is for? Most days the only time I hear about PDI is when people advise other people to try and get their PDI fee waived, because it's literally the salesperson checking boxes on a clipboard.

> "Unlike other manufacturers, Tesla doesn't grant us permission to survey its > owners in 15 states where it is required," Doug Betts, president of the > automotive division at J.D. Power, said in a statement. "However, we were > able to collect a large enough sample of surveys from owners in the other 35 > states and, from that base, we calculated Tesla's score."

... and we're letting Tesla do this exactly... why?

</comment><comment><USER26> Is J.D. Power even trustworthy? I remember doubting them ever since Chevrolet starting spamming all their J.D. Power awards ads with "real people".

<comment><USER27> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSBsq6HBBzw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSBsq6HBBzw)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Direct link to the 2020 Initial Quality Study page: [https://www.jdpower.com/business/press- releases/2020-initial...](https://www.jdpower.com/business/press- releases/2020-initial-quality-study-iqs)

</comment><comment><USER29> "When surveying computing device owners we found that an average abacus user reports 14 problems in the first three months and a laptop user reports 18".

</comment><comment><USER30> Is J D Power a real company? I just assumed they were some made-up bullshit. I don't think I've ever believed they were worth anything.</comment>


Show HN: Auto-share your Android's battery status with anyone - <AUTHOR> http://droidjuice.me/ Example: http://droidjuice.me/kingsley <comment><AUTHOR> OP and co-founder here. Anenth and Sandeep hacked this up at Droidcon Bangalore Hacknight last weekend, and we polished it a bit since then. We have lots of tweaks/improvements planned for it, including: * Auto-posting (via server) to FB/Twitter when you battery drops to 20% * Show call-receiver's battery % when you call them * Crowdsourced battery life data

Would love feedback & ideas here or email@example.com

</comment><comment><USER2> Sweet.

Can I add to the feature wishlist an option to turn off battery hungry, non- essential features at a certain battery life trigger point?

<comment><USER3> Yeah that would be cool, added it to our list :)

Also, we are planning to show how good/bad your battery performance is, in comparison with other users having the same phone model.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Looks good!

</comment><comment><USER5> looks awesome!</comment>


15 Chrome extensions that simplify web development - <AUTHOR> http://www.developerdrive.com/2016/12/15-chrome-extensions-that-simplify-web-development/ <comment><USER2> Good list.

Few more I like:

* Marker - Visual Feedback & Bug Reporting Tools for Web Professionals || [https://getmarker.io/](https://getmarker.io/) \-- I liked it more than UserSnap.

* User-Agent Switcher for Chrome - Chrome Web Store || [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/user-agent-switche...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/user-agent-switcher-for-c/djflhoibgkdhkhhcedjiklpkjnoahfmg)

* META SEO inspector - Chrome Web Store || [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/meta-seo-inspector...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/meta-seo-inspector/ibkclpciafdglkjkcibmohobjkcfkaef)

* Canonical URL - Chrome Web Store || [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/canonical-url/bcif...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/canonical-url/bcifiojfkeacpakkehppjdjebbomlkif)

* ZenHub for GitHub - Chrome Web Store || [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/zenhub-for-github/...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/zenhub-for-github/ogcgkffhplmphkaahpmffcafajaocjbd)

* Spectrum - Chrome Web Store || [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/spectrum/ofclemegk...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/spectrum/ofclemegkcmilinpcimpjkfhjfgmhieb)

* Full Page Screen Capture - Chrome Web Store || [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/full-page-screen-c...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/full-page-screen-capture/fdpohaocaechififmbbbbbknoalclacl)

* Design Grid Overlay - Chrome Web Store || [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/design-grid-overla...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/design-grid-overlay/kmaadknbpdklpcommafmcboghdlopmbi)

* ColorZilla - Chrome Web Store || [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/colorzilla/bhlhnic...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/colorzilla/bhlhnicpbhignbdhedgjhgdocnmhomnp)

* Page load time - Chrome Web Store || [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/page-load-time/fpl...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/page-load-time/fploionmjgeclbkemipmkogoaohcdbig)</comment>


In 10 years, your job probably won't exist - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/01/05/in-10-years-the-job-market-will-look-totally-different-heres-how-to-make-sure-youre-ready/ <comment><USER2> Such a click-bait headline-- sadly the article fails to deliver much newsworthy details.

 _On the downside, occupations likely to shrink in demand include:

agricultural workers, postal service workers, sewing machine operators, switchboard operators, data entry clerks and word processor typists._</comment>


The Great Movies - <AUTHOR> http://sivers.org/ebert2

<comment><USER2> Thoughtful tribute by Mr.Sivers. Love the baseball quote.</comment>


'Ban facial recognition at live shows' - <AUTHOR> https://www.banfacialrecognition.com/festivals/ <comment><USER2> Mass murderers have targeted concerts in Paris and Las Vegas. If I were going to a concert, I'd want facial recognition as part of the security system.</comment>


The Dunedin Study Has Been Studying Aging for 45 Years - <AUTHOR> https://endpoints.elysiumhealth.com/the-dunedin-study-e8d370ae630c <comment><USER2> > A New Zealand City the Size of Berkeley, CA

Population of around 120,000 for people like me who found that less than informative.

0.04 Wales, in standard units.

<comment><USER3> on an area of how many square-bananas?

<comment><USER4> Can you give that to me in football fields?

<comment><USER5> 61,6682.38

Source: [http://www.justintools.com/unit- conversion/area.php?k1=squar...](http://www.justintools.com/unit- conversion/area.php?k1=square-kilometers&k2=football-fields&q=3300)

After you posted that, I just had to Google it. Crazy that someone has thought of it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Highlights:

Nature through nuture: "The larger suggestion is that it is the combination of the right environment and genetic cocktail that causes mental illness — not nature versus nurture, but, as author Matt Ridley has written, nature via nurture."

Crime: "The more common antisocial behavior, limited to peer relationships at a young age, she termed "adolescent-limited." She also identified a less common "life-course persistent" antisocial behavior, which resulted in a persistence of violence into midlife. "

Weed: " unlike tobacco users, marijuana users tended to stay healthy into midlife."

Self control: ""boys and girls with less self-control had worse health, less wealth, and more crime as adults than those with more self-control at every level of the distribution of self-control."Another related study suggested a 5-item questionnaire at doctors' offices could identify children who needed motivational counseling to make healthy decisions, which would greatly increase their chances of better health later in life."

<comment><USER7> You left out the other stuff about marijuana: lower IQ and higher risk of psychosis.

<comment><USER8> You in turn left out the important note on that:

> these effects only occurred among those who smoked marijuana daily; more > infrequent users suffered essentially none of these effects.

<comment><USER9> "essentially" = ?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> When I hear Dunedin can't help but think of the Dunedain [1], who had a lifespan three times a regular one.

1: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%BAnedain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%BAnedain)

<comment><USER11> Before I clicked on the article I just assumed that the name was a reference to Tolkien since it was studying aging!

<comment><USER12> Also what I did. It's really the only logical assumption!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Whoa I didn't think I'd see Dunedin on the front page. If you're ever in town the Early Settlers / Toitu museum had a good exhibition on this study the last time I was in there.

<comment><USER14> Twice! Higher up is an article on the Beverly Clock.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> A comment aside: I just hate, that roughly 20% of the screen on top is taken by the header bar, and that there is constantly a "Open in App" icon on the bottom floating around. That's really not a nice reading experience on a mobile device

<comment><USER16> It's a pretty terrible reading experience on desktop too. It goes away if you are a logged in user. Clearly Medium is trying to drive users to signup/signin and it worked in my case.

<comment><USER17> I use Kill Sticky[1] to get rid of most of the Medium awfulness.

[1]: [https://alisdair.mcdiarmid.org/kill-sticky- headers/](https://alisdair.mcdiarmid.org/kill-sticky-headers/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Really neat article. In the US though we'd fly a "don't tread on me" flag and say you crazy scientists ain't gettin' my baby's data.

</comment><comment><USER19> What were the largest takeaways? Overall seemed kind of meh.

<comment><USER20> a population studied since birth for 45 years, with data being continually collected allowing future study, and because they don't present that as some easily consumable sound bites it rates a 'meh'?

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> There is an interesting documentary series about the study, called "Predict My Future - The Science Of Us".

</comment><comment><USER22> >The Dunedin Study, which began as a study of childhood development, has become one of humanity's richest treasure troves of data on what makes us who we are.

Maybe I'm quaint and silly but this kind of overhyped byline makes me doubt that there will be any kind of insight here which thousands of years of recorded human thought hasn't already captured.

<comment><USER23> I am kinda new to hackerrank and I don't know what it means when a comment is grayed out (it doesn't sound like a good thing), but I totally agree with you. I read the first part of the article and I just couldn't read further. It's like the article is about how great of an accomplishment that study is, instead of the data that supposedly came out of it.

<comment><USER24> > I am kinda new to hackerrank and I don't know what it means when a comment > is grayed out (it doesn't sound like a good thing)

This is hackernews, not hackerrank, and when a comment is grayed out it means more than a few people have downvoted it.

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


Bootstrap Design for Hacker-Founders - <AUTHOR> http://www.tonywright.com/2007/bootstrap-design-for-geek-powered-startups/ This post was a response to a fellow YC Winter '08 founder, but I figured it might be valuable to other folks, so I threw it up on my blog. <comment><USER2> This is an awesome article. Lots of people confuse graphic designers with interface and user experience designers, and they often end up with shitty applications with pretty outer shells.

Good user experience and also pretty: wufoo.com

Pretty, but lacking user experience: imthere.com

Awesome UI: cdbaby.com

Sadly, bad user experience ("noprocrast" implementation), also not pretty (though simple): news.ycombinator.com

<comment><USER2> Ahh, not cdbaby.com's default style, this one: <http://cdbaby.com/?css=plain>

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Have you guys noticed the text highlight in Firefox! That's great CSS!

</comment><comment><USER4> "As a startup, the first thing that you'll need is a logo."

Umh.

<comment><AUTHOR> I was talking about from a design perspective... I think that's obvious given the topic of the post, but I suppose I could clarify it. Jeeez. Nitpick much?

<comment><USER4> :-)

I still say "umh" to that. Are you more likely to use an app by a company with a good logo, or an app with a good ui?

<comment><USER5> Brand development is still deadly important. No one is going to use your site if they can't remember it. If your competitors are on par with you feature- wise, the one with the stronger brand is going to win.

That being said, if your opponents _aren't_ on par with you feature-wise, well...</comment></comment></comment></comment>