UN Experts Say TPP and Fast Track Threaten Human Rights - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/05/how-tpp-and-fast-track-threaten-human-rights <comment><USER3> > They allow investors to sue nations over legislative and administrative > rules alleging that they harm their profits.

This is much bigger than copyright. This is removing substantive power from existing governments and transferring it to a new structure. The fast-tracking should be seen, not just as evading scrutiny by the public, but also as evading scrutiny by Congress and by other legislatures whose power is being stolen from them. When you write your representative, you might warn them that this puts them on track to end up like the Queen of England: powerless figureheads.

<comment><USER4> The goal of those sections of the agreement are to force governments to treat foreign investment the same as if it had arrived from a resident.

The intent is to stop things like what happens in South America, where they look around, see an oil company sitting there that is majority foreign owned and nationalise it to fix a balance of payments issue[2]. Some organisations (like Philip Morris) will try to use it as a hammer, but that's because anyone can sue.

The US is already party to similar agreements - NAFTA being one. They've even got a standard set of terms for them [1].

First world countries with strong court systems already have these protections in place. This is aimed at other countries who don't have quite as strong a rule of law.

As for secrecy... Just because congress gives the President fast-track negotiation rights doesn't mean that the deal has to pass. It just means that congress has to have a straight up or down vote on it, without amendments. There will still be time to review and debate it.

Agreements are negotiated in secret. Can you imagine a trade agreement negotiated in the current US Congress?

[1] [http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/188371.pdf](http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/188371.pdf)

[2] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrobras#Bolivian_controversy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrobras#Bolivian_controversy)

<comment><USER5> "The intent is to stop things like what happens in South America"

... so the intent is to stop the people of economically poor but resource rich countries from having a say in whether or not they continue to have their natural resources exploited by wealthy foreigners?

That doesn't sound positive to me at all.

<comment><USER6> Oh please, Find me someone in the US that doesn't like the part of the US constitution that says if the government takes something from you, it has to be paid for. While I'm not particularly a fan of oil companies, they didn't just turn up in a country and start drilling wells without permission. Generally they were invited in by governments that lacked the technology or capital ot build a domestic oil industry. Countries frequently publish invitations to tender and it's reasonable for both parties to such contracts to expect the other side to deal in good faith. Oil companies do pay royalties on the resources they extract to the governments of those countries.

Now, I'm a lot more worried about the environmental record of those oil companies, but let's not fool ourselves that they snuck in and set up drilling rigs and refineries without permission.

<comment><USER7> > they didn't just turn up in a country and start drilling wells without > permission

Permission from whom?

What an incredibly naive world view.

<comment><USER6> I'm well aware of the history of the US meddling in Latin America. On the other hand, many governments in Latin America have been over-eager to just blame external forces for their economic problems and attempt to solve them via expropriation. I still hear this argument from supporters of the Venezuelan government; you don't have to be a raging capitalist to think that the government of that country is catastrophically incompetent. Last time I looked they were nationalizing supermarkets.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> One of the things I most like about the EFF is that they increase the transparency of back room deals that help special interests to the detriment of the general public.

A little off topic, but in the last day I have found two public data sites that increase transparency in government finances at the local, state, and federal level: [http://www.statedatalab.org](http://www.statedatalab.org) and [http://www.truthinaccounting.org](http://www.truthinaccounting.org)

<comment><USER9> [https://bitbucket.org/djarvis/world- politics/wiki/Related](https://bitbucket.org/djarvis/world- politics/wiki/Related)

Jump to "Government Tracking" and "Education" for more related links.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> From [http://motherboard.vice.com/read/whoever-is-leaking-trans- pa...](http://motherboard.vice.com/read/whoever-is-leaking-trans-pacific- partnership-drafts-please-leak-more)

 _" [TPP] .. stands to have intensely damaging effects on nearly every front, from internet freedom to copyright law. But if you raise these concerns with negotiators, who have privileged access to the text of the agreement, they'll just tell you that they have access to the latest draft, and you don't ... Every TPP chapter leaked reveals some new policy horrorshow. But in this game of cat and mouse between governments, corporations, and citizens, those who are in the know always have the upper hand."_

</comment><comment><USER11> The TPP makes me crazy, as I'm a big fan of trade for basically the same reason I'm a big fan of transparency: I think things generally go better when we have a lot of well-informed individuals thinking and making choices.

I've been strongly in favor of pretty much every trade deal to come along. But here my feeling is more "fuck that" as I have zero faith that the secretive TPP process would produce anything I can trust.

<comment><USER12> The TPP is an anti-free trade deal. It's mostly about strengthening intellectual property and giving multinationals their own special courts so that they can sue governments for lost profits if they implement environment/labor legislation.

Nothing very free about any of that.

<comment><USER13> How do you know this? I follow economics blogs and the general reaction concerning TPP is that the secrecy hype is overblown and that it's largely just a mundane trade agreement with a few nasty provisions like the copyright stuff, but the good parts outweigh the bad.

I'd be hard-pressed to argue with their opinion without actually reading the agreement, not to mention the years of education and exposure to global geopolitics I'd need to actually understand what the provisions being argued over mean and why they exist.

Geopolitics is nuclear science that everyone seems to think is a bikeshed.

<comment><USER12> Which blogs?

Geopolitics is NOT nuclear science. It's much less complicated.

If somebody's trying to convince you that it is too complex for the layman to understand, they're likely trying to conceal something.

<comment><USER13> Mostly Marginal Revolution and whatever he links to. He's got a way of making economics accessible that I've yet to really see elsewhere.

I wasn't being literal. It's not very complicated, and you can understand it, but there's a lot of hidden context involved and the consequences of ignorance in that space are immense.

<comment><USER12> If you want to see a teardown of this post:

[http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/05/how...](http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/05/how- bad-are-the-investor-arbitration-clauses-in-tpp.html)

See here:

[http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/05/the-investor- arbitrat...](http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/05/the-investor-arbitration- clauses-in-tpp-are-indeed-very-bad.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> And don't forget TTIP, the euro side of this.

It's the same idea (companies can sue governments for making laws that impact potential future earnings' amongst other things), and is being negotiated in the same secretive way, with even MEPs having to sign NDAs before being allowed to see a draft.

Crazy.

</comment><comment><USER15> How can a trade deal be negotiated transparently when our media circus will be out in force muddying the waters? If he (Obama) keeps the terms of the deal secret until its brought up for a vote, he's not being transparent. If he makes the current terms of negotiation transparent, how is any president supposed to negotiate terms with multiple foreign governments when the noise generated by the media circus, members of the house and senate, and various other talking-heads would constantly muddy the waters? Until the terms of the deal are known, I prefer to withhold judgement because even ordering from a drive-thru with a half-dozen children in the back of your car is difficult. I can't imagine the impossibility of negotiating a trade deal with Republicans and Rupert Murdock giving their play-by-play analysis every step of the way.

<comment><USER16> The terms of the TTP are so bad that they _had_ to discuss it in secret, because otherwise people would be able to see all of the utter bullshit that it contains.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> There is a chapter in _The Two Towers_ called "The Voice of Saruman". Saruman is defeated, but is still powerfully persuasive. At one point he calls to Gandalf and invites him into Orthanc. Those who hear the invitation believe that Gandalf will go into the tower to confer with Saruman, and will then emerge again to tell everyone their fate.

Instead of doing that, Gandalf laughs, insults Saruman, and breaks his fucking staff.

</comment><comment><USER18> It's incredulous that Obama is pushing this deal so hard after backing net neutrality so early on when this deal is universally frowned upon. Not able to wrap around my head around this.

<comment><USER3> Do you know if Obama's involved (or for that matter, fully aware)? This seems like something that would mostly unfold at a lower level.

<comment><USER19> Know about it? He's all over it:

[http://infojustice.org/archives/32657](http://infojustice.org/archives/32657)

And he complains that critics have a "lack of knowledge of what is going on in the negotiations"

How rich. Of course they have a lack of knowledge since he has kept everything secret. The only thing we know about what is actually being negotiated is because of some leaks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> In 30 years, with the benefit of hindsight, this could turn out to be one of the defining issues of our era (along with surveillance and the growth of state and corporate cyber warfare). Glad the UN and EFF are doing something to shine a light on it.

</comment><comment><USER21> Devil's advocate here:

\- America already has low tariffs (hence our lust for imported goods). The rest of the world has higher tariffs. US goods producers stand more to gain from TPP than foreign goods producers.

\- Average wages for traded/export industries, such as Kentucky bourbon, are higher than for local industries, like hospitals. The more the US can focus on traded industries, the more wages rise in America. Germany does a great job of this. We don't but TPP would help.

\- TPP still has to get approved by Congress. Fast track just strips Congress' ability to amend or filibuster the deal - two tactics that favor special interests over majority interests.

\- Special interests are always powerful in trade negotiations. Limiting their power is crucial to passing equitable, long-term focused deals.

<comment><USER22> We can't engage in any nuanced conversation of the TPP because we don't know what's in it. Given that, I find no reason to be anything but completely against it.

<comment><USER23> How can you be _completely_ against something that, by your own admission, you are unfamiliar with? Would you have been "completely against" North Korea and the U.N. signing an armistice in 1953 while it was still being negotiated?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'm all for free trade. Who could be for protectionism and artificial constraints on basic economic forces? But free trade, the TPP ain't:

[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150422/23441830765/if- yo...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150422/23441830765/if-you-really- think-tpp-is-about-trade-then-your-analysis-is-already-wrong.shtml)

<comment><USER24> Who could be for protectionism? Well for starters, the United States for most of its history. Protectionism is a big part of what put the US in a position to become the global superpower.

Tariffs on superior, imported textiles from the British Empire allowed the US textile industry to become dominant. Many years later the US gov did the same thing at the behest of the American steel magnates, allowing the US steel industry to become dominant. In fact, the GWB administration added tariffs to protect the US steel industry against Chinese steel about 10 years ago. Furthermore, just this week, US steel companies are asking to have them put back into place [http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-steel-ceo-says-tariffs- could...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-steel-ceo-says-tariffs-could-be- needed-on-chinese-imports-1430950792) .

This is a case of the US advocating do as we say, not as we do. The US obviously doesn't want Vietnam, Mexico, or any other country to develop their own industries -- they want to flood their markets with American made products so that American corporations can see nice profits. Unfortunately, thats usually at odds with whats in the best interest of the foreign nations population.

<comment><USER19> No arguments here. Lots of countries, the US included, have historically utilized protectionist polices that benefit local industries at the expense of higher prices for local citizens and undeserved profits for local industry. My point, besides the fact that I'm personally in favor of free trade, is that the TPP in reality has little to do with free trade. From an analysis by Dean Baker:

"The actual trade barriers between the United States and the countries in these deals, with few exceptions, are already quite low. This means that there is little to be gained by lowering them still further."

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/the-trade- agreement...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/the-trade-agreement- pinat_b_6369924.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> How can I come to these comments and not see a single thing written about China?

Secretary of Defense Carter stated that he would rather have the TPP succeed than have another aircraft carrier.

The TPP, from a national defense perspective, is one of the aces in the US sleeve. It is a way to isolate China, who would like to be a superpower, who has overtaken the US in terms of economic might, and who is challenging the US for geopolitical power, from the rest of the Asia-Pacific economy - unless it plays by a specific set of rules.

Extremely strong exportation of US intellectual property law into the Asia- Pacific? Yeah, that has nothing to do with the battle for the new world and the past 16 years of US foreign policy to 'Pivot to Asia'.

I'm not saying the TPP will be good for US citizens. I am saying that it will be one piece in something 'good' for the United States as a world power. It's true and unfortunate that what can be bad for one can be good for another. But let's call a spade a spade.

<comment><USER26> First, China is not the boogeyman. I've lived there for ages, the modern state is very decent by a lot of measures and you really do feel safer on the streets than in much of the western world. Yes, it has its problems, but at least it doesn't run around randomly invading countries, dreaming out loud about "instant global strike capability".

China doesn't and will never play by US rules. For example, they joined the WTO and just ignored a lot of the provisions. This is a _good thing_ for the world, because it keeps things multi-polar. The last thing we need is one world government with a corporate-dominated aggressor-state flush with dynastic influence determining world political and economic fate in an era where we are facing survival-level serious global issues.

Einstein rightly said _Nationalism is an infantile disease: the measles of mankind_ ... however, I'm sure he wouldn't have lobbied for the alternative of a shady back-channel network of non-transparent private supra-national political/economic paralegal rent-seeking and enforcement. That's essentially what we're heading toward, as Assange echoes: _The world is not sliding, but galloping into a new transnational dystopia._ [http://cryptome.org/2012/12/assange-crypto- arms.htm](http://cryptome.org/2012/12/assange-crypto-arms.htm)

You should consider broadening your conception of international happenings from American politics. US 'pivoted' as far as Taiwan, Korea and Japan with a fat military 60 years ago, now the dominant thinking in the region (with early indications led by New Zealand and elements of Australian politics) is that they can go and _pivot_ back on home.

<comment><USER25> First, thank you for taking the time to write a thoughtful reply.

China is definitely not a boogeyman. I hope my comment did not imply it is/was. :)

It's better to understand the comment by the idea that the US does not want a multi-polar world and will act in accordance. The Wolfowitz Doctrine (and friends) quite clearly state that the US Grand Defense Strategy is to prevent other superpowers from forming. The US will be chasing its interests rather than its ideals in this case.

If you look through my other comments you will see that my conception of international happenings is broader than American politics.

But here, for the discussion of American politics and legislation - <USER2> Fast Track will be passed etc - it is enough to understand why the US, rightly or wrongly, wants the TPP.

While many, including myself, are likely to agree that a US hegemony is a questionable way to run the world, this doesn't allow us insight into what the TPP is about for the United States. The TPP is about preventing the 'second pole'.

The US and Japan just formed a collective defense pact which required them to reinterpret their Constitution. The number of military vessels, wargaming, intelligence, etc being pointed at China has nothing to do with it's being a boogeyman. As Einstein right said Nationalism is an infantile disease: the meales of mankind.... this measels shows itself again with another fight for power and influence.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I can see how TPP (when we find out what precise it is) could be claimed to affect human rights. But "fast track" is a parliamentary technique used for other types of bills, such as the BRAC bills that are used to close U.S. military bases (domestically and overseas).

Do things like BRAC also threaten human rights?

<comment><USER27> Turn it around...

Why fast track debate on a topic that these experts are warning about?

<comment><USER6> To force Congress into an up-or-down vote on the merits of the whole package instead of pointless thread-pulling that will cause an agreement to founder. There are 12 countries that are a party to the TPP. If we are to wait for 12 legislatures to debate and amend and re-amend then nothing will ever get done; there are times when a simple yes or no vote is more appropriate.

It's like people don't seem to understand the point of having an executive branch in the first place. This sort of thing is _precisely_ why we have one, and why the Constitution specifically empowers the President to negotiate treaties 'with the advice and consent of the senate' \- not with the endless amendments and horse-trading of Congress as a whole that bedevils a great deal of domestic legislation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> What can people do about secret backroom deals?

Honestly very little or just about nothing unless you have more money and influence than the mega corps who want this deal passed.

No, what people can do is just ignore the law and defy the government, not like the government wields legitimate power anyway.

<comment><USER29> This is the real problem that TPTB dont seem to grasp. If you make the rampant lawlessness visible to the people, the people will stop respecting the law. That is how societies fall apart, when the rule of law is a farce, you can expect nothing but strife.

<comment><USER30> The general complaint is that this isn't transparent, but it's fully within the law.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> TPA has been around for 30 years. It's always worked well.

The idea is that congress sets a standard and set of parameters for negotiation that the US Trade Authority then goes out to negotiate and structure trade deals. They _must_ stay within the boundaries set by congress. Then they can go out and negotiate in good faith, knowing that if they stay in those boundaries, congress has agreed to debate and then approve or reject a deal within 90 congressional days (about a year). The bar for rejection is high, because the deal in front of them has to already fit within the parameters congress themselves set out.

The term "Fast Track" has to be one of the most misleading terms used in political lingo. Fast Track in this sense basically means almost a year for congress to approve a trade deal.

Moreover, very little about TPP or Fast Track is "secret" or "backroom" and is how trade deals have been done for the longest time. It's unclear why the EFF is taking up this cause.

This is also helpful, and is _non-partisan_ congressional research funded by congress to surface the real facts: [https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33743.pdf](https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33743.pdf)

The amount of propaganda being spun up over TPA is surprising, considering we've had it for 30 years and it's been an economic boon for the US economy.

Edit: I have no idea why I'm being downvoted for this.

<comment><USER32> The fast track, that is taking congress a year to sign, is the process of not then needing congress to sign anything after. If it passes, the whitehouse will be able to then sign details of new trade agreements without congress. It is not not the initial process of getting congress to agree to fast track.

<comment><USER31> That's not true. Link to the draft section?

This is also helpful, and is non-partisan congressional research: [https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33743.pdf](https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33743.pdf)

What people don't get is that we've had TPA since the 70s:

""""" For more than 30 years, Congress has granted the President TPA/fast track authority, agreeing to consider trade agreement implementing legislation expeditiously and to vote on it without amendment, provided the President meets certain statutory negotiating objectives and consultation requirements, and the implementing bill contains the necessary and limited qualifying provisions. TPA strikes a delicate balance by clarifying how Congress chooses to exercise its constitutional authority over a particular aspect of trade policy, while presumably giving the President additional negotiating leverage by effectively assuring U.S. trade partners that a final agreement will be given timely and unamended consideration by Congress. """"</comment></comment></comment>


Fight against hackers hurt by huge shortage of cyber workers - <AUTHOR> http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/science/sd-me-cyber-jobs-20161130-story.html <comment><AUTHOR> From the article:

* the estimated number of job openings ranges from 100,000 to 350,000 (in the US), with as many as 45,000 in California.

* The job shortage is so bad that "The next president should … train 100,000 new cybersecurity practitioners by 2020," the Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity said

* Cybersecurity can be a high stress job where you can get fired if things go wrong</comment>


Some Cautionary Notes on the New 'Knife Missile' - <AUTHOR> https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2019/05/some-cautionary-notes-new-knife-missile/156943/ <comment><USER2> Culture fans: These are not the knife missiles you were thinking about.

The topic of kinetic drone launched hellfire missiles seems highly problematic. Usage scenarios are when there'd just be too much collateral damage from explosive munitions, but where do you draw the line to something that would do vastly more damage than a sniper rifle hit?

I guess it could help protect local intelligence assets who might be armed with nothing but a cell phone.

(I have no real qualifications on this topic, but I do like to read about military ops. And Iain Banks).

<comment><USER3> > Culture fans: These are not the knife missiles you were thinking about.

Bummer

<comment> semi-extrinsic If we were on a less civilised messaging board I would leave a comment noting the (non-)coincidence that your username is in fact remarkably appropriate for your comment.

<comment><USER4> I think Banks might have been quite pleased with 'semi-extrinsic', actually.

<comment><USER5> I suspect you will thoroughly enjoy this twitter account: [https://twitter.com/cultureshipname?lang=en](https://twitter.com/cultureshipname?lang=en)

<comment><USER2> Subbed. One of my favourite fictive ship name would be an Adams one: GSV Mostly Harmless.

Was great to see the replies, user names. :) Also the number of votes tells there's a large number of people who must really miss Banks (RIP). It's been a while so I will start re-reading the Culture series soon, chronologically this time. A number were lost paperbacks, but will just add them to my Kindle collection.

<comment><USER3> If you hadn't yet, I recommend picking up his book of poetry that was posthumously released along side his longtime friend Ken MacLeod's poems. A lot of it is Banks to the core, including the humor. My favorite is cynically titled "Love Poem":

Serene,

In a world full of troubles.

i.e. doing nothing about it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > _whereas a unit equipped with only explosive Hellfires would be forbidden > from making strikes in, say, a very crowded city thoroughfare, the same > environment might be open season for a team with the R9X._

Leads me to wonder what kind of psychological damage we will (and already do) inflict upon populations with targets in their midst. Can you imagine living in a scenario in which your community is regularly bombarded by explosives falling from the sky, let loose by a supposed enemy which you will probably never even see? Horrible.

<comment><USER4> I'm no US apologist and thankfully I've never been in such situations but civilians at risk of these might well be living in situations where they have some very nasty, oppressive people mixed in with them and being an even greater risk to them than such (supposedly) carefully used weapons.

In such cases they _might_ feel grateful that the US is doing this. Might. Maybe. 'Terrorists' is such a useful word.

<comment><USER7> That's not the point.

The point is, someone you don't know precisely about, neither their real motivations, neither its actual consistency, has the actual ability to kill anyone (more or less precisely) from a distance, as it decides, without fearing any other obstacle than its own will.

Like, an imperfect yet powerful god.

You don't know how to "please it" or "have mercy", but by very proxy methods that may not even apply consistently on the long term.

<comment><USER4> Frankly it may not be the point, or it may be exactly the point. I don't know as I've never lived in those situations, and I doubt you have.

I'm raising a possibility, not claiming a truth. You're denying that possibility apparently based on gut feel.

Both my point and yours are ultimately worth exactly nothing. What would be good is to have people there tell us how they feel. We need to hear their voices. They deserve to be heard but for some reason I don't recall ever hearing their opinion.

(Edit: jdietrich posted those opinions - reading now, thanks)

(Edit2: I'll leave this post rather than delete it, but consider it retracted; there's plenty in jdietrich's links to make me change my mind)

<comment><USER7> I mean, it's not the point, not to sound picky, because, the point is not to know whether the action is justified or not, people are better off or not.

It's because people under this rule have no power, no influence, almost no clue about it, because of the imbalance and the disconnect (of power, of knowledge, of capacity).

Such as would any creature under a powerful god, would gods exist. But you at least expect gods to have some sort of perfection or status or narrative that could somehow justify their whereabouts.

But here, there's no god. Just imperfect, broken humans breaking other humans, imperfectly, often for the wrong, or no reason at all.

That will never make something right. That will certainly entice more hate and more evil.

That's why this kind of weapon should be banned by treaties as unconventional (which they are).

This is not war. This is ruthless domination, for better or for worse (more than often, worse).

<comment><USER4> > the point is not to know whether the action is justified or not, people are > better off or not

Really? You don't think that whether people are better off matters?

Or fundamentally, whether a thing is justified or not matters?

Now I'm curious as to the basis of your morality. Could you explain how you would judge a thing to be right or not? (this sounds rather attacking, I'm not, just really interested).

I expect I've got wires crossed but I'd like to uncross them.

<comment><USER7> It does matter. Tremendously.

But the means to it matter as much, because they bring their own sets of consequences with them (and that is more than often ignored or overlooked, for "short term benefits").

The justification of an action is as much in the fruits, as in the roots. Both come hand in hand ultimately.

(edit to add the following:)

Then, as to judge/discern, I can't say I have a definite, certain receipt. I fear and keep away from those who say they do have one.

I don't mean to advertise the "basis of my morality". I'm not that good. I have a set of principles, that come mostly from my (Catholic, practicing) upbringing (but that don't match at all what most "Christians in the US" showcase, if that can give an idea) + an inner desire for peace, balance and truth (as hard and harsh it could be) that many take for naiveté, + an acute critical look for bullshit, I guess. But that's not very telling, is it? :p

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It has been limited in use and will continue to be because it takes up valuable pylon space for a single use.

Unless the MQ-1 is being deployed for a specific assassination, it makes sense to equip it with the AP hellfire, so it can possibly take action against an unexpected target of opportunity while loitering. You're probably not going to fire one of these against a Toyota Hilux or APC.

<comment><USER9> Having served in the infantry in Afganistan you are dead wrong, and APC ot a technical ( heavy machine gun mounted on a pickup, traditionally a Toyota helix) a Helfire would definatly be fired at one.

<comment><USER10> There's a Knife Missile testing video and the target is a test dummy in a remotely driven pickup on some strip of desert.

(I can't find a link. =( )

The missile goes through the driver's side roof and wedges out the passenger side floor.

The pickup was driven at variable speeds and it was just a crazy accurate as a standard hellfire.

<comment><USER11> Photos of a car supposedly hit by a knife missile in this video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMb-g5-aRjI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMb-g5-aRjI)

<comment><USER12> Thank for the photos. That video and The Sun are horrible.

<comment><USER11> Yea sorry pay no attention to the audio.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The fact that the US military has no qualms with killing random innocent civilians - including children - in their strikes against (assumed) terrorists is maddening to me. I understand that there are people who cannot be stopped from harming others with non-violent means. But how does it justfy that extra random murdering that the US military performs? At which point does this become a war crime?

<comment><USER14> The other way to look at it is that enemy combatants have no problems using innocent civilians as human shields. If US decided it would not harm human shields, the world would find out, and US would never win another battle again.

<comment><USER13> Please define human shield. Is it the family of the terrorist with whom he lives? Friends invited over to spend time with? Where is the difference between people being around coincidentally and people being kept around for protection?

<comment><USER15> To give just one prominent example: Hamas stores weapons in and fires rockets from hospitals, there's no "coincidentally" \- these groups know exactly what they're doing.

<comment><USER16> [https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/fallacy-israel- hum...](https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/fallacy-israel-human- shields-claims-gaza-180618085404724.html)

I wonder what kind of person pushes false narratives dehumanizing a people who have been oppressed by a brutal occupation for decades.

<comment><USER17> I don't think there's a way to know for sure. I guess we could exchange links that described opposite points of view all day long, but we wouldn't reach any meaningful conclusions.

However I fail to understand why this human shield topic seems so unbelievable to some people. Terrorist-like groups such as Hamas constantly show a very explicit lack of respect for innocent lives (even for the lives of innocents who share their same culture), the most clear example being attacks directed exclusively towards civilians. You can say "similar" things about the US (and other governments), but certainly not the same thing.

One of the obvious reasons for this is that a terrorist group usually faces an extreme disadvantage when it comes to logistics and operational capabilities in general, specially against the US military. Using civilian installations as human shield seems to be in line with the way terrorist groups usually fight back (using civilians lives as a mean to reach their goals).

I'm not saying that the fact that it's a plausible possibility makes it a reality. It is a possibility (an unlikely one in my opinion) that a terrorist group decides to avoid killing civilians (refusing also to use this human shields) and tries to dominate the conflict spreading terror by any other means. And it's certainly a possibility that Israel created this hoax, too. I'm only saying it's not that strange seeing terrorist groups doing this kinds of things, without the need to create any fictional narration.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Eerie emptiness of ERs worries doctors: where are the heart attacks and strokes? - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/05/06/850454989/eerie-emptiness-of-ers-worries-doctors-where-are-the-heart-attacks-and-strokes <comment><USER2> Dying at home, many of them. Excess mortality is way up, and it's not all COVID-19:

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/patients-with-heart- at...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/patients-with-heart-attacks- strokes-and-even-appendicitis-vanish-from- hospitals/2020/04/19/9ca3ef24-7eb4-11ea-9040-68981f488eed_story.html)

> The possibility that patients may be suffering — and even dying — at home > rather than going to a hospital led the American College of Cardiology to > launch a "Cardiosmart" campaign last week, attempting to reassure a wary > population and encourage those with symptoms to call 911 for urgent care and > to continue routine appointments, through telemedicine when practical: > "Hospitals have safety measures to protect you from infection," it reads.

> "The emphasis here is safety," said Harlan Krumholz, a cardiologist and > health care researcher at Yale University and Yale New Haven Hospital, who > advised on the campaign. "We want to make sure preventable deaths aren't > happening."

> There is no pill, no action, no behavior, he said, that could account for > the almost 40 percent drop in STEMI patients. "We don't have a means to cut > your risk in half," he said. "Not even primary angioplasty or stopping > smoking."

<comment><USER3> Could relaxing still home and cooking your own meals reduce activity-causing heart attacks? It's a trope in the North-East that middle aged men die shoveling snow.

<comment> munk-a Possibly in the short term - in the long term the quarantine is likely going to increase heart disease due to people having more sedentary life styles... It's quite likely this is just a result of the math of going to a hospital shifting - a lot of folks decide not to go to the hospital with minor chest pain due to other obligations[1] and the addition of the outbreak likely adds to the reasons not to go to the hospital.

1\. Don't do this, go to the hospital if you feel something different in your chest.

<comment><USER4> This is anecdotal, but I've never seen more people out walking around town than the last couple months.

Is there research showing people are more sedentary now?

<comment><USER5> Crime is down, while domestic violence is up. That's evidence people are staying inside more.

[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us- canada-52416330](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52416330)

As a counter anecdote, I know many people that only leave their house a few times per week, including for walks. They are definitely more sedentary now.

<comment><USER2> And you'd think deaths from auto accidents would be way down, but apparently not in Boston: [https://boston.cbslocal.com/2020/05/04/coronavirus- covid-19-...](https://boston.cbslocal.com/2020/05/04/coronavirus- covid-19-massachusetts-fatal-crashes-rate-doubled-april-massdot/)

<comment><USER6> Anecdotally, around my town the lower number of drivers on the road seems to be causing those who remain to feel like traffic laws don't matter. I can't even count how many times I have seen blatant "it's red but there's no traffic so I'll just go" behaviors, along with ridiculous speeding and lane changing. Doesn't help that the police essentially announced that they won't be looking for crime anymore.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> There is also another opinion: that many people go to the ER who don't really need to go there.

I had to visit the ER recently. I did not want to go but my doctor insisted. A family member who is also a doctor also insisted I go.

The ER was eerily empty. The ER doctor saw me immediately. There were only a couple of other patients that I could see. This contrasts to prior experiences in the ER where there is a long wait as I get triaged, with lots of people waiting to be seen.

Fortunately my situation was nothing serious. When I returned home and told my relative, he said his hospital's emergency department was also very light. In his opinion, there were a lot of people going to the ER who didn't need to go in the first place.

Edit: I am referring to non-trauma related admissions to the ER. E.g. I have a headache and I am going to the ER to be seen now.

<comment><USER8> A lot of people don't have insurance. You can't go to a doctor for a $150 appointment without insurance. But you can go to the ER when it gets really bad for a $2000 appointment (which you don't pay. May go to court against you but if you are poor, they won't collect)

<comment><USER9> That's what walk-in clinics (Urgent Care) are for. You can visit those often without insurance.

<comment><USER8> What?

At every one I have been to (not a lot I admit, maybe 4 in my life), I had to both provide insurance card AND pay my copay before a doctor would see me. Without payment, they send you to go to the ER.

<comment><USER9> How do you know they would send you to the ER? Did you not have insurance? Did they actually send you to the ER for not having it? Honestly, sounds like you simply had insurance, filled out a form and just assumed it was required. I've been to multiple walk-ins, and you can visit without insurance. They will ask for insurance up front, but you can simply say you don't have any. Then you will offer payment options. The average Urgent Care visit is under $200. The point of Urgent Care is literally to handle things that don't need ER visits, and at a much lower rate. I don't know why I've been down voted above, you can simply Google/Bing/Duck "no insurance Urgent Care" and find tons. The CVS MinuteClinic, which is everywhere, doesn't require insurance for instance.

[https://www.cvs.com/minuteclinic/insurance-and- billing](https://www.cvs.com/minuteclinic/insurance-and-billing)

<comment><USER10> The OP said without payment they will send you to the ER, which is true. If you can pay, as you said, then they will see you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Doctors in California went on strike and mortality dropped.

One reason for the drop may be due to elective surgeries not being performed. And since more people at staying at home in a safe environment, due to COVID there will be fewer accidents. And far fewer medical mistakes too, not COVID related.

"The third-leading cause of death in US most doctors don't want you to know about"

[https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/22/medical-errors-third- leading...](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/22/medical-errors-third-leading- cause-of-death-in-america.html)

"Why Do Patients Stop Dying When Doctors Go on Strike?"

[https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/slightly- blighty/201...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/slightly- blighty/201510/why-do-patients-stop-dying-when-doctors-go-strike)

My personal take on this based on statistics and observation is that many medical procedures are not very effective.

Or trade short term risk, for long term benefit. Eg. Those that survive a bypass surgery may live longer. But it will shorten the life of those that it kills. Chemo therapy can kill you immediately, but if you survive the procedure, it may have also killed the cancer that then will increase your life expectancy.

I also think many medical procedures are not really changing the course of the disease. And being in a hospital is inherently risky. You are exposing yourself to other very sick people, and possible human errors in treatment.

ITs easy to fool yourself into thinking that what you are doing is having an effect. Consider the thousands of football fans in stadiums thinking they are changing the course of the game with cheering or booing.

<comment><USER12> Most interventions are for something that's not going to kill you right away, so I would guess that seeking intervention for a medical problem I'm having would increase my odds of dying right now (due to a mistake, or exposure to other wick people) while increasing my long term odds. I would not expect an increase in mortality when non-emergency doctors go on strike.

And I hope to someday live in a world where medical error is the #1 cause of death. I hope we also focus on quality of life and not just quantity -- but if medicine seeks to continue extending life then the success case is that error is essentially the only cause of death. Those articles, and especially their headlines, are sensational and misleading.

<comment><USER11> There is also another possibility. If you kill of the weak, the remaining strong will show better health outcomes. And if you are a drug company, you can tout that as proof of the success of the treatment.

And I suspect that is exactly what is happening with some of these medical treatments. They take out the weakest patients (with for example chemo therapy) and the remaining stronger ones will do better. But really its a statistical effect.

Same way you can improve test scores in a class, by getting rid of students with low IQ and work ethic. All of sudden, the average test taking ability will go up.

<comment><USER13> Survivor effects like you're describing are controlled for in clinical trials for chemo and other drugs by comparing outcomes for the entire control and treatment groups.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This is really frustrating, as we were told over and over again from the media of this huge surge of cases that would overload hospitals. Stay away from the hospital we were told over and over, the "worried well" are overloading our medical system and its professionals. Well guess what, people did just that, they avoided the hospitals to allow for a surge. That's why these hospitals are ghost towns now. I had a tele-visit with my physician and he said both covid cases and visits themselves in his location have dropped off a cliff in recent weeks(sfbay area location). The tents they erected in the hospital parking lot to treat the legions of sick are being taken down at another hospital in San Jose. A friend who worked in radiology is now on partial furlough due to such low patient counts(Stanford, Palo Alto) so I guess this avalanche of cases never materialized at least not in the bay area(NY is a different story).

</comment><comment><USER15> Are _just_ the ERs empty? Or the whole hospital as well? If hospitals are empty, it's time to stop sheltering in place, because it means it's working _too well_. What's the endgame? We can't just keep the country shut down indefinitely. Life must move on. Even though there's still a lot of fear, I think reopening the country is the best option (while still maintaining social distancing, etc).

<comment><USER16> No, it doesn't mean "stop sheltering in place," unless cases of COVID-19 have peaked. In order to tell whether they've peaked, you need testing in place, as well. Even if they have peaked, it could mean "relax some of the restrictions, but not fully end SIP, while monitoring cases." Opening things back up prematurely, without sufficient testing, is just going to get people killed.

<comment><USER17> Why do cases matter? It should be the death rate that peaks, and that's measurable without testing. In fact it seems to be over-attributed since many deaths are now being classified to Covid even if there are many other factors.

<comment><USER16> Death rate is the proxy for cases. What matters when attempting to contain the disease is prevalence of the disease.

<comment><USER18> I think this is backwards. We have been using infection rates as a proxy for death rates, since deaths are a lagging indicator. It is certain we are missing a huge percentage of cases, and expanding testing will uncover those. It is completely unclear that uncovering more mild and asymptomatic cases will result in more deaths, so new cases are a bad proxy for future deaths.

<comment><USER16> Maybe in an ideal world, but we're not actually _measuring_ infection rates. Dead is pretty objective, and easy to measure, and, we know that the number of deaths will roughly track the number of infections. That's why things like deaths and hospitalizations are what the state of California is watching closely.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> [IANAD] Diabetes, hypertension and cardiovascular issues are among the frequent issues in serious covid cases. If covid is that widespread as some studies suggests, may it be that covid triggers the hospitalization earlier than the heart attack/stroke/etc. would have happened to that person otherwise. US heart attack rate is 2K/day, ie. on a scale of covid deaths and significantly less than covid hospitalizations.

Some other factors to consider - much cleaner air these days, no traffic/noise/rush and associated stress, and you can even hear birds singing through the day. Personally i find it very relaxing to not spend the days in our tightly packed badly air-conditioned to the point of serious sweating (our BigCo. is very big about its "green" energy saving chops) horrendously lit (those lights burn the eyes and make bright spot reflections on monitor, and the half-transparent blinds kill when afternoon Sun gets into those windows) "collaboration and communication stimulating" (read - very stressful) very modern open floor office.

<comment><USER20> I would assume indeed that your first point is the most important-one: people already in bad health, susceptible to heart attacks and strokes also have a much higher chance of getting seriously affected by covid with fatal consequences in the first place.

This is also something you see in statistics, that after any large flu epidemic, the general population mortality figure drops to something significantly below average, especially for people in the 65+ age group.

You can see this very well on EuroMOMO [1] - check out the numbers for the Netherlands in 2018 from week 10 throughout 13. This is a flu epidemic there, and the aftermath.

[1] [https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/](https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs- and-maps/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Yes, Stanford Hospitals actually sent about 20% of their staff home.[1]

Stanford was prepared for a huge influx of coronavirus patients, but they only have 20-30 in the hospital. This despite a steadily climbing death toll. My own GP says, if you get it, go to Stanford; they have the investigational drugs, and they're not overloaded.

Nationally, the US death toll continues to climb. Currently somewhere between 69,000 and 74,000, depending on the source. The SF Bay Area's shelter-in-place thing seems to have helped. We need to get more people wearing masks, though. Seeing too many people without masks. More of the good masks, too. You really need N95 or ASTM Level 3 masks to protect yourself; the cheapies only protect other people. That only works if almost everybody wears the things.

What's happening outside the US? The Financial Times tracker, which has been updated every day for months, shows the US death rate flat. Most other countries have peaked and decreased substantially.[2]

[1] [https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/04/27/coronavirus-14000-sta...](https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/04/27/coronavirus-14000-stanford- health-care-workers-hit-with-furloughs-pay-cuts/)

[2] [https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus- chart/?areas=usa&areas=gbr&cum...](https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus- chart/?areas=usa&areas=gbr&cumulative=0&logScale=0&perMillion=1&values=deaths)

</comment><comment><USER22> Don't discount the impact of reduction of air pollution on all causes of mortality. It's not often discussed, but every so often someone makes the connection between small particulates and heart attacks, etc.

<comment><USER23> Pretty sure any impact from that would be a very long-term thing. A lifetime without particulates might have an effect; a month seems pretty far-fetched.

<comment><USER24> Why do you think that the effect is only long term exposure?

<comment><USER23> Seems like a pretty subtle and non-acute thing. Maybe even analogous to smoking: something that gradually erodes your health, not something that suddenly kills you.

<comment><USER25> [https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/tobacco-and- canc...](https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/tobacco-and- cancer/health-risks-of-smoking-tobacco.html)

Risks are generally thought to be immediate, but very low.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Cars kill us: Far fewer car crashes, more sleep as no need to commute so early in the morning, no horrible drive into the office screaming and honking at the idiot driver, no horrible drive home while texting. Alcohol kills us: no drunk fights at bars, drunk driving, falling in front of moving vehicles. Not saying it explains it, but a lot of people get hurt and die for stupid reasons.

<comment><USER27> I don't know if you are in on this, but...

[https://www.theladders.com/career-advice/38-of-new- yorkers-a...](https://www.theladders.com/career-advice/38-of-new-yorkers-are- drinking-while-working-remotely)

<comment><USER28> Then they're "just" pickling their liver at home instead of also getting into fights at bars, driving drunk, and falling down in front of moving vehicles on top of that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> People are staying home and dying. This is one of the major trade offs no government official is talking about regarding re-opening the economy.

<comment><USER30> How is that related to the lockdown? Hospitals are open. People are staying home because they're scared of getting sick, that's not something that can be fixed by public policy.

<comment><USER29> "fixed by public policy"

Public policy right now is to stay home or die of Covid 19. Many people are scared to even go outside or go to a hospital if they don't have the virus.

Starting to open businesses again and requiring social distancing would definitely help with the fear and more people would actually go to the hospital for non-covid health issues.

<comment><USER30> I don't follow that. Can you walk me through how making people go to work is going to make them _less_ afraid? You make people less afraid by reducing the risk they'll get sick, not increasing it. Releasing lockdowns before the pandemic is controlled increases risk, by definition.

This is the big flaw with the "open up" notion: it fundamentally won't work anyway. How is "opening up" the economy going to help Jet Blue when no one is willing to fly? Who is expected to fill those movie theaters and sports arenas? Who's going to sit in a crowded restaurant?

At best, opening up will get us a half-alive economy. And at the price of a _much_ longer time until a true recovery starts.

Stay home. We can beat this. The regions that started lockdowns early (c.f. Europe, New York, the west coast) are well on their way to containment. It's the "open up" regions and the ones with partial lockdowns[1] that are the stragglers.

[1] I make this point every time it comes up: but _for goodness sake something needs to happen in Nebraska_. It's right on the cusp of exploding into a worst-than-NY disaster and no one is talking about it.

<comment><USER31> What does "well on the way to containment" mean?

The new cases/deaths stats in California, for example, are not showing any long-term decreasing trend: [https://www.latimes.com/projects/california- coronavirus-case...](https://www.latimes.com/projects/california-coronavirus- cases-tracking-outbreak/)

<comment><USER30> California is split. The Bay Area is past peak, socal is still growing. Washington and Oregon are well past peak, around half of their peak new infection rate. New York is crossing under 1/3 now. Likewise New England and a few other smaller states are clearly over the hump.

This stuff works. All these places could have easily blown right through health care capacity like Milan, but they didn't. The really frustrating thing is watching it work, then watching everyone figure things aren't so bad and demand that we "open up", when the only reason things aren't so bad is because we didn't.

Another month for these early states. Just be patient. As for everyone else, it's going to be much longer than if they had just followed the lead of the lockdown set.

<comment><USER31> That doesn't really answer what containment means or what the long-term strategy is.

If you relax lockdowns while you still have a significant number of active cases then expect outbreaks to reoccur. So is the plan to stay locked down until active cases in the applicable area are essentially zero, i.e. eradication? If so, how long will that take? If not, what is the plan?

I know there's no easy solution here but even my well-informed California friends don't seem to know what the plan is.

<comment><USER30> This stuff has been written about ad nauseum. Every think tank has some variant they've published. Here's Ezra Klein's review of a bunch of them (he's pretty bearish on whether they'll work): [https://www.vox.com/2020/4/10/21215494/coronavirus-plans- soc...](https://www.vox.com/2020/4/10/21215494/coronavirus-plans-social- distancing-economy-recession-depression-unemployment)

The basic idea is that you stay locked down until the outbreak size is small enough that you can test every contact of every positive case to catch them before they spread.

This takes _a lot_ of testing. And unfortunately the one body in the USA with the financial resources to foot that bill is conspicuously silent on a plan for rolling out expanded testing. But this is how it has to work. The alternative is, as everyone here loves to scream, more expensive.

But there's no magic wand where people just decide to start working again. That won't happen, either becuase they're scared or because the outbreaks run out of control again (which is to say: people won't exit lockdown voluntarily without containment ever, either they're scared now or they'll be scared of the results they see).

So call your representatives and get testing funded and scaled. Really there is no other option.

<comment><USER31> Yes, lots of experts have plans. But it's not clear what the California _state_ strategy is, nor most of those other countries you mentioned earlier, and they're the ones who make the rules.

I agree with everything else you say. Except calling my representative won't help because I'm not American and I already know what the NZ strategy is...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> "Air pollution, of which whose small particulate matter are the most toxic, contributes to about one-third of the global burden of stroke."

[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003537871...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0035378718309767)

"In 2004, the American Heart Association issued a scientific statement concluding that exposure to air pollution contributes to cardiovascular illness and mortality. A 2010 update elaborated on those risks.

Short-term exposure can increase the risk of heart attack, stroke, arrhythmias and heart failure in susceptible people, such as the elderly or those with pre-existing medical conditions, according to the statement."

[https://www.heart.org/en/health-topics/consumer- healthcare/w...](https://www.heart.org/en/health-topics/consumer- healthcare/what-is-cardiovascular-disease/air-pollution-and-heart-disease- stroke)

</comment><comment><USER33> Of course, people hesitate to go to the doctor. But I see a second factor: Maybe it's because of a slowing down in many regards. Hence, less stress, and less heart attacks?

<comment><USER34> Fairly sure the country as a whole is more stressed. Economy and media at least portray that.

<comment><USER35> But fewer externalities like bars, parties, stupid accidents with friends, rushing to meetings, traffic, physical work env stress, in some cases work altogether. Not to minimize the mental torment some people feel but I think o there is a huge reduction in certain kinds of stress.

<comment><USER34> Here's some context: both you, me and a majority of HN readers have decent lives and cushy tech jobs (I'm a student and have the luxury of coding all day).

Think of everyone else: those relatively regular/average people in America, the average Joe. They have bills to pay for, but living paycheck to paycheck, they can't pay any of it. So now they're seeing whats the best way to get income. Unemployment check? Website is down. Where to get food? Food banks are barely sustaining.

Yes, there's definitely a reduction of stress in some areas, but I believe that thinking of everyone, I mean everyone not just in tech, makes you realize that as a whole, a lot of people are stressed out of their minds when this can end.

<comment><USER36> My mental stress level is wayyy up – but I think I still feel less stressed overall, because I get more and better exercise, I cook a lot more and that means cheaper but somewhat healthier food on a schedule that better suits me in portion sizes that I choose myself (as opposed to the guy at the cafeteria counter), I have a lot less work-related stress due to remote work (everything feels somewhat more distant), no stressful commute, more flexibility with bedtimes (which suits me as a total owl) ... there might be lots other things, lots other external stressors, hard to tell. It's at the same time nerve- shredding and very relaxing. I wouldn't be totally surprised if a lot of people were living lives so unhealthy and harmful that the current situation would end up being a net improvement in that one way, terrible as it is in lots of others.

<comment><USER37> You sound a lot like a person who's never been evicted.

<comment><USER36> That's true, I live in Europe, eviction is something that the social safety net in our country protects people against very well. That may mean the overall stress levels over here are lower, can't say. ER doctors are making the same observation here though – heart attacks have plummetted. I guess personally I'm better off than many, since my job can be done from home; what I currently do is very much a nice-to-have for the people who pay me though, other options to pivot to are few, and I wouldn't last long in a bad recession if I were out of a job, with rent that would quickly become a problem even with the security net we have here, so that's definitely something that stresses me. Whether that's enough for the argument I'm making, can't say.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> It'd be interesting if the quarantine from the coronavirus has also quarantined us from the ravages and stresses of day to day life, leading to improved cardiovascular outcomes.

I'd be curious about suicide statistics as well--would they be going up or down right now?

<comment><USER39> Anecdotally, I feel like stress has gone way up for most people, not down. Not sure it's that's true or not on the larger scale, but it definitely seems true for me and most of the people I know.

<comment><USER38> Interesting. For me, it's involved a sharp decrease in stress, though that's overlapped with quitting my job and having a substantial financial cushion.

<comment><USER40> Millions of people are out of a job and nobody is hiring. You have to recognise that your situation is much more fortunate than most.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> if you go to the ER, is it still the case you could up alone in the hospital without ever seeing a family member? and possibly die alone?

i wonder if a "bad death" is also a deterrent if you thought you were dying. or if emergencies don't come with those kinds of calculations. not sure if/why covid calculation would be any more likely, though.

</comment><comment><USER42> This pandemic will surely produce a lot of material for economists and social scientists who study the law of unintended consequences.

<comment><USER43> And documentaries with titles such as The Power of Nightmares

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Maybe working from home is just less stressful. Or, maybe they are finally getting time to exercise, thus putting of the strokes (I don't know if exercise will put off a stroke, but maybe). I know I see a magnitude more people around my neighborhood out walking, jogging, etc. than I ever saw before.

</comment><comment><USER45> Best quote:

> "They still want patients to avoid hospitals yet not hesitate to go if there > are signs of an emergency"

</comment><comment><USER46> In other words, all of the Covid emergency is not happening.

</comment><comment><USER47> > That's really one of the tragedies of COVID-19

More like one of the tragedies of fearmongering.

</comment><comment><USER48> If CoViD-19 turns out to primarily be a pathogen that most negatively affects people with CardioVascular Disease then the short answer is, they're probably already dead. (CVD - CVD, uncanny coincidence?)</comment>


The Ultra-Wealthy Who Argue That They Should Be Paying Higher Taxes - <AUTHOR> https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/01/06/the-ultra-wealthy-who-argue-that-they-should-be-paying-higher-taxes <comment><USER2> That fact they they do that is nothing but hollow virtue signaling. There is absolutely nothing stoping them from paying the IRS any additional amount of money they want. If they really mean and prove it all they have to do is write a check.

</comment><comment><USER3> > _Revolutions, like bankruptcies, come gradually, and then suddenly. One day, > somebody sets himself on fire, then thousands of people are in the streets, > and before you know it, the country is burning. And then there's no time for > us to get to the airport and jump on our Gulfstream Vs and fly to New > Zealand._

I recently read about the French Revolution. I can't help but wonder if history is repeating itself.</comment>


Remote Programming Jobs: Pulse of the Market - <AUTHOR> I've just published a small chart that shows the daily numbers of newly posted and closed-out remote programming jobs: https://remotemasters.dev/pulse <comment><USER2> Just submit it as an ordinary link and people will be able to click on the link.

<comment><AUTHOR> Will do, thanks</comment></comment>


Interactive HTML Trees with No JavaScript - <AUTHOR> https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2020/08/interactive-html-trees-with-no-javascript/ <comment><USER2> The linked blog post seems to have been deleted. At the time I'm writing this, the links has been pointing to a 404 error page for a few minutes already and the article is nowhere to be found in the blog's archive.

<comment><USER3> [https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:tOB1K9...](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:tOB1K9m_8CAJ:https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2020/08/interactive- html-trees-with-no-javascript/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=bd&client=ms-android- vivo)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm not sure why the article mentions accessibility as a downside to this approach. If you use details/summary, it probably has some default behavior in screen readers to explain that it's collapsable. The alternative of using some show/hide element with an onClick handler probably doesn't work as well for screen readers without a bunch of aria tags.

<comment><USER5> > it probably has some default behavior in screen readers to explain that it's > collapsable.

Yes, and it reads leaves as collapsed, the user expands them and there's nothing there. That's confusing.

> The alternative of using some show/hide element with an onClick handler > probably doesn't work as well for screen readers without a bunch of aria > tags.

Yeah, `aria-expanded` (you need an expanded CSS class anyway) and maybe `aria- owns`. Titanic work.

The cool thing about accessibility is that you have to think a lot less. You just open [https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria- practices-1.1](https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-practices-1.1) , find the widget or scenario you need and do as they say. Win-win.

<comment><USER4> What do you mean by "the user expands them and there's nothing there"?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's also possible to implement drop-down menus using CSS, with zero JavaScript.

[https://www.grc.com/menudemo.htm](https://www.grc.com/menudemo.htm)

<comment><USER7> It is and there is no reason not to do it this way just because it has been around for a long time.

However, for accessibility reasons, Son of Suckerfish[0] works a bit better. It moves hidden items out of the viewport instead of using display: none, thus making the menu usable to screenreaders users without them having to "hover". It would of course also be advisable, to expand the :hover to also inlclude :focus.

[0] [https://www.htmldog.com/articles/suckerfish/dropdowns/](https://www.htmldog.com/articles/suckerfish/dropdowns/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is a good example of a JavaScript-phobic treatment of webdev to no ends other than the abuse of HTML tags. There is a use case for JavaScript, and this is it.

<comment><USER9> Personally I think this solution is simpler and easier to implement than using js. This isn't really an abuse. This seems exactly what these tags were intended for

<comment><USER8> It says it in the article:

> WARNING! This is a misuse of these HTML elements. While it is valid markup, > it may not be accessible. This is an experiment and not intended for > production use.

<comment><USER10> Then what is the correct use for them? If it's valid markup, used for the correct purpose, accessibility is the responsibility of the browser.

<comment><USER11> The correct use is for the <summary> element to be a _summary_ of the rest of the block. This is not the case in threaded conversations.

<comment><USER12> Is the title of a thread not a summary of that thread?

<comment><USER11> This is not about the title but about a post and its replies though.

<comment><USER12> But in most "threaed forum" examples, including several in the article, such as HN or Reddit, the post contents would be in the body of the DETAILS and the SUMMARY for when minimized is just the title or a summary of how many comments are below. This article isn't suggesting putting the whole post in the SUMMARY, though the given example doesn't likely make that clear because it isn't a full example.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Trees and tables that can scroll and freeze like Excel should have been made standard decades ago. I'm so sick of having to find a third-party component for the framework-of-the-month every time I start a new project.

</comment><comment><USER13> I'm on MDN browsing the game development section because of the front page MDN story. I noticed they have a tree menu, so I was curious what they were using. It's exactly this.

</comment><comment><USER14> I wish the text in a collapsed <details> would show up in the browser's ctrl+F search. Why didnt Firefox and Chrome implement this yet?

</comment><comment><USER15> Sorry, the page you requested cannot be found. These are not the blogs you're looking for…

</comment><comment><USER16> That just ugly. I'd just go with something like this: [http://experiments.wemakesites.net/css3-treeview.html](http://experiments.wemakesites.net/css3-treeview.html)

<comment><USER13> It can be styled. Does the tree menu on the left of this page look ugly: [https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Games/Introduction](https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Games/Introduction)

It's not nested but I'm sure it could be made to look just as good if it was.

Edit: That link you gave looks pretty nice though, I'm actually in need of a tree view today, I might try that.

<comment><USER16> I'm sorry that I was unclear. I found it technically "ugly", as far as styling goes I'd assume that any solution could be made as pretty as needed.

The `:checked` stuff also works great for accordions and whatever else is toggled, I use it all the time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> swagasaurus-rex The link appears down

</comment><comment><USER17> Anyone tested how E-Mail clients display those tags?

</comment><comment><USER18> What about performance?

</comment><comment><USER19> I'm sorry to say, but there's nothing new here.</comment>


IndexTank full-text search now available as a Heroku add-on - <AUTHOR> http://blog.indextank.com/40/heroku-plug-in-now-available/

<comment><USER2> If you are not much of a fan of ruby, you can also sign-up for a regular account at <http://indextank.com/pricing>, it's free for the first month.

</comment><comment><USER3> I looked at, I'd like to use it but I couldn't find the price, what will it cost?

<comment><USER4> We are still working on setting the price for the Heroku-plugin. You get the first month free. Going forward, we expect the prices to be in line with our current packages <http://indextank.com/pricing>

</comment></comment><comment> spike-flaptor Starts at 25 a month. Check out the pricing tab.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's not the add-on though, that's the regular api service.</comment></comment>


Ask HN:Is it actually possible to earn money online? - <AUTHOR>

I was going through my spam directory just as a curiosity, just to check what does these thousand odd messages contained. Apart from usual Viagra and length enhancement drugs, there were some emails offering "paid to click" websites. These websites apparently pay you to click on ads,often as minimum as $0.001. But a question begs to be asked, is it actually possible to make money online? If you type "earn online" in google you can get many of these sites which pay you to click or sign up from referal links. But we all know these sites never pay you a penny. Apart from Amazon mechanical turk, I have never come across a big company which gives money for doing simple tasks.<p>So do you know of any?Because this will be hell of a way to earn some pocket money. <comment><USER2> Many of those are "arbitrage" schemes. For example, buying a Google ad for "steering wheel desk" and with an Amazon affiliate link. If the Google ad is cheap enough and Amazon converts and pays enough, you can make money. The difficulty is that there are tons of people doing this for every search term they can think of.

I always recommend that instead of buying some scam package, people look at the free 30 Day Challenge ( <http://www.thirtydaychallenge.com> ) program, where Ed Dale and team show beginners how to start niche marketing online.

</comment><comment><USER3> The question is raised, not begged.

But yes, my dad (Whom is 58) makes money online by putting up websites with Ebay/Clickbank/Adsense links. Makes about 125/month.

It takes time and money and about 4-6 months worth of patience /after/ you've learned how to do it correctly.

For start, google: Ban sites, and google: warrior forum

<comment><AUTHOR> The question begs to be asked on HN because such questions never come up on this site and being asked on this site is actually a privilege. :)

<comment><USER3> Who am I kidding, it's being used incorrectly enough these days that it might as well be correct.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Just do a quick calculation, and see how much you'll actually make. Then realize that your local McDonalds pays more.

Also, ask yourself this: how do you know you'll get paid? You are helping someone run a scam. Which means they aren't exactly a model of integrity. So, if they just don't pay you, who are you going to compain to? Google? "Hi, tech support. I was working for this guy trying to scam your customers, and now he won't pay".

Next thing you know, you'll be responding to one of those "work from home opportunities" re-mailing packages. The cops busting your door down follows shortly after :)

Seriously, use your time to learn new skills. It is worth way more than you think.

</comment><comment><USER5> It is possible to earn money online. Create an "earn money online" product and spam it. Better yet, offer an affiliate reward for it and let others spam it. The "earn online" packages you're seeing are likely cousins or siblings of the rebill scams that (used to be) in Facebook apps and at the end of checkout processes now.

That's the sad truth about "make money online" programs like that. Think about it, even if it was legit: by signing up for any kind of service that offers money for menial tasks, you're putting yourself into a kind of digital piece work factory -- about the lowest possible position in the labor pool.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey the second point you mention probably describes the Amazon mechanical turk well. But still I would work on it because its just easy to earn some money on it.(Well I havent actually got anything from it now, but just as an experiment I have done 5 tasks of different rewards to see what I can get from it).

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Learn affiliate marketing. Seriously. With everything else, you're working very hard for pocket change. Affiliate programs like Amazon's pay you for completed sales, so the payouts are typically large. There are several companies through which you can find CPA campaigns to run, and quite a bit of material for learning how to run, scale, and make respectable amounts of money from these campaigns.

Check out: clickbooth.com, cj.com, pepperjam.com, neverblue.com. There are a bunch.

</comment><comment><USER7> Definitely possible, although it is work, like anything else. Depends on what your likes and dislikes are- if you are going to do it, you probably need to enjoy and believe in what you are representing/selling- whether it is a product or information. Then, it requires some research and testing. Then, lots of patience and smart work. One word of advice: pick a smaller niche rather than one that has a lot of competition. It is easier to promote and market. Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER8> Yes, on Mechanical Turk (<http://mturk.com>).

</comment><comment><USER9> <http://www.problogger.net/>

Even if you fail at this, you'll have more experience, learned more, networked more, and have something to show for it. And it's legitimate.

</comment><comment><USER10> If there's a way to make money online simply, it's probably being done by high school students and people in the Third World -- i.e., anyone whose time is nearly worthless.

</comment><comment><USER11> This is more a question along the lines of the above but with a specific example. Tferris' 4Hww, for those that haven't yet read it, the basic process is this;

Build an end to end business in which you control the distribution channels for a product that has high demand as evidenced by various keyword search tools, then outsource all the parts of that business so you're just pulling the strings of everyone else and they're making money for you.

Aim for price point per product of 50-200$ and 8-10 markup on initial costs to cover both your outsourced operating expenses as well as a significant profit for yourself, then minimise your personal cost of living and maximise your quality of life by employing various other strategies.

It sounds in principle, plausible, however.. markup of 8 - 10 times per item? Those margins seem extremely high, I understand that they're being maintained by virtue of you controlling the entire distribution chain + having picked a niche which has significant demand and not high competition, but still?

I figure someone here has at least tried it? Enlightenment appreciated.

</comment><comment><USER12> I made $2300 over the course of two months a few years back using Comission Junction through PPC arbitrage. I found the entire industry to be really spammy and full of scams (not so much CJ but ShareASale, AzoogleAds, Clickbank, etc)

1\. Sign-up for CJ/Azoogle/etc 2\. Digitalpoint.com for YAHOO/MSN/GOOGLE credit vouchers $200 in ads for $20. 3\. PPC account (Google not reccomend for newbiews) 4\. www.sherpastore.com/ to accquire matieral to read internet marketing case studies, understand landing pages, call to actions, etc. 5\. html/css/design skills to create your own landing pages, crazyegg.com to understand user clicks.

Ultimatley its more work for less money than you would make at even a retail job.. but if you are serious I am sure you can come up with innovative ways to drive user to your links and maybe even sign-up for trials or products. I made the bulk of my earnings from Rhapsody sign-ups using obscure music genres on MSN. While the money seems okay -- you're likely to lose quite a bit while discovering a niche -- that is if this even works anymore -- I know google was starting their own affiliate network and i see information for arbitrage being advertised by gurus on CNBC at 3AM.</comment>


BenchPrep raises $6M to win 'hearts and minds' of students - <AUTHOR> http://gigaom.com/2012/07/03/benchprep-raises-6m-to-win-hearts-and-minds-of-students/ <comment><USER2> Congratulations. I hope that the money will be put in a good use.

</comment><comment><USER3> Awesome!</comment>