Ask HN: Glassdoor for Medical Bills? - <AUTHOR> I had an idea earlier after receiving an unreasonable medical bill.
As most here probably know, medical bills in the U.S. - in addition to being high - are almost never advertised, often erroneous, often inflated via agreements with insurers, and can often be talked down as soon as the recipient points out issues with them.
What if there were a website where people could report their invoices from different providers, tagging them by state, by insurance provider, by insurance plan, itemizing the charges for each piece of care, and including both the base charge and the amount covered by insurance, and then the site could a) aggregate this data to help people understand how their costs compare to others for similar treatments, and b) raise general awareness of the prices. If prices won't be transparent up-front, we can make them transparent after the fact for the next person. Beyond just helping individuals, if this got big enough it could conceivably push down prices as providers are forced to compete.
A journalist at Vox did something similar (for a one-off investigation) at one point: https://www.vox.com/2018/2/27/16936638/er-bills-emergency-room-hospital-fees-health-care-costs
But of course what I'm talking about would be an ongoing, ever-growing, self-reported dataset.
Does this exist? Could it exist? Anybody want to collaborate on it? <comment><USER2> I've had this exact idea. I made it as a hackathon project but haven't worked on it ever since. One of the things I wanted to do was to use publicly- available treatment cost data (I think states like California require reporting of this) and aggregate it by type of treatment to allow users to comparison-shop between medical providers in their area.

The issue I was facing (and the reason I stopped working on this project) was the lack of standard, openly-available medical codes, since most hospitals mark treatments with CPT codes, which are proprietary and require a license to use in software. If anyone has any solutions to translate these codes to human-readable names without licensing the entire set of codes from the American Medical Association, I'd be open to hearing those ideas.

<comment><AUTHOR> My (possibly naive) thinking was to have people just enter the human-friendly name for each item from their invoice as-is. A data-cleanup stage would then be necessary to reconcile these names across entries, but:

\- The same provider will presumably use the exact same name for the same item across invoices, reducing the subsets of values that will need to be matched up (similar to the way services like Mint make sense of transaction names)

\- Some automated "fuzzy matching" could be applied; keywords, off-by-one- letter checks, etc

\- Human curation, amplified by the above two factors, might be feasible

\- Maybe someone could even do something fancy with a neural-net, who knows ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

But yeah, data reconciliation is definitely one of the main challenges here.

If you want to brainstorm/discuss more directly, you can email me at mail[at]brandonsmith[dot]ninja

<comment><USER3> It's a good idea overall.

My suggestion is to absolutely under no circumstances attempt to cover all (or a large number) possible medical codes in the first few years. Do not spend any mental energy on that, it will bury you, it will rob your motivation, it will waste your time and make you wish you never considered the service.

Do the opposite, start very stupid simple, knock down one bowling pin. Pick a small selection of the most common medical codes or those most in need of this service (the treatments that can benefit most from this). Roll the complexity gradually from there. You will be aided by resources as you scale, in many ways, which you will lack in the beginning. Your expanding userbase can also assist you immensely as you go along (in the beginning they won't exist); but you first need to have a very useful service to get those users, and to do that you have to be good at something; narrow, narrow, narrow; you'll expand outward later.

And frankly if you can't make it work for a small group of medical codes, you are not going to make it work for a much larger & complex context.

Again, whatever you do, do not attempt to run before you crawl with this. You don't need to do that. Just offering this for small selection of medical codes could be hugely valuable, then slowly expand it. Make it work super well for that small group first.

Make it clear what your service focuses on, and keep that list short. Reject any attempts by users to expand the system to cover all medical codes in the beginning.

It's no different than going from Harvard.edu, to Stanford.edu as in the Facebook bowling pin strategy, and then building up some demand from users to see you add more medical codes (the userbase will help inform you which to do next). Do not try to go wide in the beginning, it's a guaranteed path to failure.

Plus, if you start with a small selection of medical codes, you can better focus on your outreach / marketing to just those people and their circumstances. It will drastically simplify your attempts to find the first 100 / 1000 / 10000 users, and those early users will all be able to coordinate on the same narrow medical code/s, which will build the initial community foundation you require. If you try to go wide initially, covering a lot of medical codes, you'll get stray users that won't be able to coordinate with the other users who all have different medical codes (ie it's better to have 1,000 users with the same single medical code, than 1,000 medical codes each with one user).

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback. I think you're right; my thinking was to eagerly gather as much data as possible even if not all of it is useful immediately, but it's true that it might dilute the experience when the person _entering_ the info doesn't yet benefit from most of what they've entered.

<comment><USER3> Absolutely. You risk an endless cycle of the ghost town effect in that scenario (people floating on an island by themselves, to zero benefit). I'd wager it's better to have only 100 users with one medical code, than 10,000 users all with different codes. Those 100 users ignite the function of the system, its desired feedback mechanism. I suspect there are some large, very common targets you can choose from to get started. Your challenge is probably deciding whether to target a more common medical code, or one with greater user intensity (people that are more frustrated; a higher intensity factor might be ideal for starting the system around; it's an interesting trade-off).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Funny I have thought of doing exactly the same. Would love to brainstorm ideas. Sick and tired of medical billing crap.

</comment><comment><USER5> My employer used to provide access to a service (it might have been Castlight Health) that would show typical prices for providers/facilities, so you could at least attempt to shop around. I don't think it is open to individuals, unfortunately.

</comment><comment><USER6> Many insurance providers actually have a portal where you can search for a procedure and they will list the providers and their prices.

</comment><comment><USER7> What do you envision as the business model for this site? Pay to subscribe? Ad-supported? Free, supported by donations?

<comment><AUTHOR> I was thinking open-source/nonprofit. Server costs should be trivial until it started to take off for real (and I'd personally be open to covering them out of pocket), at which point a proper nonprofit/donation model could be set up. Ideally the data itself would also be open, for use by others (analysts, journalists, etc).</comment></comment>


Boostnote is an open source note-taking app made for progammers just like you - <AUTHOR> https://boostnote.io/ <comment><USER2> Boostnote is good but I wish they had latex support too.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey there, I am sure they had support for latex.</comment></comment>


Anatomy of an online misinformation network - <AUTHOR> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0196087 <comment><USER3> In addition to identifying the network, the authors also calculate that taking down as few as ten influential accounts can halve the retweets of misinformation. I'm not convinced that it's quite that easy, because the network would respond and adapt, but it's still an eye-opening demonstration of the power of social media companies.

The paper also finds that many misinformation accounts are not bots. Currently, misinformation is not a bannable offense for most social networks. Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube leaders have said, verbatim, that they don't want to be "arbiters of truth". Of course, that leaves open the question of what responsibility they have and what actions they should take.

<comment><USER4> There's also the question of what is misinformation? You have a continuum from differences of opinion, to people being mistaken, to deliberate misinformation. Where do you (reliably) draw the line? I can see why they wouldn't want them to be "arbiters of truth" \-- I'm not sure I would want them to be either.

<comment><USER5> The problem is that there's no such thing as a positive truth. Truth always refers to a certain framework which is shared and acknowledged by a given group, which also distinguishes groups one from another. (So we may say, truth is necessarily a question of ideology.)

The interesting part is the mutual reinforcement of targeted content and what we may call "idiosyncratic truth," since both refer to distinctive group boundaries and the respective framework of shared world view. Social media will always reinforce such bias, it's part of the setup.

Lastly, if we acknowledge that there's no way to identify an unbiased (positive) truth, it may be also hard to identify bias at all. It may be possible to identify misinformation which is spread arbitrarily as part of a broader strategy (then better called disinformation) but even then it may be hard to reach consensus. (Elefant in the room may be the UN presentation proceeding the last Golf War.)

<comment><USER6> 2+2=4 regardless of ideology.

<comment><USER7> Other counterpoint: [https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/technically- beautiful](https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/technically-beautiful)

<comment><USER8> That's not a counterpoint. That strip is countering a statement based on the flawed assumption that aliens would count using the same base-10 system most of us here use.

Which really is the argument that falsehoods are [some portion of the time] rooted in wrong assumptions and premises.

I would argue that this only strengthens the statement that facts exist.

That some people (here on Earth) want to claim that 2+2=5 because they have invented their own number 2 (which they conveniently withhold), is precisely the kind of misinformation being discussed in the thread.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The fundamental problem to all of this is those who believe they are righteous (on any side of politics) will use whatever methods they can to promote their "truth". This includes infiltrating "credible" sources. So it's impossible to have an entire organisation that can be universally considered to be an arbiter of truth, because you can be fairly certain at least some of its members are bad actors. That's not to say some organisations aren't more accurate than others – of course some are. But if you can't entirely remove the need for critical analysis on the part of the reader, you would be better off teaching the reader to be critical than attempt to "fix" a system which fundamentally can't be fixed.

Deciding who we should and shouldn't silence is not the solution. Whatever one chooses, some propagandists are going to win. Giving people the tools to determine the veracity of a statement themselves is (usually this is simple common sense, the ability to reason, some knowledge of rhetoric and an understanding that personal bias in prevalent in themselves and others - <USER2> it's human nature). Throw in a bit of knowledge about politics (both domestic and international) and armed with these tools I'm confident the majority would be able to come to accurate conclusions on their own.

</comment><comment><USER10> Not everything is a technical problem to solve and acting like it is is a dangerous path.

This will never work in practice, truth is not a popularity contest.

<comment> aaron-lebo What aspect of the study makes you believe they are relying on popularity? They are mostly relying on a very limited set of approved sources (which could be criticized), but their approach seems pretty straightforward. You've gotta have some baseline to compare to.

I'm glad someone is making a public/academic attempt to measure this, because it's hard to imagine just how easy it is to spread disinformation.

What would you have done differently?

<comment><USER11> So, they're talking about how to disrupt the propagation of information deemed deleterious, given that actors are operating networks of amplifiers. They target the network to disrupt, and then strategize methods of dismantling the network.

But the qualifier " _bad_ " is ensconced in lofty vocabulary. The reality is this is likely a generalizable analysis of how to attack information networks regardless of alignment. All of the high-level adjectives ascribed to these networks are window dressing, related to a separate discrete task: target selection.

After that, it's just take down operations.

The inverse activity is conceptualizing "take-down resistant" information networks, at which point, it becomes evident on closer inspection that all of this is just the throes of an arms race. So let's just cut to the chase, and stop thinking in terms of cat and mouse games.

This is all simply reduced to harasser/harassed relationships. Calculate motives, look at what the objectives of the belligerents are, and instead of feeding into the meat grinder, aim for greener pastures. Go where everyone else isn't.

<comment><USER12> Once a take-down resistant network is assembled, it can be filled with any sort of content.

Given that the content may be arbitrary, looking at the content alone is not enough. Analysis of at-risk "swing voting" audiences would be the qualifier for an offending orchestrated botnet.

The intent of these botnets for the past victory was to " _milgram_ " people into voting Trump (influence opinion, by surrounding and immersing of easily swindled individuals in currated content, many sources creating a magnitude perception for illusory peer pressure) [0] so, the content is nothing if it isn't seen.

Whatever the case, this is last year's tactic. It's possible that it may never be used again, in anticipation of adaptaion to defend against it. That's if you buy into the hypothesis that this is why people voted the way they did in the 2016 election, and that external technical influence was truly responsible, and even capable of such a manner of attack.

To be honest, it also sounds like a kissing cousing to the hand-wavey premise of flashing inserts of suggestive hypnotic single-frame advertisments ( _BUY MORE POPCORN_ fnord) in movie theaters to provoke subliminal brainwashing so that people buy more popcorn at movie theaters.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This looks at the election days. What worries me most is that it's still is ongoing today, and it's more obvious than ever, and completely taking over social networks. Every presidential tweet is followed by a horde of bots praising some religious aspect of belief in the greater work achieved here. None of it makes sense.

Why is twitter not fixing these issues?

<comment><USER14> Cambridge Analytica showed that they figured out that people who are highly religious can be manipulated easily. They are called them something like "low information" voters. Meaning they vote more on emotion vs facts. The fact that Trump got the religion vote astounds me as he seems to hold no Christian morality at all.

<comment><USER15> It is surprising that Trump got the religious vote, since he had shown support for abortion previously, had been divorced multiple times, and engaged in recreational sex with women he was not married to.

Maybe religious people aren't the one-dimensional voters that you imagined them to be. But if you were to admit that, how would you slam both Trump and non-atheists in the same post?

<comment><USER8> "Despite being a good god-fearing American, I'll vote for Satan in 2020, because of his fiscal conservatism and his views that immigrant children should be separated from their parents"

Your point would be valid if religion was a low priority hobby.

It isn't, so (a subset of) [religious voting block] are just religious when it suits them, ie hypocrites.

<comment><USER16> Ugh. Is what happened so very difficult to understand? Chistians were faced with voting for someone they were generally not comfortable with vs. someone believed to be truly evil. Her husband votoed a bill to ban so named "partial birth abortion" and Hillary expressed support for late term abortions.

If you could get over your contempt for people who see things differently than you do and actually talk with some of them you might find that a lot of people were voting _against_ Hillary instead of _for_ Trump.

<comment><USER8> > Asked by a reporter today what kind of language he could support in a > revived bill, Mr. Clinton said he had originally planned to sign the earlier > one.

> ''The problem is,'' he said, ''there are a few hundred women every year who > have personally agonizing situations where their children are born or are > about to be born with terrible deformities, which will cause them to die > either just before, during or just after childbirth. And these women, among > other things, cannot preserve the ability to have further children unless > the enormity -- the enormous size of the baby's head is reduced before being > extracted from their bodies.

> ''You know, Hillary and I, we only had one child. And I just cannot look at > a woman who's in a situation where the baby she is bearing, against all her > wishes and prayers, is going to die anyway, and tell her that I'm signing a > law which will prevent her from ever having another child.''

Clearly a monster of pure evil. And his wife too.

Whereas her opponent supported torture, dehumanized immigrants every chance he got, has 5 children with 3 different women, bragged about cheating and sexual assault, lied as easy as breathing. Admittedly after the election, but supported a pedophile, although he joked about dating his daughter years before.

I fully stand by exactly what I originally posted. As a raised pentecostal Christian, if that should matter at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Why not to use detected bots for automatic false-news alerter, like ad-block or spam filter, but for false news?

I currently use few accounts, which are spreading false-news, as indicators with great efficiency. A bit of automation and a browser plugin from trusted source (like Bellingcat) can help to fight that problem.

<comment><USER18> Fake news increase user engagement. I don't think Tweeter can convince its shareholders to invest in lowering user engagement.

<comment><USER19> That's a reverse tragedy of the commons: the happiness of the one. Twitter's (not Tweeter) shareholders can jump off a cliff as far as I'm concerned, you - and they - can't place their own interests over those of the world at large. They're a communications medium and one with serious problems, user engagement metrics come into play when what the users engage with is not outright propaganda.

Fake news isn't there to drive user engagement, it is there to derail societies and institutions that underpin those societies.

<comment><USER20> Honestly, is fake news there to derail societies (funded by anarchist ideologues?) or is it to make advertising revenue for the publishers? As far as I've worked out, it's the latter. What's the evidence that it's done with a political aim of derailing a society?

<comment><USER21> > funded by anarchist ideologues?

I could be wrong, but I don't think the poster above yours were implying the aim was to take down all of society — I think they were implying the goal of some of these networks is to bring down particular targeted societies.

I tend to think you're both correct. I think it's a combination, some people are into driving traffic through clickbait and some networks are amplifying divisive subjects in an attempt to make The Others appear to be unreasonable.

There are certainly many other networks taking part as well. There are definitely other networks of unorganized regular citizens who are also intentionally pushing misinformation in order to make their ideological rivals appear to be completely irrational. Whether these citizen groups are a consequence of the former groups I'm not sure, but knowingly pushing misinformation is definitely _not_ isolated to governments and clickbait sites. We seem to be overrun with unapologetic and ideology driven liars.

This is somewhat of a tangent but still related, we can see an active attack on science and higher education right now and it's pretty clear why, many of these ideological driven people instinctively know they'll never return to their former glory when science and an educated populace stands in their way. I think we're going to discover many of the root causes of the misinformation campaigns stem from the same battleground - many groups and individuals who instinctively know science and the-closest-thing-to-truth-we-have stands in their way.

<comment><USER20> People talking about politics always try to make their opponents appear unreasonable. You surely can't be complaining about normal people grouping together and promoting the ideas they believe in, can you? The alternative would be censorship of all political dissent, and suppression of citizens talking about opposition political parties. It would be non-democracy.

Your last paragraph about science could be about all sorts of groups but it sounds like you have your personal political enemy in mind. You could be describing Muslims who are opposed to science's revelation that women are as smart as men. Or it could be about liberals who are opposed to science's revelation that the smartest men are smarter than the smartest women (male IQ has a higher standard deviation than female). Or is about feminists who are trying to suppress science that shows that women aren't as hard-working as men? Or is it about transgender activists who are trying to suppress science showing that women are not men? I wouldn't want to censor any of these people. Who am I to say what the one true truth really is for all time? Even science doesn't know that.

What I really think the GP meant, but didn't say because when you actually write it down, it sounds ridiculous, was a conspiracy theory like "Putin wants to destroy America so he supported fake news to get Trump elected and since Trump is obviously bad, he'll destroy America.". As far as I can tell, that's what the opposition to fake news is all about - Trump winning the election. That's certainly when it started anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Interesting content, but I get really worried when studies and research show a tendency being influenced by trends; it's often a sign of poorly aligned incentives and sometimes even produces hasty or bad results in favour of career maximization.

</comment><comment><USER23> The truth is one, but lies are many

<comment><USER24> "... If falsehood had, like truth, but one face only, we should be upon better terms; for we should then take for certain the contrary to what the liar says: but the reverse of truth has a hundred thousand forms, and a field indefinite, without bound or limit. The Pythagoreans make good to be certain and finite, and evil, infinite and uncertain. There are a thousand ways to miss the white, there is only one to hit it. ..." \-- Montaigne [https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/montaigne/michel/essays/boo...](https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/montaigne/michel/essays/book1.9.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I wish there was a way of making misinformation a punishable offense. (cue people moaning about misuse, who decides what is misinformation etc which is why I said wish).

At the moment people can publicly and on-the-record spout the most outrageous bullshit and even when they get proven wrong there is no repercussion. none.

<comment><USER21> > At the moment people can publicy and on-the-record spout the most outrageous > bullshit and even when they get proven wrong there is no repercussion. none.

On a personal level, just cut those people out of your life. Refusing to interact with people who knowingly lie and knowingly spread misinformation is the only rational choice. Time is our most valuable resource, spend your time on projects and people who will carry us forward rather than wasting time on people who are just worthless timesinks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I've had a look through their list of "low credibility websites" and they seem to be either humour sites (like the The Onion and ClickHole) or right wing sites (I admit there may be some left-wing ones on there that I'm not familiar with).

Is the claim that there are only the right-wing sources for these misinformation networks, or is this just one network they examined?

</comment><comment><USER27> The article specifically mentions snopes and politifact as sources of truth. They can be, but have also been shown to be less than perfect, and do tend to lean left.

Yesterday, twitter was full of pictures of the immigrant kids that Trump put in cages. This morning, we find out that the pictures were taken in 2014. It's a difficult problem because the retractions are never broadcast/retweeted as prevalently as the original fake news.

This is a difficult area, and the stakes are so high that the arms race will doubtless continue. Because the stakes are so high, you are competing with organizations from allied countries as well as non-allied countries, and from multinational corporations and industry groups, all throwing tens of millions of dollars each on think-tanks and lobbying groups, whose main activities are to publish source material that can be used as supporting "facts" for various news stories.

<comment><USER28> _> have also been shown to be less than perfect_

Perfection shouldn't be the objective. If it's better than what we have then it's worthwhile.

 _> do tend to lean left_

Citation needed.

And if you know of a fact-checking resource that has less bias, please share.

<comment><USER29> > > do tend to lean left

> Citation needed.

I think that this is probably a dangerous game to get into; calling for citations is, I think, only likely to be helpful when there is a mutually recognised authority to cite (and, besides, when the claim to be resolved is a factual one—'biased' is not a characterisation that can be proven or disproven without some really careful definitions, on which two disputing parties are likely to disagree). Here's the first hit in a search for "Snopes biased". I've intentionally mangled the first component of the URL to avoid linking to whatever kind of site this is.

[http://d@firstname.lastname@example.com/2016/06/17/fact-checking-snopes- websi...](http://d@firstname.lastname@example.com/2016/06/17/fact-checking-snopes-websites- political-fact-checker-is-just-a-failed-liberal-blogger)

I don't know Daily Caller, but the title alone makes me fairly confident that it's a biased source; but there it is, a citation to back up the claim that Snopes is biased.

<comment><USER30> > I think that this is probably a dangerous game to get into; calling for > citations is, I think, only likely to be helpful when there is a mutually > recognised authority

> biased' is not a characterisation that can be proven or disproven without > some really careful definitions, on which two disputing parties are likely > to disagree)

That happens to be the modus operendi of the propagandists, the liars, to say there is no truth, there's no way to determine it, there's no source more accurate than another. They say 'it's all propaganda', trying to put themselves on equal footing with honest people. It's liars who say, 'everyone lies'.

In fact, humanity has developed many ways of distinguishing truth from lie, fact from superstition, critical thought from ideology, physics from alchemy. That is, in a significant way, the project of the Enlightenment, which led to science, the rule of law, liberty, democracy, and all the things that have been born of them (including the Internet). Not coincidentally, I think, the propagandists are generally enemies of democracy and seek to suppress its effectiveness and the power of the public, in part by undermining its foundation of informed citizenry and open debate by interfering with it and saying it's impossible.

<comment><USER29> > That happens to be the modus operendi of the propagandists, the liars, to > say there is no truth, there's no way to determine it, there's no source > more accurate than another. They say 'it's all propaganda', trying to put > themselves on equal footing with honest people. It's liars who say, > 'everyone lies'.

Yes, this was my point. If you (not you personally) are arguing against a propagandist who says that all your sources are biased, then I don't know what is an effective rhetorical strategy—it seems that no-one does, if there even is one—but I'm almost certain that asking for a citation for the claim of bias isn't it, since all it does is shift the question from "who is biased?" to "who can be trusted to judge bias?".

<comment><USER30> > If you (not you personally) are arguing against a propagandist who says that > all your sources are biased, then I don't know what is an effective > rhetorical strategy—it seems that no-one does, if there even is one—but I'm > almost certain that asking for a citation for the claim of bias isn't it, > since all it does is shift the question from "who is biased?" to "who can be > trusted to judge bias?".

I see your point, but I think the propagandist is only effective if we buy their premise, that there is no way to distinguish between biased and unbiased sources (and information). My point is that there are many ways to respond, that it's not at all a new problem, and that the solution is _reason_ , in the Enlightenment sense. The propagandist says it's all arbitrary faith, but reason always has been their downfall (which is why propaganda often appeals to hatred, to crowd out the application of reason).

(On one had, this comment and my GP comment are written so loosely and broadly that it's a bit embarrassing; on the other, I think my point gets across and I don't have time to write a treatise.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Reminds me of [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16664759](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16664759)

Some are so sure of their world view that they just assume their conventional wisdom is correct about specific subjects that they clearly (to someone who has) have not studied. I know I was back in 04 when a friend mentioned something to me that I thought was absurd, but is now common knowledge for anyone understands F=ma and has checked that specific fact (that I'm deliberately not mentioning). For example, look up the art collection Skippy's brother keeps, or that shop owners (now hidden but thoroughly archived) Instagram account.

"Fact checking" sites are about as unscientific as it gets. They have two obvious flaws, first they generally only "check" facts they can "debunk", second, they often frame what they are checking in a way that lets them use a corner case.

The right way would be to just list data, things others can independently check and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions.

<comment><USER29> > Some are so sure of their world view that they just assume their > conventional wisdom is correct about specific subjects that they clearly (to > someone who has) have not studied. I know I was back in 04 when a friend > mentioned something to me that I thought was absurd, but is now common > knowledge for anyone understands F=ma and has checked that specific fact > (that I'm deliberately not mentioning). For example, look up the art > collection Skippy's brother keeps, or that shop owners (now hidden but > thoroughly archived) Instagram account.

This paragraph is almost incomprehensible to me. Is it meant to be read with a lot of background knowledge, or am I just being dumb (or both)?

<comment><USER31> Ya, it requires significant background. The trouble is, if I just say exactly what it is about, people will automatically assume things about stuff they haven't checked themselves, but have been strongly conditioned to believe.

[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/25/john-podesta- talks...](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/25/john-podesta-talks- about_n_146272.html)

<comment><USER32> I still have no idea what this is about

<comment> 52-6F-62 They're peddling conspiracy theories as if they're just maligned truths being persecuted by the media.

<comment><USER31> Consider suggesting to a parishioner that a priest they deeply trust is up to no good. How similar is your reaction? Both of you have beliefs head so strongly you don't even need to check what was suggested. I cant imagine you would make that comment if you really looked at the "art" collection I alluded to.

<comment><USER33> Let me guess, pizzagate right? If so just come out and say it, own the fact you believe such nonsense.

<comment><USER31> Anything to avoid that "art" collection.

<comment><USER33> Anything to avoid accurately explaining what you mean or believe.

<comment><USER31> I believe people will avoid looking at things that challenge their assumptions rather than spend a few seconds checking them. I have no doubt you can find that art collection in a few seconds, I also have no doubt you are not going to.

<comment><USER33> See above.

Also that statement applies to you as much as it does anyone else.

<comment><USER31> What's so hard about checking out Skippie's bro's art collection? It's a highly specific, easy to check thing. It's so common to try and distract specific stuff with something else; I strongly suspect you wouldn't be commenting about this if you had.

<comment><USER33> If anyone here gives a crap, he believes that John Podesta's art collection means he is part of an international pedophile ring, seemingly run out of a pizza place.

Not sure why he is too scared to just say this. I guess in the cold light of day it sounds pretty stupid. Perhaps if you wrap it up in code words it sounds a bit better, or at least makes him feel special.

The Russians really did a number on the US didn't they.

<comment><USER31> You are so sure of your beliefs that you are not going to look at the art collection (don't even think about the Instagram account!). By all means, swear, blame the Russians, and make basic mistakes that prove you cant bring yourself to click. Think about it, you are spending all this time refusing to make a simple search. Why? You reaction is a textbook emotional reaction.... denial at all costs.

<comment><USER33> You still seem to be unable to articulate what you believe. I've asked you what, 3 times now? Still you deflect.

Why is that? Is your conviction in what you believe that weak?

<comment><USER31> I believe people will go to extreme lengths to avoid specific things that challenge their wold view. This is an excellent example, you are not going to look at the art collection, but need a way to deflect that fact, so instead you demand I talk about something else. Maybe make some personal attacks and keep trying to change the subject?

<comment><USER33> It's funny that you say that after having repeatedly avoided stating your world view for fear that it will be challenged, and constantly deflecting (the comment I am replying to is an excellent example of a deflection). I'm positive the irony is completely lost on you though.

So, one last time, share your views and maybe a link or two. No deflections, no comments on your irrelevant theories about peoples worldviews (obviously born by reactions to when you behave as you have in this thread) and no childish code words.

Thanks.

<comment><USER31> I made a suggestion, that people, on their own, checkout an art collection and a (archived) Instagram account. You have more than enough information to find both. If you don't want to, then don't. Asking that I instead talk about something else, or elaborate on what I suggested you look at is fine, ask all you want. It might be obvious if you took a few seconds to search for "podesta art" why I am not going to link to it.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Intel Edison Module - <AUTHOR> http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/do-it-yourself/edison.html <comment><USER2> Very interesting! The picture is kind of confusing though, it took me a minute to realize that the picture was of an "expansion board" with the module installed (in the lower left hand corner).

I like what I see though, they have packed quite a bit of processing power into the tiny package. Good amounts of memory too. And I really like the built in WiFi/bluetooth. Looks like it could be a good option for making connected devices with. The only problem is transitioning from prototype to production with Intels current business model.

This video does a good job to show off the Edison on it's own, for anyone interested. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GY8k...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GY8kaaFzbTE)

<comment><USER3> Its definitely a lot better than the Galileo - Intel was pretty liberal giving them away for free, yet still nobody used them since they sucked.

Not sure what the strategy is though - are they afraid to loose developer mindshare to Atmel / TI? Are they hoping that their chips will power the next kickstarter success?

My 5 cents: at least they are a player now, and the CC3200 has a competitor.

Issues:

\- for battery-powered projects, its a bit large

\- 1.8V logic level is nice for energy consumption, but its really hard to source components for that, and level shifters are annoying

\- price is a tad bit high, though adequate for its performance

<comment><USER4> You need to realize they are trying to compete in a market soon to be dominated by $4 a pop (RETAIL) Chinese modules. They will fail (and so will TI).

[http://hackaday.com/2014/08/26/new-chip-alert-the- esp8266-wi...](http://hackaday.com/2014/08/26/new-chip-alert-the-esp8266-wifi- module-its-5/)

Galileo was a total failure. Intel gave up giving whole stock to MS, MS in turn gave them out to developers pretending they have viable IoT platform.

<comment><USER5> Thank you for this- I have a handful of completely unmarked boards that appear to be this module. Who knew they might be so capable? I hope someone translates the instruction set document linked. This is definitely the direction that things are going, at least more than an odd $50 Intel mongrel.

Intel wants us to pay for something that industry won't buy with the Edison. Contrast to Arduino and rPi, which are providing affordable access to something only available otherwise to industry:

AVR: High volume microcontroller- let's make it accessible and useful outside of heavy industry == Arduino.

ARM: Exploding in popularity due to mobile devices- let's make it accessible outside of device manufacturers == rPi.

Atom: No one is using these in industry- let's palm it off on hobbyists and see if they can drive demand == Edison.

Hard to find the point of the Edison. Too anemic and dull next to true next- gen SoC solutions like the Zynq [[http://zedboard.org/](http://zedboard.org/)], and too overpowered for most microcontroller applications. Weird price point. No GPU or vidout. There's many SoMs and SoCs to try before this one.

Intel has had to give away Atoms to get them used in any volume, this HN comment on a contemporaneous article has links on the subject: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8294864](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8294864)

If Intel wants to hit the hobbyist embedded market running, they could sell Edisons for $10. By giving them away to heavy industry, yet selling them to hobbyists, they aren't garnering interest, they're patronizing.

<comment><USER6> I'd add STM32: Spark Core with built-in WiFi for $39.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Impressive how much Intel can shrink their X86 processors and supporting hardware. However I think Intel is making a mistake trying to push Arduino 'compatibility' with this and the Galileo. Unless they actually put an AVR microcontroller on board it will have poor compatibility with Arduino shields (like the Galileo). You also won't have real-time control of the GPIO so making servos move smoothly, talking to 1-wire-like interfaces (like WS2811 LEDs), etc. will be problematic. Lots of folks were excited about the Galileo but unhappy after actually using it and realizing its limitations. Hopefully Intel will get the messaging a little better this time.

<comment><USER8> I think they've improved in this regard: they've added an independent microcontroller inside the core(which will probably run the arduino layer).This will solve compatibility and real time issues.

This is in general targeted to a bunch of chips that integrate a microprocessor and a microcontroller and are usually fabricated in 65nm-45nm. With it's process advantage(22nm finfet) , intel can offer orders of magnitude lower sleep currents, some nice decrease on power(depending on x86 vs arm details), and more power in general. All interesting to embedded guys.

But they still have to create a large library of peripherals and support it(which they might solve by creating a few speedy cores and let the crowd code and share/support peripherals), add analog blocks, and gain the trust of the embedded community as a reliable long term supplier(which might be the one thing intel couldn't solve - because of it's past as an unreliable embedded supplier).

The second option is that this is mainly to motivate other embedded chip companies guys to use it's fabs.

Anyway ,i'm grabbing the popcorn.

<comment><USER9> The one bit I can't find anywhere in the docs released so far. Is there a communication mechanism between the microcontroller and the main core?

It's not hard to dangle a micro off of i2c or some other bus, however, I can definitely see the the benefit of an easy prototyping solution combining an beefy (~100k RAM and 100Mhz CPU) real-time micro and a general purpose OS with wifi / bluetooth LE.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Fun thing, though obviously not quite the same: Transcend wifi SD cards are (or at least were) running Linux on ARM, hosting a Perl CGI script(!) that could be exploited to let you do your own thing with the card -- see [http://haxit.blogspot.com/2013/08/hacking-transcend-wifi- sd-...](http://haxit.blogspot.com/2013/08/hacking-transcend-wifi-sd- cards.html)

</comment><comment><USER11> I went browsing around their site this morning when I got the email of the release. I cannot say that I understand Intel's strategy here. On the one hand they could release 'Quark' like Atmel ships AVR's or ST Micro ships STM32 chips with a data sheet and a demo board, on the other they seem to want to jump into some sort of "Intel at System supplier" kind of thing where its mosly proprietary interfaces and only works with their stuff.

When I look at something like the Nucleo boards[1] I see a chip company leveraging the energy around Arduino to push their own ISA, but that is just a form factor play AFAICT. What does Intel hope to achieve here? And can they do that without being a crapload more "open" than they have been in the past?

[1] [http://www.mouser.com/new/stmicroelectronics/stm-nucleo- deve...](http://www.mouser.com/new/stmicroelectronics/stm-nucleo-development- boards/?gclid=CMzL46T21MACFZKBfgodQC4AIA)

<comment><USER12> Intel's problem is that it's a lot harder to turn their chips into a complete system than it is AVRs or STM32, because Intel's solution is a full SoC running Linux that requires seperate RAM and Flash chips and external power supply circuitry that has to meet some nasty power sequencing requirements. This is basically Intel's version of the Raspberry Pi Compute Module which exists for much the same reason.

<comment><USER13> Edison is the size of a postage stamp including DDR. The picture linked is of the module plugged into a board.

<comment><USER4> Thats great, but STM32 costs ~$.30, STM8 you can get down to ~$.10.

There is no room for x86 at the bottom. Nobody wants embedded chip that boots in legacy real addressing mode to maintain that sweet sweet compatibility with windows 3.11

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Can anybody confirm whether the wireless chip used (BCM43340) is FullMAC or SoftMAC? The model is not listed on either brcmsmac nor brcmsmac. The wifi driver that comes with the source code downloaded from Intel is not in a Linux tree and it even has IP and TCP related stuff. I'm confused.

</comment><comment><USER15> This is pretty close to something I've wanted for ages: the smallest possible Ceph OSD. This doesn't have the right set of devices on it but it's pretty close.

Ditch the wifi for gigabit ethernet, slap a sata controller on the pci-e and mount it in a stackable frame with a power bus. Buy a drive, one of these nodes and stack it on top of your existing ones. Bam your own tiny cloud you can expand in increments of one drive (and commodity ethernet). It's probably a commercial non-starter now that 8TB drives exist but I still love the idea.

Or now that I think about it skip the sata and just sell it with some NVMe flash storage built in. Stackable storage bricks.

<comment><USER16> [http://www.minnowboard.org/meet-minnowboard- max/](http://www.minnowboard.org/meet-minnowboard-max/) might be closer to what you're looking for.

<comment><USER15> Hey so it is, that's awesome. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> How much power does it use? In documents I read:

Standby (No radios): 13 mW Standby (Bluetooth 4.0): 21.5 mW (BTLE in Q4-14) Standby (Wi-Fi): 35 mW

It this turned ON and waiting on standby? Or is this turned OFF standby? And how much does it use when CPU is working?

<comment><USER12> That's almost certainly standby as in turned off, given the figures I've seen for previous Intel IoT boards with much lower end chips than this one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Presumably its shipping now, but I can't seem to find anywhere to _buy_ it.

WLAN has been somewhat sorely lacking for these mini computers, your only option was pretty much the rather terrible MIPS platforms made for routers.

<comment><USER19> You have to scroll to below the list of links that look like they're a footer, and you'll see a big blue bar that shows the 'where to buy' links. It sells for 50 bucks at Sparkfun, you can also buy the kit at makershed.

Hopefully they'll send some to Farnell so we Europeans can get a taste of it as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Personally, I love the idea of low-spec 86 chips being available at rock- bottom prices. It's an architecture that while far from perfect is well known, and most of us here have a boatload of experience with it I'll wager. I'd really like to see something similar to this but for 2 or 3x the price (it's only $50) that includes a framebuffer, hdmi and a _fully documented_ hardware blitter or bargain-basement GPU.

<comment><USER21> Wouldn't that more or less be the already available Tegra K1?

<comment><USER20> It's my understanding you need to be a multi-million-dollar company to even get NVidia to answer your calls to talk about showing you the NDA you need to sign to get access to register-level Tegra programming docs? If I'm wrong I'd be very happy. Intel has been really good at documenting their GPUs though. I want to play on the metal, running under Linux with a binary blob framebuffer driver doesn't interest me.

<comment><USER22> It's my understanding that all you have to do is develop an interesting and popular GPU application and they will bend over backwards to help you make it run efficiently on their hardware.

Compare and contrast doing so with giving them the finger on video because they won't follow your marching orders.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> For people like me who are too stupid to make things with it, can I use this to replace my Raspberry Pi+RaspBMC setup? How's the performance?

<comment><USER24> There's no video core, so no HDMI or even VGA output. Edison is designed for things like robotics and home automation. It's not a general-purpose x86 computer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Seems like a prime candidate for a unikernel like mirage ([http://openmirage.org/blog/announcing- mirage-20-release](http://openmirage.org/blog/announcing-mirage-20-release))

</comment><comment><USER26> Give it PIC-Express lanes with SATA Raid or Gigabit Ethernet Controller, it will be perfect for NAS / Router.

<comment><USER24> There are plenty of boards for that kind of application already (PC Engines APU[1], for example). That's not really what Edison is intended for.

[1]: [http://www.pcengines.ch/apu.htm](http://www.pcengines.ch/apu.htm)

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I couldn't find any info, but I guess one will have to wait for adapter so Edison can output to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FPD- Link](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FPD-Link) that is connect Edison to most LCD monitors.

</comment><comment><USER28> How about adding Erlang support ? It would be great to be able to program multiple devices with OTP-level of support for mesh network topologies.

<comment><USER29> Erlang is not supported on x86?

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> What is the price?

<comment><USER23> Scroll to the bottom of the "More for Makers" page:

[http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/do-it- yourself/maker....](http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/do-it- yourself/maker.html)

at "Where to Buy"

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I'd love to see Tesla Inc sue Intel saying that they stole all the tech for their Edison Module :)

</comment><comment><USER32> And what exactly are you going to do with an "x86" expensive dev board with 500 Mhz Atom CPUs and 1GB of RAM? Run XP on it?

<comment><USER20> This is why we can't have nice things.</comment></comment>


Tesla Model S achieves best safety rating of any car ever tested - <AUTHOR> http://www.teslamotors.com/about/press/releases/tesla-model-s-achieves-best-safety-rating-any-car-ever-tested <comment><USER3> This is all very good PR.... BUT. The critical safety concern with the Tesla is.......

You guessed it. The high voltage system. It can kill you or a first responder with a touch.

It's not just about batteries catching fire, although that's gotten a lot of press lately. A chief concern during a Tesla accident is the exposure of high voltage components.

It's a big concern for first responders. Read it from the horse's mouth, the Tesla Emergency Response Guide. Page 16 highlights the "no cut" zones of the car. It's practically the entire length of the car.

[http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/downloads/201...](http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/downloads/20130214_ModelS_Emergency_Response_Guide.pdf)

There was a video they put out as well that details the steps first responders need to take to cut someone out of a car. It's HELLA COMPLICATED and in very close proximity to dangerous high voltage components.

And yes, gas cars can explode, etc. I don't mean this as fuel for the gas vs. electric debate (no pun intended). I hope very much the industry can improve electrical safety over time. All I'm saying is, never trust Elon Musk PR to tell you the whole picture.

<comment><USER4> About that, do cars attempt to shut down engines, fuel intake and electric pathways when detecting a collision ? I remember Liquid Gas vehicles having an emergency outlet to avoid fire/explosions. In Tesla's case that would be cutting the battery off the circuit and maybe putting it into a 'fast drain' mode ..

<comment><USER3> You can't just "shut down" electric pathways. Not exactly. There is a manual cut that first responders need to make to sever the high voltage circuit before they can work on the car. However there's still capacitors, converters and the battery itself that remain dangerous especially if they've been compromised.

As for "fast draining" the battery, where would the power drain to? That's exactly the problem.. NOT giving the power a path to go when you're working on the car.

This is not much of an issue with most cars because the electrical systems are low voltage (12V car battery). With Tesla it's enough to cause major injury or death with one touch if you complete the circuit.

Watch the video, it explains all this. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntK3rvVl2Qw](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntK3rvVl2Qw)

<comment><USER4> And I guess it's unrealistic to think of a special draining device to be brought on crash sites to exhaust the car battery. All in all, are electric vehicles more 'instable' energy wise when crashed, compared to petroleum based one ? or is it different flavours of similarly sh*tty situations ?

<comment><USER5> 85KWh is _a lot_ of energy. Back of the envelope calculations puts that at enough to boil around one metric ton of water from 25C.[1] If you wanted to rapidly drain a Tesla you would have to dump that energy somewhere.

That _might_ actually be plausible for firefighters to do[2], but I doubt the battery itself would withstand being drained anywhere near fast enough for an emergency situation. It would probably find some interesting way to fail if you forced it to discharge that fast (bypassing all the safeguards).

[1] 3.06e8 J / (4.181(J/(g * k)) * 75K) = 976,000g ...I probably got that wrong, it's been a long time.

[2] I mean, their main job _is_ getting rid of large concentrations of heat, right? ;)

<comment><USER6> That's the amount of energy needed to bring nearly 1000 kg of water from 25°C to 100°C, but not enough to begin the phase transition from liquid to gas (i.e. start boiling).

The heat of vaporization of water (i.e. the amount of energy required to convert liquid water at 100°C to vapor at the same temperature) is 2260 J/g. So to completely boil your metric ton of water at 100°C would require an additional 1000 kg * (2260 J/g) = 2.3 GJ, which is 627 kWh!

At 85 kWh, the Tesla's battery contains enough energy to completely boil off 119 kg of water starting at 25°C [0], which is still pretty impressive!

[0] 85 kWh / ((4.181(J/(g * K)) * 75 K) + (2260 J/g))

<comment><USER7> While that's true, I don't think it's what the parent meant. Colloquially, when we say _to boil water_ we don't mean _until the vessel is dry_ , just until a _roiling boil_ is reached (this is typically how we cook pasta).

<comment><USER6> If the 1000 kg is heated uniformly, this is not enough energy to bring it to a "roiling boil". There will be no bubbles.

<comment><USER7> Right. It's a good thing stoves/ranges heat from the bottom!

<comment><USER6> You're forgetting convection.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is simply unkind to the competition (and to the poles alike): "Tesla achieved this outcome by nesting multiple deep aluminum extrusions in the side rail of the car that absorb the impact energy (a similar approach was used by the Apollo Lunar Lander) and transfer load to the rest of the vehicle. This causes the pole to be either sheared off or to stop the car before the pole hits an occupant."

There's winning and there's crushing the opponents. One shouldn't gloat in the latter case, but this case deserves an exception.

Congratulations Elon and the team on tremendously nice engineering!

<comment><USER9> Here's the video of the Tesla pole test: [http://youtu.be/_Al3IUHt9Wc?t=32s](http://youtu.be/_Al3IUHt9Wc?t=32s)

Honda Accord for comparison: [http://youtu.be/ycntFFUfGkU?t=30s](http://youtu.be/ycntFFUfGkU?t=30s)

<comment><USER10> Tesla makes an impressive vehicle, but it is unfair to compare a ~$80K machine to a ~$30K one.

A fairer comparison would be to a BMW 5xx or Mercedes E class. Tesla may still fair better but not by as huge a margin.

Having said all that... wow, that is a surprisingly huge difference in results!

<comment><USER11> Same test with a Jeep Liberty:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4T1BimfUf4](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4T1BimfUf4)

Lexus RX350:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAz6ZMeIC9s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAz6ZMeIC9s)

Lexus ES350:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4l0o9MTY0JA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4l0o9MTY0JA)

BMW 5-Series:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r20YfGYhvc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r20YfGYhvc)

Mercedes C-Class:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTkbG64V4tQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTkbG64V4tQ)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg0ubBqhZjg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg0ubBqhZjg)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm sorry, but as a car enthusiast who spent much of his younger years devouring every ounce of Road&Track/Car&Driver mags, the phrase "any car ever tested" is a bit over the top... I'm almost positive the McLaren F1 (a car 20 years older) fared better than the Tesla in safety testing and was capable of being driven away after the testing finished...

F1 @ 30mph: [http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v482/Peloton25/McLaren%20F...](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v482/Peloton25/McLaren%20F1%20J/XP2_crash_test.jpg)

F1 @ 40mph: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUPq760LC00](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUPq760LC00)

I'm more than willing to acknowledge Tesla has fantastic results, especially for the price... but that top spot still belongs to my childhood automotive idol. ;)

<comment><USER13> That's amazing! I had no idea the F1 was so sturdy. My assumption (probably common) is that these super light exotics disintegrate when hitting large insects, let alone walls.

<comment><USER14> Many of them do, although there is the notorious story of an Enzo that got literally torn in half on CA 1 and both people inside walked away.

<comment><USER15> Here's the story: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Eriksson#Car_crash](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Eriksson#Car_crash)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> If you're curious, like I was, about the side pole test, here's a video of the Tesla:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBvH3lysmJA](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBvH3lysmJA)

Here's a Prius for comparison (4 stars):

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yc0uUx2T37k](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yc0uUx2T37k)

<comment><USER17> That's a Prius C, the new super-small one based on the Yaris chassis. Given its ultra-low-budget roots, four stars is actually really impressive. Yeah, the Tesla is better, but it's a newer, heavier, and far more expensive design. It _should be_ better.

<comment><USER18> That fallacy is debunked by every sports car ever.

<comment><USER19> Sports cars have _always_ made sacrifices in this regard. The first being simply that real sports cars are half the size of a modern saloon, which gives much less room for crumpling.

<comment><USER18> The fallacious argument is _newer /more expensive = more secure_. Every car has compromises.

<comment><USER20> Newer, _heavier_ and far more expensive, and of course even that doesn't guarantee good safety ratings, it just makes it a lot easier to achieve.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Favorite quote: "[T]he exact number is uncertain due to Model S breaking the testing machine"

<comment><USER22> My favorite was "While this is statistically unlikely to remain the case long term, Tesla is unaware of any Model S or Roadster occupant fatalities in any car ever."

<comment><USER23> There aren't that many on the road to begin with. To put this into perspective: during 1990-1994 there were 5 fatalities in Volvo 240s with 186000 cars on the road [[http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr3009.pdf](http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr3009.pdf)]

Also the roof holding 4 additional cars, that's cute [http://www.aronline.co.uk/blogs/wp- content/uploads/2011/09/v...](http://www.aronline.co.uk/blogs/wp- content/uploads/2011/09/volvo-stack-e1314951030869.jpg)

<comment><USER24> The test machine broke at 4, not the car.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> "It is possible to game the regulatory testing score to some degree by strengthening a car at the exact locations used by the regulatory testing machines. After verifying through internal testing that the Model S would achieve a NHTSA 5-star rating, Tesla then analyzed the Model S to determine the weakest points in the car and retested at those locations until the car achieved 5 stars no matter how the test equipment was configured." \- This is how you take on the Big Three

<comment><USER26> So, does anyone want to give odds that Tesla will be a disruptive force in the automotive industry throughout the next decade?

<comment><USER27> Yeah, I remember beign told at the end of the 90's that if you'd bought 100 shares (~$2000) of Microsoft stock at IPO and sold in '99, you'd have cashed in well over a million dollars.

Tesla gives me that kind of feeling at the moment.

It probably won't be to the same extent as Tesla's market cap is already quite high. So I can't see them splitting quite as much as MS. But on the other hand, I think they're definitely a stock to hold on to for quite a while and see what happens.

<comment><USER28> The problem with your thought process is that, unlike microsoft and google or apple, most traders and analysts already treat the company as if it can do no wrong. Analysts calling for price targets of 130 or 160 were predicting sales of 200K+ units per year 2-3 years out, which is a really aggressive target given the size of the addressable markets. On the other hand, it was only in 2011-2012 that wall street gave Apple its due credit.

Which is not to say that the stock couldn't jump further, but as of now it's already in the same ballpark as big auto in terms of market cap (as of close today, Tesla market cap is 17.6B while Ford's market cap is 65B and GM's market cap is 51B).

<comment><USER29> the market cap comparison is somewhat misleading because clearly there is substantial probability of Tesla selling many more cars, once they release mass market versions. They have created enormous brand value. if they successfully offer a mass market car, their market cap could easily be higher than Ford.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> The crash test results, including the videos, are available here: [http://www.safercar.gov/Vehicle+Shoppers/5-Star+Safety+Ratin...](http://www.safercar.gov/Vehicle+Shoppers/5-Star+Safety+Ratings/2011-Newer+Vehicles/Vehicle- Detail?vehicleId=7769)

And even more crash test data and videos: [http://www- nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/database/aspx/vehdb/testtablede...](http://www- nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/database/aspx/vehdb/testtabledetails.aspx?LJC=8308&existphoto=Y&p_tstno=8308&existreport=Y&r_tstno=8308&existvideo=Y&v_tstno=8308&database=v&tstno=8308) [http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/database/aspx/vehdb/testtablede...](http://www- nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/database/aspx/vehdb/testtabledetails.aspx?LJC=8309&existphoto=Y&p_tstno=8309&existreport=Y&r_tstno=8309&existvideo=Y&v_tstno=8309&database=v&tstno=8309) [http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/database/aspx/vehdb/testtablede...](http://www- nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/database/aspx/vehdb/testtabledetails.aspx?LJC=8310&existphoto=Y&p_tstno=8310&existreport=Y&r_tstno=8310&existvideo=Y&v_tstno=8310&database=v&tstno=8310)

</comment><comment><USER31> Elon has mentioned how much they prioritized safety in designing the Model S. I'm glad to hear that their efforts have paid off.

This is great news for Tesla as it opens their market even larger as the car can appeal to those seeking safety and not just performance or lower carbon footprint.

<comment><USER32> > Elon has mentioned how much they prioritized safety in designing the Model > S.

Definitely a smart move. If nothing this gives them a smaller attack surface against attacks from Tesla's competitors. You can bet they would have attached like leeches to any minor safety flaw. For example, say, a Tesla car caught on fire and its batteries ended up electrocuting a fireman -- there would be no end in sight to the letters to the editor from "concerned citizens" about fireman's family and how we won't think of his children.

Extra effort for increased safety is definitely worth it, if anything at least for marketing purposes.

<comment><USER33> >Extra effort for increased safety is definitely worth it, if anything at least for marketing purposes.

More to the point, traffic deaths are a /real danger/ \- more people are killed by falling appliances than by terrorism, and we seem to think it's worth spending huge amounts of money, going to war with the rest of the world, and giving up many of our own rights to fight terrorism. For most of us? Terrorism is not a real threat. For most of us, especially us middle-class Americans, If we die before we get old? there is a pretty large chance that death will be in a traffic accident. If we want to increase safety, we should be spending thousands of dollars on auto safety for every dollar we spend "fighting terrorism"

<comment><USER34> I'd sooner spend the money on preventing night time rage from standing on Lego than on preventing terrorism. So much of the effort is utterly counter productive. I guess ago safety is probably a better use than my suggestion though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> > The Model S lithium-ion battery did not catch fire at any time before, > during or after the NHTSA testing. It is worth mentioning that no production > Tesla lithium-ion battery has ever caught fire in the Model S or Roadster, > despite several high speed impacts. While this is statistically unlikely to > remain the case long term, Tesla is unaware of any Model S or Roadster > occupant fatalities in any car ever.

I can't help but feel this is a bit of a jab at Boeing. :)

<comment><USER36> It might be, but also consider that lithium-ion batteries do have a reputation, and catching fire or exploding would be high on the list of things that anyone wanting to sow doubt about the safety of an electric car might bring up, so pre-empting it might be worthwhile for that reason too.

<comment><USER37> one can only guess what Airbus sales reps talk about in private with their potential clients :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> _" Of note, during validation of Model S roof crush protection at an independent commercial facility, the testing machine failed at just above 4 g's. While the exact number is uncertain due to Model S breaking the testing machine, what this means is that at least four additional fully loaded Model S vehicles could be placed on top of an owner's car without the roof caving in."_

I don't have any frame of reference for how this compares to other vehicles, but damn, that is impressive.

<comment><USER5> I wonder what sort of a drop 4g's translates too. It seems to me that the height you can drop it before the roof caves in is the more important figure, but I guess it is probably more difficult to accurately run the test that way.

<comment> a-priori Let's see if I remember my high school physics. Making all sorts of assumptions and simplifications here:

F = mv / dt (equation of impulse for zero final velocity)

F = mg (newton's laws)

mg = mv/dt

g = v/dt

9.8 = v/0.5

v = 4.9

Therefore, the car can be travelling no more than 4.9m/s at impact to survive.

mgh = 0.5mv^2 (initial gravitational potential energy = kinetic energy at impact)

gh = 0.5v^2

h = (0.5v^2) / g

h = (0.5 * 4.9 * 4.9) / 9.8

h = 1.225

So, assuming that it takes 0.5 seconds (a wild ass guess) for the car to go from freefall to rest, the car can withstand a drop of 1.2 metres without deforming the roof.

Mind you,

<comment><USER38> Ouch, units, please! Leaving the units out of your physics math is like, well, not wearing a seat belt when driving a car.

Anyway, I'm afraid that 0.5 seconds to come to rest is way too long. Toss it into the equations of motion and:

        d = 1/2 at^2
        d = 1/2 9.8m/s^2 (0.5s)^2
        d = 4.9m

In other words, decelerating at 4 gees for half a second means you decelerate over nearly five meters.

I think we're better off starting at the other end of the stick and making a wild guess that the roof can move 10cm without being permanently deformed. Then:

        d = 1/2 at^2
        0.1m = 1/2 4 * 9.8m/s^2 t^2
        t = 0.0714s

To figure out the height, we can notice that a and t will be inversely proportional for any given velocity (double the time, halve the acceleration needed), and so, for a given initial or final velocity, the subexpression at^2 is directly proportional to the change in acceleration. In other words, if we assume that the roof can withstand 10cm of deflection, you can drop the car from 40cm up.

<comment> a-priori Thanks, much appreciated. Sorry about the lack of units. If it's any consolation, I included them in the text surrounding the calculations. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Elon Musk clearly writes these things himself. That, or he's got a bunch of other folks like him working at Tesla.

Either way, it's exciting times. It's fun to be inspired by a company. To find something that keeps getting _better_ as it unfolds...

<comment><USER40> > Elon Musk clearly writes these things himself.

What the fuck? Get a grip, PR is _an_ industry.

<comment><USER39> You're right - that phrasing is sloppy. I'm sure there's a kick-ass PR team behind this.

But it smells different than normal PR. It actually contains surprises and a conversational tone and it reminds me of Musk himself. Giving an interview, for instance.

This could be me projecting onto it, or maybe Musk really does drive PR more than you'd expect for a company at this stage. Or maybe his team is able to pull this off on their own. Either way it's fun to watch.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Very impressive. One really cannot over stress that there is a lot of car that you "don't need" in the front and back if you don't have a big engine but using it for energy absorption is a certainly valid use. So far the only complaints my friends have had with their cars has been the "constant" updates to the software.

<comment><USER42> I can't believe people would complain about the updates to the software. They are more rare than iPhone dot releases and come with real benefits. Maybe they were pulling your chain.

<comment><USER43> What kind of updates come in Tesla software releases, and also how do they get into the car? I've actually never thought about this at all.

<comment><USER42> You get all the updates over the provided 3G connection the car has included. Here are some of the release notes:

[http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showwiki.php?title=Model+S+so...](http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showwiki.php?title=Model+S+software+firmware+changelog)

I started with 4.2 and am on 4.5 now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> It helps that it weighs 4,600 pounds. (More than a thousand pounds heavier than the Volvo S60 they compare it to.) Heavier vehicles always do better-- which is why SUVs survive crashes so well.

<comment><USER45> What is the calculated correlation between NHTSA vehicle safety score and vehicle weight. I don't know this, but suspect that it is a less significant factor than you imply. Add that the Tesla is 1000lbs+ of battery.

Safety is engineering and materials. More materials help, of course, but more materials without the engineering simply equals more kinetic energy. There are vehicles from big SUVs to tiny SMART cars doing superbly on crash tests now.

<comment><USER44> Amusing that you mention the Smart Fortwo.

[http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr041409.html](http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr041409.html)

      ARLINGTON, VA — Three front-to-front crash tests, each
      involving a microcar or minicar into a midsize model from
      the same manufacturer, show how extra vehicle size and
      weight enhance occupant protection in collisions. These
      Insurance Institute for Highway Safety tests are about the
      physics of car crashes, which dictate that very small cars
      generally can't protect people in crashes as well as
      bigger, heavier models.

      "There are good reasons people buy minicars," says
      Institute president Adrian Lund. "They're more affordable,
      and they use less gas. But the safety trade-offs are clear
      from our new tests. Equally clear are the implications when
      it comes to fuel economy. If automakers downsize cars so
      their fleets use less fuel, occupant safety will be
      compromised. However, there are ways to serve fuel economy
      and safety at the same time."

[http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/808569.pdf](http://www- nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/808569.pdf)

      Large vehicles have historically been more stable and
      provided more protection for their own
      occupants than small ones, but they presented a greater
      hazard to other road users. Between 1985
      and 1993, the population of light trucks - pickups, sport
      utility vehicles (SUV) and vans - <USER2>
      by 50 percent in the United States. Since the major
      downsizing of passenger cars during 1975-82,
      light trucks have had a substantial and growing weight
      advantage over cars. By 1992, the number
      of fatalities in collisions between cars and light trucks
      exceeded the number in car-to-car collisions
      In car-light truck collisions, 80 percent of the fatalities
      are occupants of the cars. That raises the
      question whether the growth in the number and weight of
      light trucks is having an adverse impact
      on the safety of passenger car occupants and other road
      users, possibly exceeding any safety benefits
      of the vehicle-weight increases for the occupants of the
      trucks.

Vehicle safety is complicated, obviously, and vehicle weight isn't the only variable of merit, obviously. (See [http://energy.lbl.gov/ea/teepa/pdf/aps- ppt-wenzel.pdf](http://energy.lbl.gov/ea/teepa/pdf/aps-ppt-wenzel.pdf) )

But all things being equal, in a head on collision between two identical vehicles, save that one weighs a thousand pounds more than the other, the heavier car is going to win.

<comment><USER45> _But all things being equal_

Rater irrational requirement, given that we're talking about engineering. It short circuits the entire conversation.

In any case, I find it odd that you find my reference of the Smart "humorous". While the IIHS held their results as demonstrating bigger versus smaller, in actual reality it primarily demonstrated _more expensive versus less expensive_ \-- there is no great confusion that less expensive cars often sacrificed safety, and this was true at all vehicle sizes (e.g. some early budget Kia minivans and SUVs were deathtraps). It seems to have mostly passed now that even economical cars like the Cruze are posting stellar results.

But let's assume that a greater weight, by itself, equals better safety. So would that Volvo do better than the Tesla if they filled the trunk full of concrete blocks?

Note that I didn't say that weight doesn't correlate with safety, but that it doesn't correlate nearly as strongly as you seem to imply -- e.g. saying that a large sedan is 1000lbs heavier than another large sedan in no way, I would guess, leads to a conclusion that it will also do better in safety tests.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Isn't this old news? ([http://www.treehugger.com/cars/tesla-model-s- gets-5-star-saf...](http://www.treehugger.com/cars/tesla-model-s-gets-5-star- safety-rating-every-category-after-nhtsa-crash-tests.html) was posted two weeks ago: [http://www.treehugger.com/cars/tesla-model-s-gets-5-star- saf...](http://www.treehugger.com/cars/tesla-model-s-gets-5-star-safety- rating-every-category-after-nhtsa-crash-tests.html))

<comment><USER46> Should be, as these test are done before they can enter the market.

<comment><USER47> Nope. These tests were done in July 2013, but deliveries started June 2012.

5-stars across the board is old news (lots of cars achieve that), but the fact that it's the safest car tested is new.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _" the front section that would normally contain a gasoline engine is used for a second trunk."_

I guess somebody has veto'd "frunk". Oh well.

<comment><USER48> In the UK & Australia it would be a "froot".

<comment><USER49> Or a "hat"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> I am really proud of Elon and his crew.

For someone who has made a first pass at making a car he sure has set the bar very high. The performance, quality and safety of this vehicle show that anything is possible.

However, on the flip side, it shows how uncompetitive the U.S. market has become. It takes vast sums of money to compete with the big 3.

I look forward to Elon pushing the limits in space and with the hyperloop.

</comment><comment><USER51> Is there an automotive safety engineer in the room? I'd be eager to get expert commentary on these results.

The safety test results sound amazing. Tesla is also strong in the marketing department.

Just trying to maintain healthy skepticism. These results seem very exciting.

</comment><comment><USER52> Tesla S is an excellent car. Loved it when I sat in one.

What came to light in Germany some years ago, with a heated discussion, is that automotive companies seem to optimize their cars towards specific tests. The discussion raged around what tests are more realistic, with those that let the car makers look bad (foreign tests) being "not realistic".

</comment><comment> X-Istence The way cars collapse and fall apart at crashes is absolutely amazing. Just over 30 days ago I was involved in a head on collision with a Nissan Titan full-size pickup truck WITH cargo in the bed, and walked away from an accident the EMT's, fire fighters, and police all told me it was almost impossible I did. The adjuster didn't believe me when I told him the state of the car, but when he did go out to check it out he called me and asked me if I was sure I was alright...

Here are pictures: [http://imgur.com/a/nIMOP#0](http://imgur.com/a/nIMOP#0)

I was driving 20 Mph, turning left at a traffic light, the pickup truck was driving (according to the driver) 45 - 50 Mph, although the adjuster and off- duty police suggest he may have been driving faster.

\---

One thing I will note though, my car is significantly cheaper than the Tesla... and fares extremely well in the NHTSA tests.

</comment><comment><USER53> There have been several real-world crashes of the Tesla S, and none, as far as I know, have resulted in any injuries to the driver.

One was even a head on crash at fairly high speeds which killed the other vehicle's driver. The Tesla S driver walked away. Tesla never fails to amaze me.

<comment><USER54> Source on the head-on crash story?

<comment><USER47> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtgTcoT1yRo](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtgTcoT1yRo)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> I've always found the star safety ratings confusing especially when I've noticed compact cars getting the same stars as large cars.

I'd like to just see each model ranked by number of fatalities per mile driven. Wouldn't that make a lot more sense?

Is such a statistic available anywhere?

<comment><USER56> They exist [1] but can be misleading because different kinds of people buy different kinds of vehicles. So muscle cars and 4x4s have higher crash rates than minivans and economy sedans mainly because of the people that drive them.

[1] [http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4204.pdf](http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4204.pdf)

<comment><USER55> Thanks! I guess you could still use it to compare between say minivans?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> How do pedestrians fare when hit by a Tesla? I'll save my cheering for when they have a self driving one so I no longer have to worry about drunk or distracted drivers.

<comment><USER58> My guess is they would do pretty well. There is not a rigid engine right under the hood, the wipers mounts seem well protected under the hood, and no other protrusions really in the front. Euro NCAP provided pedestrian safety results, but the site does not work for me from here. You can go see if you want though if there is anything for the Tesla Model S there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> Here in Europe we use EuroNCAP, do you have any news about a testing by this laboratory? Google doesn't yield any interesting result.

<comment><USER60> I was in a European Tesla retailer this month or the last, and the person told me that no tests NCAP test had been made at the time.

<comment><USER59> it makes sense, but do they plan to make some?

<comment><USER60> I think they'd have to, once they set up Supercharger stations and go for the European market.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> Is there not a way an emergency responder, or anyone else for that matter, could fully discharge a battery like the one on a Tesla? As ask coz back in the day before digital cameras became mainstream, we used to repair point and shoot cameras at the photo processing lab where I worked. A point and shoot camera has a capacitor for the flash that can give you a short but not insignificant shock, and to avoid it, we'd take a normal light bulb and use it to discharge the capacitor. I realize a cap batteries stores a lot more power, but couldn't some mechanism be built that does the same thing?

</comment><comment><USER62> "While the exact number is uncertain due to Model S breaking the testing machine, what this means is that at least four additional fully loaded Model S vehicles could be placed on top of an owner's car without the roof caving in."

jeez.

couple that with this and it's safe to say these have been a good couple of months for tesla [http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2013/05/video-the- te...](http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2013/05/video-the-tesla-model- s-is-our-top-scoring-car/index.htm)

</comment><comment><USER63> > Of note, during validation of Model S roof crush protection at an > independent commercial facility, the testing machine failed at just above 4 > g's. While the exact number is uncertain due to Model S breaking the testing > machine, what this means is that at least four additional fully loaded Model > S vehicles could be placed on top of an owner's car without the roof caving > in. This is achieved primarily through a center (B) pillar reinforcement > attached via aerospace grade bolts.

lol, they broke the testing machine

</comment><comment><USER64> How can I buy one of these? Is there a huge wait time?

And how does the performance compare to a regular consumer-level luxury 'sports car' like an audi?

<comment><USER42> From lowest end to highest end, the wait time is 3, 2 and 1 month. It crushes my old 911 C4.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> Seems a little disingenuous to bring up better rating than SUVs. SUVs of the same rating as cars still have a 4.5 times better survivability rate. The rating is for comparing similar cars hitting each other. A comparatively light and low to the ground car is not going to fare well vs. a heavy, higher off the ground SUV. That's just simple physics.

</comment><comment><USER66> Okay, I am convinced this car is superb. How about we... build more of them? There is a Ford factory here in Australia that is due to be shut down in 2 years, it could be converted, and us Aussies would love to be able to buy this car. I personally promise to buy one if it is built here. The Aussie government might chip in as well.

<comment><USER67> Scaling up quality is not trivial. You can bet they are working on it.

<comment><USER68> I'm willing to bet that you've nailed the exact reason he's not doing SpaceX exclusively yet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> Love it when the goal is to be better than the best, nothing less is tolerated, and the engineering makes it so.

</comment><comment><USER70> Maybe they should find someone try to hack into the system. I believe this computer based car will have the same virus problem as PC. If it has function to connect the internet via wireless network, things might be worse...

</comment><comment><USER71> That's what you get when you think about your product first, and profit second. Musk wants to give the world a great car, not to make profit on cars. This breeds quality we see.

</comment><comment><USER72> The Tesla is a great car but it's absolutely insane that American taxpayers are donating $7500 to allow rich people to buy $75,000 luxury cars.

</comment><comment><USER73> _The graphic below shows the statistical Relative Risk Score (RSS)_

I do not think that acronym means what you think it means.

<comment><USER74> Well, they probably won't win out against the whole of the geeky internet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> > While the exact number is uncertain due to Model S breaking the testing > machine...

The tone of this press release is perfect.

</comment><comment><USER76> I keep fearing this guy is going to pull a John Gault on us. He's the closest thing to an Ayn Rand character I've seen in my lifetime. Too close for comfort.

Atlas Shrugged came out when I was entering high school and almost ruined me according to my dad back then (and he was a republican.) :-)

</comment><comment><USER77> At $70,000+, it's still out of reach for most people.

</comment><comment><USER78> Misleading title.

</comment><comment><USER79> Elon is on a roll

</comment><comment><USER80> Here are videos of model s crash tests:

Frontal - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dz2FMfv- CSc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dz2FMfv-CSc)

Pole - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Al3IUHt9Wc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Al3IUHt9Wc)

Side - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNyjiFmjfxw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNyjiFmjfxw)

</comment><comment><USER40> The lack of critism in this thread is astounding.

<comment><USER81> HN has a raging hard-on for tesla. It's not surprising, but I agree it's ridiculously one sided here.

Personally, I hope Tesla fail, and think they will.

<comment><USER67> Why do you hope for that?

<comment><USER81> Firstly, I don't believe electric cars are a good idea. Secondly, I absolutely hate the idea of cars so dependent on electronics and software.

My neighbour has an old dumper truck he lets me use, probably 50 or 60 years old. It starts every time, first time. There is literally nothing to go wrong on it.

Now contrast that with a modern car, where you need special tools to access the electronics unlock diagnostics. What about when cars have auto update software over wifi? What about when the government forces car makers to embed their own tracking software into them to monitor and spy on civilians.

Tesla isn't quite as bad as the idiotic self drive cars Google is pressing for (So they can drive you to a google advertiser), but they're in the same bucket of nastiness.

<comment><USER67> Thanks for answering. I respectfully disagree, but we can still have a civilized conversation.

> My neighbour has an old dumper truck he lets me use, probably 50 or 60 years > old. It starts every time, first time. There is literally nothing to go > wrong on it.

I guess apart from modern safety features and gas guzzling?

> What about when the government forces car makers to embed their own tracking > software into them to monitor and spy on civilians.

Not necessary. People already carry cell phones.

I am actually looking forward to the self driving cars. Human error causes lots of accidents. But then, I don't own a car and probably never will.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER82> Sorry for the sarcasm, but could it be because it runs out of batteries before hitting the test wall? :)</comment>


The groundbreaking way to search lungs for signs of Covid-19 - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/business-52483082 <comment><USER2> Why China not share this to others and need others to rediscover it?</comment>


Natural Herbal HPV "Cure" Discovered - sahin-boydas https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/24289574/ <comment><AUTHOR> > Curcumin caused higher rate of clearance (81.3%) than placebo though the > difference was not statistically significant.</comment>