Why i'm done wearing a helmet - <AUTHOR> http://www.bikinginmpls.com/im-done-wearing-helmet/ <comment><USER3> This is the OP. I'm a woman. I guess if you're an avid cyclist everyone assumes you're a man?

The article is the reason why I'm done wearing a helmet. I write my blog as a way to expose different viewpoints around cycling. I feel comfortable with this decision and will no longer be wearing a helmet. If they're not completely scientifically sound in your judgement, fine, keep wearing a helmet. I tried to use the data to the best of my ability, as I have a master's degree in public health. But then again, this blog is not for an academic audience, so I try not to make it too heavy.

The arguments I posted are those that have swayed me. What it comes down to is this: I believe biking is an inherently safe activity, on par with driving a car and walking. When I'm biking 12-14mph on bike paths and trails, as part of my daily regular activities, I feel there is no need to wear a helmet.

<comment><USER4> 'Expose different viewpoints' seems along the lines of the 'I'm hoping to encourage a debate' line that people taking on 'hot-take' positions like to hide behind.

'I have a masters degree' is, of course, ad-hominem fallacy.

It's great that you yourself 'feel' safe but the position you are advocating is not well reasoned and reckless to promote to others.

<comment><USER5> > 'I have a masters degree' is, of course, ad-hominem fallacy.

No it's not. You might argue that it's an argument from authority, which is a different thing, but in this case, I think a master's degree in public health is quite relevant.

You on the other hand provide not a single argument to why you feel her position is not well reasoned and reckless.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The guy sounds insane. Simple physics indicates that the longer the collision the less force applied will be.

The only reason that the individual states that wearing a helmet is a hinderence is:

1\. You don't look as fashionable (the words are "less human")

2\. Drivers see you more as a human when you're not wearing one.

I would venture to say that if a driver notices you not wearing a helmet, the assumption is that the biker is an idiot and they would be more cautious around them. (No one really wants to hit a biker) Additionally this doesn't really fix the problem. Many bikers get into an incident with cars for reasons such as:

1\. The biker was not seen by the driver until it was too late. (Lack of awareness/being used to them on the road)

2\. Biker cutting off the driver

3\. Road rage (on the car's side): It happens but I would suggest it less common than claimed.

4\. Biker not following the rules of the road. (Biking up the wrong way, ignoring stoplights/stopsigns etc)

<comment><USER7> 5\. Biker not using lights at night "because they are in a bike lane".

<comment><USER8> Bike lights are far more important safety gear than a helmet is.

But not having a helmet attracts more negative attention than not having lights does.

<comment><USER9> I used to consider lights "optional," but since bicycling has grown in popularity, I have observed more lightless riders — or failed to observe, rather — and now quite agree. I'm amazed that I got away with riding effectively invisible, with no incidents, for as long as I did.

Now I'm baffled by the fact that lights aren't built into the frames of all non-competitive road bikes…

<comment><USER10> They are standard on all Dutch bikes. Is that not true in other countries? Bikes without lights, rear reflectors and reflectors on the wheels or tires are far, far more dangerous than not wearing a helmet.

<comment><USER8> Reflectors are standard in the US, I think, but not lights.

Reflectors are in no way enough.

<comment><USER10> You are right, just reflectors is not enough (though tire reflectors are amazingly effective for traffic coming from the side). Lights really should be standard.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> We need some HN readers from the Netherlands to chime in here.

"Although the Netherlands is probably the safest country in the world for cycling, helmet wearing among Dutch cyclists is rare. It has been estimated that only about 0.5 percent of cyclists in the Netherlands are helmeted"

 _Why are Dutch cyclists more likely to be injured if they wear helmets?_ \- [http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1261.html](http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1261.html)

<comment><USER12> Dutch guy here.

I haven't biked in the U.S, but from what I've seen, biking in the Netherlands is completely different.

\- Cars drive slower. 50 km/h in city zones, many places that are restricted to 30 km/h.

\- Our entire infrastructure is adapted to biking. Separate bike lanes, bikes get their own stoplights. We don't need to cut through four lanes of traffic just to make a left turn. We're _not_ part of the normal car traffic on bigger roads.

\- Motorists are used to people on bikes. At the very least they don't hate them like they seem to do in the U.S.

\- Bikes are often considered equal to or even higher priority than cars. That means bikes get the right of way just as cars do. In many cases cars have to yield to bikes (roundabouts, etc).

There's simply no comparison to be made between the U.S and the Netherlands when it comes to road conditions for bikes. Making any claim that "the Dutch don't wear helmets so I don't need to either" is ridiculous¹

Other than that, when I see U.S bikers in full gear on their bikes, I always have to laugh a little. Spendex shorts, special shoes, helmet, fancy racing bike. I've said this before on HN, but I think they take biking way too serious. And, but this is just a guess, I wouldn't be surprised if fancy bike makes you go _a lot_ faster than the old dinky bikes we ride around on. And speed == danger, which is why your link points out that most Dutch people getting into accidents are wearing helmets: because they're doing recreational biking on fancy fast bikes.

I don't think I'd ride a bike in a major U.S city. If I would, I'd wear a helmet.

¹) If my perception of biking in U.S cities is even slightly correct.

<comment><USER8> For a long time, you had to be pretty hardcore to cycle in traffic in the US. Politically radical, committed to fitness, whatever.

Even 10 years ago, drivers would scream insults out the window, throw things at me from moving cars, and then there's the genuinely life-threatening harassment. Just for daring to be on the road at all, instead of the sidewalk. This has changed radically in the last decade, in my experience.

On most roads at less than 30 mph, cycling at 10-15 mph is fine.

<comment><USER10> > Even 10 years ago, drivers would scream insults out the window, throw things > at me from moving cars, and then there's the genuinely life-threatening > harassment.

This is terrifying. I think removing idiot drivers from the road will do a lot more for bike safety than any helmet ever can.

<comment><USER8> In my town, they started putting in unprotected bike lanes and sharrows, and it has made a very major difference in driver behavior. This happens to me only about once a year now, instead of once every week or two.

The behavior of road users is the most important element in safety, by far.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Some of this reasoning doesn't make much sense when making a personal decision.

"Helmet use may deter people from cycling", that doesn't affect whether or not you should wear one.

"Benefits of biking out way the risks", you don't lose the benefits if you cycle with a helmet.

<comment><USER14> Yeah. I think there are some serious flaws in this article. Here's another:

In concluding that studies about the efficacy of helmet use are unreliable, the author claims "The people who wear helmets are likely more safety- conscious than those who don't, which makes comparing the two groups very difficult and will make it appear that helmets are more protective than they actually are."

But then, only a few sentences later, the author's agenda shifts to arguing that wearing a helmet causes other drivers to incorrectly conclude you are a safer cyclist and give you less space: "Just because someone wears a helmet doesn't mean they're a safer cyclist. It seems like a lot of people use helmet use as a proxy for caring about safety, and that's just not true."

I can't see how both of these things could be true. Either the studies are not confounded as the author claims, or drivers giving cyclists less space is not the problem he thinks it is because those cyclists are actually safer cyclists. This is not to say that one or both of these arguments are totally incorrect -- there is probably a grain of truth to both of them -- but I suspect at least one of these claims is exaggerated somewhat.

If the author's argument were that localities should not mandate helmet use, I think I would agree. But it wouldn't be because of his tendentious arguments about helmet-wearing signalling that cycling is dangerous, or that drivers take more risks around helmeted cyclists. It is very very hard to believe that either of these dynamics, if they exist at all, outweigh the undisputed benefit of wearing a helmet in preventing serious head injuries. Rather, I think localities shouldn't mandate helmet use simply because helmets discourage cycling and, on balance, cycling is a very safe activity with or without a helmet, and its social benefits outweigh the risks of cycling without a helmet. (An argument which, to be fair, the author also makes.)

<comment><USER8> There's cyclist safety-consciousness and then there's driver perception of cyclist safety consciousness. These are separate things.

I never wear spandex, almost never wear a helmet, but I always have lights and mirrors, and I never, never run a red light (unless it is sensor-driven and won't change for me). Plenty of spandex'ed and helmeted cyclists will run a red light after checking to make sure there's no oncoming traffic. Yet drivers are almost certain to assume that the spandex'ed and helmeted cyclist is more safety-conscious than me. Even if helmets are much lower down on the list of what keeps cyclists safe than traffic norms and behavior, road choice (arterial vs. nonarterial), lights, mirrors, &c.

Meanwhile passing too closely is very dangerous. =/

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> A common misconception is that bicycle helmets protect you in a serious crash. They don't: if you get hit going 30 mph, anything less than a motorcycle helmet isn't going to help you much. But most bike crashes aren't serious; they're minor, low-speed crashes where the rider is knocked from the bicycle or bumped just hard enough to lose balance. Because the center of gravity on a bicycle is high, it's easy to hit your head in these types of crashes -- hard.

Those are the crashes that bike helmets are designed for. Let's say you were waiting at a light, and the light just changed. A car mirror clips you just as you're pushing off and getting your balance, you fall over and hit your head on a curb. If you have a helmet on, you walk away with a headache and maybe a skinned elbow. Without a helmet on, you crack your head open and potentially die.

</comment><comment><USER16> >But helmets are not supposed to shatter. When a helmet protects your head from a serious injury, the styrofoam inside will be compressed and stay that way

Is this correct? It sounds very wrong to me. I got the impression that shattering is a great way to redirect kinetic energy away from your head

<comment><USER17> Also, (can't read the article but assuming some kind of context), even if the styro compressed rather than shattering - that's still energy being used for something which isn't cracking your skull. It still seems like it would be beneficial.

If the author is claiming that once it's compressed it won't be as good next time, then that's insane - helmets aren't supposed to be re-used after accidents (whether bike, motorbike, or car racing - I've had to sadly replace my motor racing helmet after an incident, and it's a lot more than buying a new bike lid - but you still do it without flinching because it's your brain on the line here).

<comment><USER16> Full paragraph:

"People will so often put up photos on social media of obliterated helmets and say, "Holy crap, look at my helmet! It saved my life!" But helmets are not supposed to shatter. When a helmet protects your head from a serious injury, the styrofoam inside will be compressed and stay that way. Most of the pictures I've seen are of helmets that have broken apart. It's likely that the helmet did not protect someone from a severe injury."

<comment><USER17> In which case yes, just a very misinformed original author. Shattering, cracking, etc. are all known, planned features of a helmet impact - <USER2> which can absorb energy in the helmet and not the head is a good thing (with some obvious caveats of course).

<comment><USER18> Depends, depends... Fracturing of a flaw requires much less energy than plastic deformation. So it is really a question of whether it deformed first and then cracked, or fractured early. In the latter case, possibly caused by a flaw or very sharp impact, not much energy would be absorbed at all!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Absolutely, this is why I rarely/never wear a helmet. People think of them as essential safety gear in case you get hit by a car, but they offer almost no protection against this risk. They are designed to protect your head if you spontaneously fall off a stationary bicycle. In good weather, at low speeds, on flat, clean roads, these accidents will be very rare for competent cyclists.

Cycling is simply a safe, fun means of travel. And you don't need special protective gear unless you're doing something weird.

Children? Mountain bikers? People cycling in snow or mud? People doing tricks or trying to show off to girls? Yea, they should probably wear a helmet.

A friend of mine once compared ordinary commuting in a helmet to wearing a condom all day: it's useful if you're doing something risky, but otherwise it's just uncomfortable.

Helmets are uncomfortable and goofy, and I probably would ride less on the bike if I had to wear one all the time, as with a mandatory helmet law. The exercise benefits of regular cycling outweigh the marginal risk of head injury.

By the same logic of the helmet-shamers, we should shame motorists and pedestrians for not wearing a helmet for routine travel. But nobody seems to take that idea seriously for some reason.

More important safety equipment than helmets: bike lights, mirrors, bells, basic repair gear, and fenders.

</comment><comment><USER19> Some bits in here make me seriously question the author's judegment.

"Many more motorists and pedestrians die in traffic collisions per year than do bicyclists. We don't see them wearing helmets."

Doesn't this support the opposite argument of what the author is claiming? Further, I would expect as much anyway simply because so many fewer people bike than motorcycle or drive a car.

"If not wanting to wear a helmet deters someone from riding a bike, that sucks, because biking is healthy and awesome."

This is a silly argument. It could just as easily be said, "If wearing a helmet deters someone from riding a bike, that sucks, because wearing a helmet protects your head."

"I don't want to hide my head behind a helmet, I want drivers to pass me on the street and see that I am a person, a human, just like them."

Nobody said that wearing a helmet was supposed to make a person more attractive. Would the author universally agree to "I don't wear protective gear $x because I want people to see that I'm a human being?" Probably not.

Ultimately, I don't think anybody can argue that having a protective shell around your head is somehow less safe or equally safe to having nothing there at all.

<comment><USER20> I think the argument is that if helmets are not mandated by law, more people will ride. If more people ride, that will raise more awareness of bikers and their safety in relation to motor vehicle drivers. Therefore, in aggregate, the safety of the whole bike riding herd will be better.

Anectdata: I work on a large business campus which has bike sharing bikes scattered around. Helmets are mandatory (whether that's due to law or local policy, I am uncertain). My light whispy hair will irrecoverably look like shit after being subjected to a helmet, especially during the hot/humid months. As such, I opt to walk or drive more often than I would if I could simply hop on a bike for many on-campus jaunts for various duties.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> > People will so often put up photos on social media of obliterated helmets > and say, "Holy crap, look at my helmet! It saved my life!" But helmets are > not supposed to shatter. When a helmet protects your head from a serious > injury, the styrofoam inside will be compressed and stay that way. Most of > the pictures I've seen are of helmets that have broken apart.

Just.. what?

Any sort of mechanical deformation is essentially an energy release. Be it compression, cracking or what else. The energy that went to cracking the polycarbonate shell is the energy that didn't reach your skull.

<comment><USER22> But cracking involves a very small amount of energy absorption. Once the crack starts it tends to propagate with very little required force.

<comment><USER21> The process once it gets going is pretty quick but the energy buildup required is fairly substantial and is defined by material properties (shear modulus).

<comment><USER22> To absorb energy in a useful way you need both force and distance. The idea is to reduce peak G force ... not that just reducing peak G force is all we need to do...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Pretty much my sentiments. I've been cycling for over 40 years and have gone from never wearing one, to always wearing one, to seldom wearing one.

</comment><comment><USER24> This is pretty dumb and naive, and loaded with non-sequiturs and other obvious fallacies. Like this gem:

>"Many more motorists and pedestrians die in traffic collisions per year than do bicyclists. We don't see them wearing helmets."

Hey. Maybe if they _did_ wear helmets, fewer of them would die. Ever think of that?

<comment><USER17> Yes, madness. Given expected likelihood/severity of potential accidents, one seems more worthwhile than the other. In situations where the risks are raised for some reason, you will find that people do wear helmets. I will never, for example, do 100mph in a kart without a helmet (plus various other safety additions).

<comment><USER8> How is a 10 mph bike ride around the block even remotely comparable to karting at 100-mph?

<comment><USER17> I'm not saying they're the same thing - I'm pointing out that as risk increases, you add safety features. Drivers in certain situations (racing, for example) do wear helmets, as the risk is now judged to be sufficient. A 10mph ride around the block may well be safe - but the 10mph part isn't so relevant - it's the idiot in a car doing 60mph who doesn't look for cyclists that is probably the significant part of the risk. So...

<comment><USER8> A bike helmet is not designed to protect your head if you are hit by a car at 60 mph.

The best way to protect yourself for the 60-mph-auto-collision is to not get hit by a car at 60 mph.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This seems like a serious case of Black Swan reasoning. In other words, she seems to be taking an apparent lack of evidence that helmets prevent injury as evidence that helmets don't prevent injury. Just remember, you wear a helmet 99.9% of the time for no reason to prevent serious injury on that 0.1% incident because that's all it takes. We all know that slamming your head on pavement is bad and having a shell to protect your head is preferable to not having one. She seems to be assuming that because nothing bad has happened to her yet that she is safe with no helmet.

Put differently- I wonder if you told the author a brick was going to fall on her head and then asked given the option to wear a helmet or not wear one which she would pick.

<comment><USER8> The point is that ordinary commuter cycling in normal weather on flat, clean roads is a lot less dangerous than standing around while people throw bricks at your head.

And there's a health tradeoff between the exercise benefits of physical activity and the risk of injury. Convincing people that cycling is so dangerous (like people throwing bricks at your head) that you need to wear some goofy-looking, uncomfortable contraption dissuades them from getting the exercise and the fun of cycling around their neighborhood.

<comment><USER25> > The point is that ordinary commuter cycling in normal weather on flat, clean > roads is a lot less dangerous than standing around while people throw bricks > at your head.

This is true until you fall off the bike and your head hits the pavement. Then having a brick thrown at your head might well be safer. It's only the lower expected probability of having one event occur than the other that gives the illusion that it's safe. But if you ride a bike everyday, even in the safest of conditions, your odds of having an accident at some point are actually pretty high given all of the variables involved. So you should wear a helmet every time you ride with the assumption that it will do nothing for you if you don't have an accident.

<comment><USER8> If cycling is so dangerous that people throwing bricks at you is safer, wouldn't the most reasonable course be to not cycle at all?

<comment><USER25> The point is that if the author of the article got on a bicycle with 100% certainty of being involved in an accident, I seriously doubt she would get on it without a helmet or some protective gear, despite her claims that wearing a helmet actually increases your risk of injury. Obviously if you knew you would get in an accident you wouldn't get on the bike. I'm convinced that it's the not knowing (and erroneous assumption that she is safe) that makes her comfortable not wearing a helmet, not a ironclad case that not wearing a helmet is safer than wearing one. If put in a position where she absolutely had to decide whether she would be in an accident with or without a helmet, I do not believe she would back up her claim and go sans helmet.

It's really not that different than most risks we take, such as unhealthy eating or exposing ourselves to ultraviolet radiation. We're immune to the danger until we're not.

<comment><USER8> As a person who doesn't wear/trust bike helmets, if the certainty of an accident on a particular ride was increased to 100%, I would choose to not ride the bike rather than trust the helmet to protect me in a collision. If I knew a brick was to dropped on my head at a certain time, I would reach for a steel helmet before a styrofoam one, but first endeavor to not be at the appointed place and time for a braining.

That's tragic, because this debate is about a tradeoff: a moderate benefits of exercise vs. a small risk of injury. I am a very regular bike commuter, and it is my main form of exercise, but collisions are very, very dangerous. I would not get on a bike in the case of 100% certainty of an accident. Helmet advocates focus on the risk of injury and tend not to consider the benefits they're trading off against, or consider how they are dissuading people from the benefits of cycling.

It seems like this boils down to an argument not to cycle as much as to wear a helmet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> The author should have led with "it's glorious to feel the wind in my hair", because pretty much every other point in this post is useless.

</comment><comment><USER27> I used to ride without a helmet too. I though I'd as soon get directly killed than get a brain injury. But then you do get a brain injury and not get killed and your life turns into hell, especially if your brain is the one thing you've always depended on the most. I recommend paying a visit to [http://neurotalk.psychcentral.com/forum92.html](http://neurotalk.psychcentral.com/forum92.html) to catch a glimpse how splendidly well (where's my sarcasm sign?) people with brain injuries have been doing. I didn't get mine from a bike accident (collapsed scaffolding), but it's been a constant source of joy for the whole last year and I still have some minor issues to deal with (and that was a mild one as far as brain injuries go). I always wear a helmet on larger bike trips now. Anything that mitigates or reduces the chances of a brain injury is very much worth it. If you want to take reckless risks, at least don't write idiotic blog posts about it.

</comment><comment><USER28> I'm most likely alive right now because of a helmet. Long story short, I had a crash that resulted in me whipping the back of my head into the ground. I ended up with a very bad concussion, an iffy memory for a couple of months, and a destroyed helmet. I'll keep wearing a helmet.

<comment><USER29> This anecdote would be a lot more useful if it were long story long (e..g., were you cycling casually or racing?). The lack of details makes it hard to draw any useful lessons about when helmet wearing is appropriate.

<comment><USER30> Does it matter, point being made is that their helmet was destroyed rather than their skull.

<comment><USER31> I'm sure there are people who have cracked their heads open and died while running, but that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone travelling on foot needs to wear a helmet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Many safety standards have surprisingly little science behind them. That is not always a bad thing. Trial and error can work if there is the possibility of changing the design. Once the body of experience is codified into a standard then development stops.

The current bike helmet standards are a good example of what happens in the absence of both good theory and experience. We have a design that prevents an injury that almost never happens (skull fracture) and that fails to protect against a common injury (concussion). The current standards make it impossible to improve things much but there are people out there that are trying:

[http://www.helmets.org/liners.htm#cone- head](http://www.helmets.org/liners.htm#cone-head)

</comment><comment><USER32> It seems that people missed the fact that the article has plenty of links supporting his claims. Unfortunately the link colour is almost the same as the text colour.

One of the most compelling studies is from New Zealand [1]: "The New Zealand Medical Journal published Evaluation of New Zealand's bicycle helmet law ... showing a massive plunge in cycling levels and a 20% higher accident rate since helmet law enforcement."

Also, there was a study showing that cyclists with helmets receive less space from passing cars than those without.

[1] [http://www.cycle-helmets.com/zealand_helmets.html](http://www.cycle- helmets.com/zealand_helmets.html)

<comment><USER33> Did you really analyze whether the study provides good data? Does correlation imply causation?

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Here's a 2013 Australian study: "The effectiveness of helmets in bicycle collisions with motor vehicles: A case–control study": [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457513...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457513000183)

"Helmet use was associated with reduced risk of head injury in bicycle collisions with motor vehicles of up to 74%, and the more severe the injury considered, the greater the reduction."

Is there some reason to doubt this?

</comment><comment><USER35> Minneapolis is arguably the best city in the US for bicycling (in competition with Portland). That said, biking here can be incredibly dangerous, and cyclists are killed every year. The streets and intersections around town have numerous "ghost bikes", white bicycles locked in places where a cyclist was killed by a car.

The author's point doesn't stand to reason. First, not all injuries are created equal. Head injuries are more likely to kill or permanently impair a cyclist than any other injury. Second, regardless of the results of studies and confirmation bias, it's obvious that helmets _do_ absorb a great deal of impact - impact that can kill or permanently injure you.

Beyond that, though, helmets aren't the #1 thing that can be done to protect cyclists. Improving car drivers is the #1 thing. Malicious drivers who openly hate cyclists aren't the worst - neglectful ones are. You know, the ones who turn right in front of a bicycle, or lane change into a bicycle. They don't know the cyclist is there. Often, they don't know how close they came to killing someone, as they text away obliviously.

The next thing that can be done is better urban planning, with bicycle- friendly streets. That doesn't mean sidewalk "bike lanes" that are 10mph and shared with moms pushing strollers. That means relatively safe road design where bicyclists can either integrate into the traffic flow or be around it with less danger. These designs are often flawed, though, built mostly to keep bicycles from inconveniencing cars rather than keeping cyclists safe (the "bike lanes" of downtown Minneapolis, which completely hide cyclists from cars turning in front of them, are the ultimate example).

At any rate, the article is quite wrong.

<comment><USER36> _regardless of the results of studies and confirmation bias, it 's obvious... _

You might as well have just said "I'm not listening to that gosh darn evolution nonsense".

<comment><USER35> Just because you're inclined to believe something doesn't make it _not_ true. That's the flip side of confirmation bias.

The author points to a single study that's been discredited. Good enough. But simple logic, as well as anecdotal evidence (with all its confirmation bias), suggests that you're more likely to have a good outcome from a head impact if you're wearing a helmet than if you're not. That, or the entire helmet industry is snake oil, and you might as well just wear a baseball cap.

The comparison to evolution is bogus. Those who reject evolution are generally rejecting both evidence and reason. But evidence and reason strongly suggest that helmets work better than no helmets.

<comment><USER29> Reason suggest that helmets work better than no helmets. _Evidence_ suggests that the benefits of wearing a helmet are actually surprisingly marginal for casual cyclists. Other factors, like biking infrastructure quality and vehicle operator education, have a much greater impact on safety. Which makes it a bit weird that people concerned with the safety of bicyclists talk so much about helmets.

<comment><USER35> I don't disagree with that, but that's not really the author's claim. He appears to be claiming that helmets aren't actually effective or cause other problems.

An accident avoided is better than an accident survived, yes. But an accident survived is better than an accident not survived.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I've had my share of accidents riding my bike, and in none of them would a helmet have helped anything. So much for anecdotal confirmation.

There are certainly conditions that make the use of a helmet advisable, but that depends on the situation. Anything more than that is just the result of lobbying & PR by the helmet-making industry.

<comment><USER38> I've never seen a black swan.

<comment><USER37> Point well taken. Of course you're free to determine your personal level of risk tolerance. Just don't force others to convert their homes to nuclear shelters (after all, one nuclear explosion can ruin your whole compile).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Looks like his database server should have been wearing a helmet.

</comment><comment><USER40> Bicycle helmets are worthless, as well as equestrian half helmets. How often in a bike wreck do you hit the exact top of your head vs the sides, your chin, your face, or the back of your neck?

The only type of helmet that can actually prevent injury is a full face motorcycle helmet with solid chinbar.

</comment><comment><USER41> As for me, my main reason not to wear a helmet is that it limits my field of vision and an ability to hear (including low frequencies) to such an extent that I feel blindfolded. I cannot tolerate even a hat for the same reason.

</comment><comment><USER10> The article doesn't say from which part of the world it is (though clearly outside Europe), but where it's from matters a lot.

Dutch media, for example, do not focus on helmet use at all, because it's a non-issue. Well, mostly. Almost nobody here wears a helmet (though increasing numbers of children do), simply because it's not necessary.

Then again, Dutch traffic is designed with cyclists in mind. In other countries, that's not the case. You need to know what your local cycling situation is, and whether that does or doesn't require a helmet.

</comment><comment><USER42> Should have focused on data and studies relating to the idea that most crashes involved with people wearing non-full-face helmets do not result in helmets saving their head from serious injury.

</comment><comment><USER43> Head injuries are no joke especially if your in tech. Wear the helmet.

<comment><USER44> You are assuming the accepted, but unproven wisdom that helmets will prevent more injuries than they cause. Did you read the meta study cited in the article that shows a lack of evidence for such an assumption? Have you read about the standards used to "certify" bike helmets, which don't simulate bike crashes very well?

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> I'm sorry but this post mentions there isn't any good data and then dives into anecdotes.

"But helmets are not supposed to shatter." Yes, they are. After any crash with a helmet you're support to discard it and purchase a new one. It absorbed, hopefully, the vast majority of the energy of the impact, not your skull.

"Cyclists don't die from just falling off their bikes, they die because they are hit by cars."

Doubtless, but this is one of the few cases in which there are statistics available because it involves motor vehicles... and death.

"Learning safe riding skills, being visible, and being attentive are the things we all can do to prevent an accident."

Yes, absolutely. Ride defensively and assume NO ONE can see you and knows where you are at ALL times even and sometimes especially in a bike lane.

"I replaced my road bike's drop handlebars with swept back bars, for a more upright riding position"

The observation of mountain/flat bars being a better city / casual riding position is true. But you don't need to ditch your drops if you ride on the tops when appropriate. Many people have a second pair of brake levers accessible from the tops as well as their integrated levers at the hoods.

What I'm most surprised about is that the author doesn't mention a study where drivers on average, apparently, drive 3 inches closer to cyclists WITH helmets on because they perceive them to be protected.

All this said: WEAR A HELMET. I'll provide an anecdote: the wheel coming off of a front fork after someone tried to steal their wheel earlier in the day (unlocking the quick release). I found the man with his face smashed on the ground, his left eye caved in on the Manhattan Bridge.

Route 9W, bottom of the first major hill, debris collected from over winter. Many cyclists repairing flats, another one who got taken away in an ambulance, helmet shattered and knee "destroyed". He would have certainly died if he had not been wearing a helmet.

The point is saying that helmets don't protect you from crashes is like saying seatbelts don't protect you from crashes. Yes! It's true, but they protect you from hurting yourself too badly if and when you DO crash.

<comment><USER46> "The people who wear helmets are likely more safety-conscious than those who don't, which makes comparing the two groups very difficult and will make it appear that helmets are more protective than they actually are."

Unless the act of wearing a helmet is part of what reminds you to be more safety-conscious. Bucking my child into the car has the same effect.

BTW the author does mention that study about drivers coming closer to bikers with helmets.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> I stopped reading when the author said a shattered helmet didn't protect from a head injury.

You're telling the same forces that shattered the helmet wouldn't have damaged the head?

Nonsense.

</comment><comment><USER48> This is like saying "Im done wearing a bullet proof vest as it only prevents certain types of gunshot wounds, is uncomfortable to wear and not fashionable."

<comment><USER8> Are most people expected to wear a bulletproof vest under normal conditions?

Fun times when people get shamed for not wearing a bulletproof vest to go to the grocery store.

<comment><USER48> Depends on your line of work. If you choose to ride a bike, you should probably wear a helment. If you want to be on a swat team, a bulletproof vest is also a good idea...

<comment><USER10> Plenty of people get shot without being on a SWAT team. Why shouldn't everybody wear bullet proof vests?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I agree with most of these points, however, anecdotally I will say that my helmet prevented some pretty nasty facial road rash when I was doored a few years ago. I tipped and hit my head, and then slid ~10 feet. My helmet prevented my face/ear from taking the initial impact as well as the subsequent slide across the dirty urban asphalt.

Helmets don't just protect from massive TBIs.

</comment><comment><USER50> I've noticed very few cyclists wearing helmets in Tokyo. Would be interesting to compare to a city were helmets are more prevalent.

</comment><comment><USER51> Here's some data: [http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/pedestrians-and- bicyclists...](http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/pedestrians-and- bicyclists/fatalityfacts/bicycles)

Also, the link in the article about health benefits doesn't point to anything on the web.

</comment><comment><USER52> I doubt the bike helmets are effective (motorcycle ones are fine, but the glorified yarmulke that is the biking hat is doubtful)

</comment><comment><USER53> He doesn't make very strong arguments ("the numbers are hard to get, I don't have any"). In my mind I see myself falling to the ground and smashing my head on the ground. I'd like to avoid that if possible. Is he saying thinner/better helmets are needed to avoid neck injuries?

</comment><comment><USER54> This guy should not be a health professional.

"But helmets are not supposed to shatter" \- not true. Many bike helmets are designed to shatter on impact, that's how they absorb the energy.

[http://www.bhsi.org/standard.htm](http://www.bhsi.org/standard.htm)

<comment><USER55> Why was this downvoted? To me this looks like a perfectly valid criticism.

<comment><USER22> The cited page does not even contain the word "shatter".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Where I live there is a bridge over the river which has a multi-use trail (basically, a shared bike/walk/rollerblade/whatever path) on both sides of it. This trail is separated from the traffic on the bridge by a railing and large girders. The bridge was built to carry rail traffic on the top deck and car traffic below.

On the south end of the bridge, the road and multi-use trails jog eastward and up a slope, while the rail portion of the bridge continues south towards a tunnel. This results in a spot on one of the trails where there are low- hanging girders. If you are walking, these are fine, if you are biking these are very dangerous and cyclists who weren't wearing helmets have been killed by failing to duck. Since the impact was directly to the head, these deaths would have likely been prevented by a helmet. Cyclists who veer too far towards the girders alongside the trail have also been killed, again an impact directly to the head where a helmet would help.

<comment><USER57> Cycle paths with low hanging girders is not a problem that is solved by helmets.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> Here is the article for those who can't access the page (Database Error)

[https://www.anony.ws/i/2015/06/15/helmet.png](https://www.anony.ws/i/2015/06/15/helmet.png)

(Click image to zoom)

</comment><comment><USER59> This might be useful for my main gripe, which is the sweating:

[http://www.hovding.com/videos](http://www.hovding.com/videos)

It's a helmet/airbag. Looks pretty cool, but I've never met anyone who had one.

</comment><comment><USER60> Do you have any information that shows the effectiveness of helmet use in crashes that don't involve cars? I've read that approximately half of all bike crashes do not involve cars. [ looking for a citation ]

</comment><comment><USER61> This is why people should not wear seat belt, or be required to have driver license.

It deters more people from driving a car and it communicates that driving car is a dangerous activity and require protective gear and license.

<comment><USER10> I've heard it argued (in jest, I hope) that replacing the air bag in steering wheels with a sharp, steel spike would make people drive a lot more carefully.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> That is great, evolution always find its ways to get rid off the weaker population. Wearing a helmet (a good one) can save your life.

Some details:

"Is there evidence that helmets protect brains and heads? We have a statistics page that may help you research that. Don't miss the recent New York City data showing that 97% of their dead cyclists had no helmet."

I know what a data scientist would say, correlation is not causation.

More details, lots os studies and numbers here: [http://www.bhsi.org/shouldi.htm](http://www.bhsi.org/shouldi.htm)

A good video in the subject: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=CLbpXkSoM2A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=CLbpXkSoM2A)

</comment><comment><USER63> Rebuttal: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ttjr6I5qZoo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ttjr6I5qZoo)

<comment><USER64> The guy is long boarding, not biking. One is considered an extreme sport, not the other.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> The helmet is no more a hindrance than a seatbelt. If you choose not to wear a helmet so be it, you are an adult. But don't expect me to pay for your medical bills if you have a head injury while cycling and you were not wearing helmet.

I also have to wonder if the increased neck injuries cited go back to when helmets were not designed to skid when impacting the ground.

</comment><comment><USER33> Is she a nominee for the Darwin Award?

</comment><comment><USER66> TLDR - author doesn't like wearing helmets. Mentions one or two studies. Mostly personal opinion piece with anecdotal evidence.

</comment><comment><USER67> An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

But I guess if you're a public health professional, you'd rather have the pound of cure.

</comment><comment><USER68> I bet he drives without a seatbelt too.

</comment><comment><USER69> Just watch fail army for ten minutes and play count the heads hitting the ground. No thanks.

<comment><USER70> I walk a lot on well traveled streets. I recently noticed an interesting correlation: cyclists that wear helmets tend to follow the rules and ones that do not tend to break them. Rules like stopping at a stop light, not riding on the sidewalk, riding on the correct side of the street.

It's not a perfect correlation, but it's very high.

<comment><USER8> There are people who ride bikes because they love cycling (by choice) and there are people who ride bikes because they can't afford other means of transportion (by need). The latter tend not to wear helmets or follow traffic rules, the former tend to do at least one of them.

Personally I almost never wear a helmet but scrupulously follow the rules: they are the only thing that protects me.

<comment><USER69> It's not about you following the rules. If someone else doesn't, your head is going to hit the ground.

<comment><USER8> I am very, very cautious. But bike helmets are simply not designed for high- speed collisions.

<comment><USER69> You're an idiot.

I've only ever bashed my head on the ground at very low speeds. You'd be surprised the damage you can do falling from head height. A bike merely increases the probability of that happening.

High speed; forget it. I drive a car now after I was totalled by a taxi.

<comment><USER8> Ah, nothing is quite so good for your health as spending your time sitting in a car.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> This article is completely crazy.

I'd 100% prefer safety over fashion any day of the week. Have you been in a car crash? Thank god for seat belts!

</comment><comment><USER72> I completely disagree with this article. Yes, helmets may increase the risk of other injuries (not inclusive of "I am hearing a helmet, I am a invincible" injuries), but the benefit of reduced head injury vastly outweigh the increase in other injuries.

On another note, there has been quite a bit of development into helmets in the last 5 or so years. Check out MIPS system [1]. It basically allows the head to move independently of the helmet increasing the "time" of the impact and also reducing oblique forces on the brain. Does it 100% work? Who knows. Is my head priceless, yes.

[1] [http://www.mipshelmet.com/#what-is-mips](http://www.mipshelmet.com/#what- is-mips) (fyi, slow website)

<comment><USER57> The greatest share of accidents are because of infrastructure, so put all your effort into getting better road for foot and cycle traffic, it's more effective to prevent accidents than injuries.

I've never hurt my head while on a bike, yet the first thing you hear when I've been in a crash is: "Did you have a helmet?". Statistically helmets help in rare but severe cases, compared to a seat belts and airbags that helps against almost all injuries in cars from mild to serious..</comment></comment>


Why admission to Ivy League colleges isn't based purely on academic merit - <AUTHOR> http://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2014/09/08/steven-pinker-do-you-want-a-meritocracy-you-cant-handle-a-meritocracy/

<comment><USER2> > But still, unless he can explain how he'll solve this complex political > problem that admissions policies are designed to solve, his preening is more > of a show and not serious attempt at academic reform.

So from my reading, the arguments against meritocracy in the Ivies are: Naked racism (both negative and positive), greed (although Harvard for example has no need for money these days), and nepotism.

Got it.</comment>


CloudStats – In-Depth Server Monitoring and Ping Check on a Friendly Dashboard - <AUTHOR> http://cloudstats.me

<comment><USER2> Looks like someone changed the password to the demo account, credentials don't work at all. The site seems extremely slow, and the faux loading bar with every page navigation is actually annoying. Maybe it'd be okay if the site was fast.

There are also several grammatical errors.

On the "Offers for Hosts" page there is:

"With every server you can additinally monitor services like MySQL, DNS, FTP, SMTP, etc. completely free"

There are also a number of other curious grammar errors on that page.

Update: Also looks like the parent company provides proxies to ScrapeBox spammers via a separate website. Very dodgy. Wouldn't trust them monitoring any boxes of mine.

<comment><USER3> And now it is down with db issues.</comment></comment>


Transitioning from Objective C to Swift without rewriting the old code - <AUTHOR> http://codevoyagers.com/2016/02/09/transitioning-from-objective-c-to-swift-in-4-steps-without-rewriting-the-existing-code/ <comment><USER2> This is very similar to how we're experimenting with adding Swift to existing projects. A nice read, well done.</comment>


Looking to hire a logo designer? You might want to read this.  - <AUTHOR> http://imjustcreative.com/looking-to-hire-a-logo-designer-you-might-want-to-read-this/2010/04/12/ <comment><USER2> Hehe, posting here is a pretty good way to get some heads to visit your site. I'm thinking about getting a quote from you ;-).</comment>


Python solutions to the 99 Prolog Problems - <AUTHOR> http://wiki.python.org/moin/ProblemSets/99 Prolog Problems Solutions <comment><USER2> In Lisp: [http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~meidanis/courses/mc336/2006s2/func...](http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~meidanis/courses/mc336/2006s2/funcional/L-99_Ninety- Nine_Lisp_Problems.html)

In Haskell: [http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/H-99:_Ninety- Nine_Haskell...](http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/H-99:_Ninety- Nine_Haskell_Problems)

I found that actually solving these in Haskell reduced to "how familiar are you with the standard library"". It seems to be very similar in Python.

<comment><USER3> The simple 13-line Haskell solution to P27 is an interesting contrast to the 27-line Python solution with its two layers of indirection. The Haskell solution is much more declarative. (If you ported some of the Haskell Prelude to Python you might be able to write something similar, though without the nice List Monad syntax.)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> "99 Prolog Problems" is a set of problems to solve in Prolog to teach yourself the language. It works well as an educational tool in other languages as well.

Original problem set: <https://prof.ti.bfh.ch/hew1/informatik3/prolog/p-99/>

</comment><comment><USER4> In Perl6: [http://github.com/perl6/perl6-examples/tree/9720129dd09936b0...](http://github.com/perl6/perl6-examples/tree/9720129dd09936b026ed1f539c2fa25dde316104/99-problems)

See also: [http://www.oreillynet.com/onlamp/blog/2006/12/99_problems_in...](http://www.oreillynet.com/onlamp/blog/2006/12/99_problems_in_perl_6.html)

</comment><comment><USER5> Makes it look easy. Python is poetry in $EDITOR.

</comment><comment><USER6> Just to note, only the first 50 have been solved in python as yet.

</comment><comment><USER7> If you're having language problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 prolog problems and python ain't one.

</comment><comment><USER8> This kind of stuff is Python's strength :)</comment>


Ask HN: What is your favourite Roald Dhall book? - <AUTHOR> In celebration of Roald Dahl's birth -  born in Cardiff ( Wales, UK ) 100 years ago this month.<p>What is your favourite Roald Dhall book ? <comment><USER2> I adore his short story collections, both the ones meant for children and the ones for adults. "The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar" has always been my favorite.</comment>


Peer pressure's effects are perhaps more powerful than we thought (2014) - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/12/04/people-around-you-control-your-mind-the-latest-evidence <comment><USER3> Regarding buying food on an airplane, what about the effect of simple politeness?

I'm not sure I would call it "peer pressure," when I feel uncomfortable about eating food next to someone who doesn't have any. Maybe it's a cultural thing, but I would rather wait to eat until the person next to me also has food.

Once I was on a train, and the woman next to me offered to share some of the sandwich she brought with her. I said, "no thanks, I was about to go get some food from the dining car." I got my own sandwich and brought it back. I understood completely what was behind her offer, and I am sure we both felt more comfortable eating together, even though we didn't know each other and would never see the other person again.

<comment><USER4> There's politeness, and then there is that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is why certain groups have such a strong interest in controlling twitter, facebook, google, etc. Most people simply go along with what they perceive as the majority opinion. This used to take the form of doing whate everyone around you does, which is why political views tended to group up so much by community.

But we no longer have communities, we no longer speak to actual people, especially not about anything like politics. So that instinctive conformity is now based on easily falsified information presented though the media. This is why facebook prevents certain topics from trending, and puts others that are not naturally trending into the trending queue.

<comment><USER6> > _But we no longer have communities, we no longer speak to actual people, > especially not about anything like politics._

Oh but we do have communities, and we do talk to actual people (also about politics!) - it's just no longer strongly tied to your location. Blame the invention of the telephone, that lets you stay in touch with your family and friends at long distances, and the invention of the car, that lets you visit them often.

<comment><USER5> >Oh but we do have communities, and we do talk to actual people (also about politics!)

No, we don't. Communities have bonds. Seeing facebook spam is not the same as talking to a person, and joining a group of people who post likeminded facebook spam is not a community. It just scratches the same instinctual itch as a community.

>Blame the invention

Blame has nothing to do with it. Understanding how and why people control information to manipulate the public and undermine democracy is important. Trying to blame dead people for technology they invented is not.

<comment><USER6> > _No, we don 't. Communities have bonds. Seeing facebook spam is not the same > as talking to a person, and joining a group of people who post likeminded > facebook spam is not a community. It just scratches the same instinctual > itch as a community._

You and I may be using Facebook differently. I'm not thinking about random Facebook groups and news feeds of people you don't even remember. But e.g. for me, there are people with whom, due to temporal and geographical constraints, Facebook (both site and Messenger) is the primary means of communication, and said communication is frequent and often deep. It's just another tool, not unlike the phone or telegram or paper mail.

> _Understanding how and why people control information to manipulate the > public and undermine democracy is important._

How: with free speech.

Why: because they have goals they want to achieve.

This actually is democracy working as designed - people being free to bullshit one another. The hope might have been that bullshitting from different actors will cancel out, but that doesn't generally work due to, among other things, simple randomness.

<comment><USER7> > You and I may be using Facebook differently.

This is almost certainly the case. I feel like much of the time when people confidently generalize (on HN and elsewhere) about "how everybody uses Facebook", they end up talking past each other because there are just vastly different patterns of usage that you never have occasion to get exposed to (given that your friend group is more likely to have usage patterns similar to your own). I once got downvoted pretty heavily on HN for responding to someone talking about removing their Facebook friends that they don't know by asking "Is this something that people do? Friend people that they've never met or spoken to?". Apparently that's totally a thing, but I never would've known

<comment><USER5> It may be the case, or it may not. Since we're not discussing how we use facebook, it is both unknown and irrelevant. We're talking about how facebook uses us, not at all the same thing. Facebook curates what you see no matter how you use facebook.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It gets worse. You are x% more likely to buy food if you just _see_ or _smell_ it, without even a "peer" enjoying it. Isn't that horrifying? That must be called something like food-pressure.

<comment><USER9> Around here we just call that Cinnabon.

<comment><USER10> At the Yonge-Eglinton TTC station in Toronto it's especially difficult not to succumb to the scent of Cinnabon wafting through the air.

<comment><USER11> It will not force you to buy it if you hate cinnamon. I can't stand the smells coming off a cinnabon shop.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The article is from 2014 and it is about a paper studying "social effects in consumption" in a controlled situation (i.e. while you are stuck in an airplane), and another paper about social influences of high schoolers signing up for an SAT prep class.

While the studies are interesting, it is hardly worthy of the click-bait title.

TL;DR if you sit next to someone on an airplane who buys a drink you are 30% more likely to buy a drink yourself (and presumably the study successfully controlled for people traveling together).

Edit: The post title was just changed from what I clicked on "People around you control your mind: The latest evidence" which was so much more entertaining!

<comment><USER13> The original title was also more accurate. The experiment involved neither "pressure" nor "peers".

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, have to agree with louprado here. The 'People around you control your mind' although a bit more entertaining and click baity is actually more accurate than 'peer' or 'pressure'.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> "Peer pressure's effects are perhaps more powerful than we thought" only if you've never heard of Stanley Milgram

<comment><USER15> Unless there's a lesser-known experiment by Stanley Milgram on peer pressure, the most famous one is about "obedience to authority figures"[1]

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

<comment><USER16> There is also Asch experiment

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> On the airline experiment: says if the person sitting next to you purchases something, you're 30% more likely to purchase something.

Isn't the person next to you more likely to be your friend or family member? What portion of people travel alone? And if they're related, chances are high they have similar expectations/acceptance of in-flight purchases.

Edit: found this article with more details: [https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/pedro-m-gardete- fellow...](https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/pedro-m-gardete-fellow- airline-passengers-influence-what-you-buy) Apparently, if they have the same reservation #, it doubles.

<comment><USER18> Reservation information was used to control for people flying together - <USER2> that I would consider it a foolproof method. In all the times I've flown, probably 80% were with someone but the reservations were not made together. I doubt I'm the only one for whom this is representative since it was business travel.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> as @tiglionabbit mentioned, this is priming. The term should be famous now thanks to the books "Thinking Fast and Slow" and "Nudge". Also probably a dose of recency bias. [http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/psyching- us-...](http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/psyching-us-out/?_r=0)

<comment><USER20> And yet, perhaps an equally-apt word is _infamous_ , because 'priming' effects appear often among those psychological research results that fail-to- reproduce:

[http://www.chronicle.com/article/Power-of- Suggestion/136907/](http://www.chronicle.com/article/Power-of- Suggestion/136907/)

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

<comment><USER19> Although, to be fair to Richard Thaler, the article you cite itself falls prey to the 1/n "mental accounting" heuristic. It gives half of its attention to a call center replication that did support the priming effect.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I drink once in my life. When I was 20. Why? I was interested in what being drunk felt like from a scientific perspective. Upon drinking all the liquor I could find in the house, the room began to spin and I didn't like the feeling of not being in control so I found the nearest couch and passed out.

I often wonder if I am programmed differently than other people. Peer pressure has never really had any effect on me. When people would try to convince me to drink, I would grab a root beer and relish in the joy of drinking something that not only tastes great (not having to acquire a taste for) but did not result in a loss of my inhibitions. (Yes, I am well aware of the argument that sugar and soda are probably far worse than occasionally drinking).

Growing up I often pondered the reasons why people begin drinking: Peer pressure, wanting to fit in, the need to feel cool, etc. None of these things every pushed me in the direction of needing to drink.

<comment><USER22> > Upon drinking all the liquor I could find in the house, the room began to > spin and I didn't like the feeling of not being in control so I found the > nearest couch and passed out.

I don't know that evaluating drinking alcohol by getting hammered is really going to lead to a reasonable analysis. Most alcohol consumption is within reason.

> I often wonder if I am programmed differently than other people. Peer > pressure has never really had any effect on me. When people would try to > convince me to drink, I would grab a root beer and relish in the joy of > drinking something that not only tastes great (not having to acquire a taste > for) but did not result in a loss of my inhibitions.

It sounds like it has more of an effect on you than you realize, just in the opposite direction. You come across as feeling superior for your choice to not drink alcohol and instead "drink things that taste great" (implying that people drink alcoholic beverages despite disliking the taste) and that "don't result in a loss of inhibitions" (as if this is universally a bad thing). Honestly, it sounds like you started out with your conclusions (alcohol is bad/dumb/whatever) and went out in search of evidence supporting that conclusion ("drinking all the liquor I could find in the house").

People drink alcohol for a variety of reasons. Peer pressure, wanting to fit in, and feeling cool plays roughly zero part in it once you get past high school. People enjoy the flavor of cocktails, liquors, beer, wine, and other alcoholic beverages. People enjoy the "social lubricant" effect of moderate consumption. And yes, people think it's fun to get drunk (news flash: it is, at times!).

If you don't want to drink or don't enjoy drinking, good for you. Do your own thing. But damn do you come across as feeling better than others for making that choice.

<comment><USER21> > If you don't want to drink or don't enjoy drinking, good for you. Do your > own thing. But damn do you come across as feeling better than others for > making that choice.

While I won't argue your other points, I will push back a bit on the comment above. Since you seemed to gather so much from a sentence, let me ask you this, why do you care?

If you are going to go out of your way to make a personal attack when nowhere in my expressing MY THOUGHTS did I make an attack on anyone, then that is your prerogative. You make some wild accusations based on me explaining an experience that is personal to me. While I am not sorry you took what I said in a negative light, it does shed light on how you view yourself as a person and others who don't agree with your line of thinking.I wish you the best in you finding who you are.

(edit) Apparently, some of you don't like my comment. Let me clean it up a bit for those downvoters.

<comment><USER22> > Since you seemed to gather so much from a sentence, let me ask you this, why > do you care? If you are going to go out of your way to make a personal > attack when nowhere in my expressing MY THOUGHTS did I make an attack on > anyone, then that is your prerogative.

I don't care. And I didn't mean this to be a personal attack. Maybe you didn't mean it to come across the way I read it. Maybe you don't feel smugly superior to people who drink. But as written, your message came across (to me, and I'm guessing to those who upvoted me) the way I presented it.

At the very least, you grossly misrepresent the motives of people who drink as being primarily driven by peer pressure and a desire to conform. And your "experiment" of "drink everything in the house" comes across as misguided at best, and as chasing evidence in support of your preconceived notions at worst.

Given that, are you really so surprised that people took umbrage?

<comment><USER21> > people took umbrage?

People no. You, yes. Please don't speak for other people.

> you grossly misrepresent the motives of people who drink

I do? I offered my OPINION on why I believe people drink. What qualifies me to give such an opinion?

10+ years as a bartender (from dive bars to high-end restaurants - the last being Spiaggia in Chicago). During that time, I continued to further my understanding of why people drink. Asking clients and gaining deeper knowledge. Let me ask you...why did you start drinking? Yes, you can point out that after high school...blah, blah, blah. I am not speaking to the fact that those have a choice once they reach an age where they are less pressured into doing things they have less control over at a younger age. You seemed to have completely missed the point of the article and my commenting an experience where peer pressure has not affected me.

So yes, I would say I am qualified to make statements not only about my personal experiences (those of which NEVER supported a position for or against drinking). You seemed to have done that for me.

> "experiment" of "drink everything in the house" comes across as misguided at > best

Misguided at best? You are grasping at straws now.

> preconceived notions at worst

At worst? Let's put this into context.

Whether or not I develop an opinion before or after an experiment doesn't predict the outcome of that experiment. That is like saying because I heard about how bad heroin was growing up and tried it then...what exactly? What are you trying to say exactly? Because as far as I can tell, you are saying a whole lot without actually saying anything.

<comment><USER23> > 10+ years as a bartender

> Only drank once at 20, proceeded to get blackout drunk.

<comment><USER21> And?

<comment><USER24> You have touched on an exposed nerve, to eschew such a fundamental past-time for many. The lack of prosody in the comm allows readers to fill the void of inflection to match their expectations, don't take it personal. Just don't say 'I don't watch TV' or there may be pitchforks & ropes in your future.

<comment><USER23> Oh my god this is such a dumb reply. I was pointing out that it's pretty unbelievable that you would be a bartender for 10 years and only have had a drink (or in OP's case gotten blackout drunk) once in your life.

I would _hate_ to order a drink from someone like that. Follow a formula for a cocktail all you want, you should still know what it tastes like. It's like a patisserie chef who has only ever eaten one cannoli.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Makes me think airlines will soon start strategically placing "purchasers" throughout the plane in order to maximize the effect of this social pressure.

<comment><USER26> Giving up several hundreds in ticket revenue to make 1-2 people 30% more likely to buy a drink...

<comment><USER27> You could give people a free drink card before the flight. Problem solved.

<comment><USER28> I can't understand why this is being downvoted.

Declanomous is offering a hypothesis that improves on the original comment of giving away seats. While the impact of buying a drink vs. receiving a drink may differ, and the study only studied "buys", peer pressure works in other ways, too. One could argue that people drinking in the vicinity "pressures" or influences others to drink, so the solution Declanomous provided could 1) increase beverage revenue at low cost and 2) increase customer good will (the free drink recipient) at low cost.

In fact, Southwest may know this as they send out free drink coupons to frequent flyers.

<comment><USER27> Thanks for backing me up. My experience Southwest is actually what made me think of that. I used my free drink coupon on a flight recently. The person sitting across from me ended up changing their order to a alcoholic beverage as well. It works just as well as purchasing a drink in any case, because you order before you present the coupon.

I suggested a card, such as a gift card, because I suspect watching someone swipe a card has a larger effect than watching someone hand over a printed coupon. It would also work for those back-of-seat infotainment systems that allow you to swipe a card to buy something.

I work in marketing for a non-profit, and I spend a lot of time figuring out how to get people to tell other people they gave to us. I'm sure this is marketing 101. The funny thing is that I probably overthink marketing experiments. I love pouring over data like Gardete did, but most of the other marketing people I know would just use A|B testing. Even though their experimental design makes me shudder, it gets the job done. From the perspective of a middle manager, it doesn't really matter if you understand the solution as long as it works. I think understanding why allows you to build on your successes and failures, but that's a self-serving bias.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> In the airplane situation, I think it's worth stepping back to consider whether peer pressure is the simplest explanation. I think it's much more likely that people are just free-riding on others' mental effort of evaluating whether buying things on an airplane is worth it.

</comment><comment><USER30> Paul Graham wrote about this in an essay called Cities & Ambition: [http://paulgraham.com/cities.html](http://paulgraham.com/cities.html)

</comment><comment><USER31> The SAT Prep example was more interesting to me.

The whole article was frustratingly brief, but I guess that's what the market is calling for these days. Or is it just the influencers?

</comment><comment><USER32> People sitting next to each other are more likely a group and going to perform the same action because of this. Two people decide to watch a movie together or two people decide to get lunch on the plane rather than before getting on.

They need to control for tickets bought together.

</comment><comment><USER18> Headline says control, numbers and article conclusion say influence. My skepticism says when someone attempts to reproduce this, it may just vanish. My cynicism says the post is preparing this as an excuse for trump winning.

<comment><USER7> There are connotations of "control" that make it a flashier, more imprecise, more clickbaity way to say influence. Specifically, having some degree of control less than total control over one's behavior means roughly the same thing as having influence.

<comment><USER18> If you have to explain away the meaning of something by using an order of magnitude more words, you're bullshitting

<comment><USER7> That is truly one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Part of explaining something someone doesn't understand is making context explicit, context that is unstated and shared by those who do understand. Rules like yours that sound cute but make no sense are a poor, poor substitute for actual thought.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Now that the headline is changed from the click-bait attempt at reducing individual responsibility for actions, I'm struck by just how insidiously pervasive these attempts seem to be. One could make a slightly paranoid case that it is a left-leaning goal to convince people that the aren't in charge of themselves anyway, so just let mama gov't take over.

<comment><USER33> It's almost as if the end-game is a docile/subdued populace who is so unsure of themselves that they'll welcome basic income/restricted speech/gun control with open arms.

Sounds like a right wing conspiracy to me :)

<comment><USER18> More like observation that political types like to maintain control by aiming people at ideals they can never achieve.

<comment><USER33> ok.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Stardew Valley's Single Developer Has Made Over $30M - <AUTHOR> http://www.gamerevolution.com/features/13384-stardew-valleys-single-developer-has-made-over-30-million#/slide/1 <comment><AUTHOR> I've heard that this is a great game, but I've never played it.

From the Wikipedia page [1]:

> Stardew Valley was created by American indie game designer Eric Barone, > under the alias of ConcernedApe. In 2011, Barone had graduated from the > University of Washington Tacoma with a computer science degree, but had not > been able to get a job in the industry, instead working as an usher at the > Paramount Theatre in Seattle.

What an impressive accomplishment for a solo programmer!

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stardew_Valley](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stardew_Valley)</comment>


Malware figures out it's running on VMs and refuses to execute - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/09/23/new_antivirus_trick_dont_write_reports/ <comment><USER2> Wtf. This has existed since forever. Don't people in these large publications even Google before publishing something</comment>


The End of More – The Death of Moore's Law - <AUTHOR> https://steveblank.com/2018/09/12/the-end-of-more-the-death-of-moores-law/ <comment><USER2> I hear 3D circuits being touted as the next frontier:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three- dimensional_integrated_c...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three- dimensional_integrated_circuit#Challenges)

Heat dissipation becomes a major challenge there though.

What other emerging technologies could help us restart Moore's Law?

Or is this truly the end of the line?

</comment><comment><USER3> I am proud to say I lived through peak Moore's law</comment>


Facebook Announces Apollo, a New NoSQL Database for On-line Low Latency Storage - <AUTHOR> http://www.infoq.com/news/2014/06/facebook-apollo <comment> dj-wonk "Currently, Apollo is developed internally at Facebook. No firm claims were made during the talk that it will be opensourced. It was mentioned as a possibility after internal development settles down." from [http://java.dzone.com/articles/facebook-announces-apollo- qco...](http://java.dzone.com/articles/facebook-announces-apollo-qcon)

<comment> dj-wonk HN readers, what do you think are Facebook's motivations for announcing Apollo at this point?

<comment><USER2> I'd guess that the engineers who are building it think it's cool and want to talk about it. Facebook seems to be generally open about their internal systems, presumably because they don't see it as their competitive advantage (unlike, say, Google).

<comment><USER3> Google talks a fair bit about their internal systems at this level of "descriptions but not code" \- Bigtable, MapReduce, Spanner, Flume, Chubby, and more have been influential.

<comment><USER4> In fact, they do more than just talk: they often publish papers describing how they work. The open source community has since recreated a lot of them, which has proven useful to a lot of people (e.g. HBase, Hadoop, Apache Crunch, etc.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> One of their supported storage primitives is CRDT-based, according to [1]. I, for one, am really interested to see how this works in practice. I've been quite excited about CRDTs, but haven't seen enough examples of them in the wild to get a sense of their drawbacks — for instance, how difficult it is to use them to model various processes or data structures.

[1] [https://twitter.com/adrianco/status/476843040330743809](https://twitter.com/adrianco/status/476843040330743809)

<comment><USER6> Do you know of a resource for learning the basics CRDTs that doesn't require a PHD?

<comment><USER7> The name is intimidating, but the operations are simple.

Basically, your storage has container types ("T"). A list, a set, a dictionary, etc. Container types can be split and added together in a distributed fashion ("R" and "D").

The "C" in CRDT stands for "Convergent and Commutative" to imply your distributed operations can obtain the same value when merged.

Quick example: If you have a node with a key pointing to value (set) [a, b, c] and another node with the same key but different value [c, e, f], then when the nodes communicate, they can do a set union for the actual result of [a, b, c, e, f]. Keys can keep a running log of recent operations to clean up the global result too (like: [c, e, (recently deleted f)], so on merge, if the other list has f, it would be deleted instead of re-added).

Before CRDTs were a thing, Bob made state box and it's very easy to understand. Give the README a read to understand more basics: [https://github.com/mochi/statebox](https://github.com/mochi/statebox)

<comment><USER6> That's helpful, thanks (I've downloaded some crdt videos to watch in the meantime).

At the surface they sound like something vaguely resembling an abelian group (+/\- inverses), but the conflict resolution stuff is the heart of it I'd guess.

<comment><USER5> Yes, from my (limited but growing) understanding of it, they are indeed similar to abelian groups.

<comment><USER8> CRDTs are, in the basic case, a idempotent commutative monoid, aka an idempotent abelian monoid.

If this floats your boat, here's me on CRDTs: [https://skillsmatter.com/skillscasts/5301-convergent- replica...](https://skillsmatter.com/skillscasts/5301-convergent-replicated- data-types)

<comment><USER9> I don't think you understand the word basic...

CRDTs wont have mainstream success until people stop using the words 'monoid' and 'abelian' etc.

Most programmers aren't required to learn this kind of math in a CS degree, AND furthermore, many programmers dont have a CS degree/forgot it.

So the question is, are CRDTs a useful technique for all developers, or just a way for a minute few to demonstrate their ability to sling around math words?

<comment><USER8> Did you read the thread? The parents were using terms from abstract algebra, so I replied using the same language.

In another context I would have avoided those terms and perhaps used an explanation like this: [http://noelwelsh.com/programming/2013/12/20/crdts-for- fun-an...](http://noelwelsh.com/programming/2013/12/20/crdts-for-fun-and- eventual-profit/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > Apollo, Facebook's Paxos-like NoSQL database ...

> supports anything from a minimum of three servers to thousands

Sorry, you don't run Paxos on thousands of servers. Typical Paxos cluster sizes are 5-7. The algorithm would never converge if you did run it on thousands of servers.

<comment><USER11> Well, I wouldn't judge the software on the basis of the article. The words "Paxos-like database" are enough of a tip-off that it's not exactly going for rigorous technical accuracy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> "is on-line low latency storage - in particular Flash and in-memory." "As distinct from a document oriented, or key value store, Apollo is about modifications to data structures, allowing you to represent maps, queues, trees and so on, as well as key values. "

Sounds like Redis?

<comment><USER13> With flash support though, presumably for larger than fits in memory, rather than just as a persistent store, based on the fact it uses leveldb.</comment></comment>


GNUPanel 2.0 - The FREE alternative for CPanel - <AUTHOR> http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/gnupanel-2-0-the-free-alternative-for-cpanel

<comment><USER2> I'd say this is a fantastic idea if they used something other than PHP, but that's personal preference I guess.</comment>


Germany to abandon nuclear power by 2022 - <AUTHOR> http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-05-30-germany-nuclear-power_n.htm

<comment><USER2> After they abandoned nuclear power, they purchase energy from France, which are created by nuclear power.

</comment><comment> the-kenny The government here (I come from Germany) wants to keep one nuclear power plant active if the power use spikes unexpected - they hold a loophole open.

I personally don't believe this story until the last plant is dismantled. The government promised to abandon nuclear power years ago, just to break this promise some years later.

</comment><comment><USER3> In the early 2000 they planned to abandon nuclear power by 2016 [1]

[1] [http://www.berlinonline.de/berliner- zeitung/archiv/.bin/dump...](http://www.berlinonline.de/berliner- zeitung/archiv/.bin/dump.fcgi/1999/1116/seite1/0043/index.html)

</comment><comment><USER4> And replace it with?

<comment><USER5> "Green" energy. Whatever that may be, is as of yet not entirely clear.

But for certain is that Germany will start investing, even more then now already, in decentralised "small scale" power-generation. Such as wind, solar, heat, CHP (often nat-gas-fueled) and so on.

Germany and Denmark already "own" most knowledge and techniques for development and maintainance of wind- and solar-power. As of now, this is a serious and highly profitable business in .de and .dk. For example, in .nl (Where I am from) we buy all our windmills (and parts and knowledge) from Germany.

Whether it is a populist, bad argumented decision or not, Germanies economy is going to benefit from this shift big time.

<comment><USER6> Germany is definitely a leading European player in solar, I wouldn't be at all surprised if that was true for wind too.

A key factor here is the availability of feed-in tariffs via the Renewable Energy Sources Act which has been a big incentive for the development, manufacture and deployment of renewables.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed- in_tariff#Germany.27s_Rene...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed- in_tariff#Germany.27s_Renewable_Energy_Sources_Act)

<comment><USER7> Well, along with the stop to nuclear power, a further decrease of the subsidies for solar technology was decided. Granted, this is mostly about private households putting solar panels on their rooftops, which doesn't have a huge impact on the national energy supply anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> tin hats all around!

<comment><USER7> Well, in any way it will be imported tin foil hats. What little is left of the aluminum industry in Germany will leave, as they're heavily dependent on energy costs.</comment></comment>


The Bro Factor - Intimate Relationships Can Give Your Startup An Unfair Advantage - <AUTHOR> http://www.infochachkie.com/bro-factor/ Doing well by being nice... <comment><USER2> I see this blog on here every so often and as soon as I get to the word 'adVenture' I just stop reading.

<comment><USER3> I was going to post the same thing. Its kind of like naming a dog. What might sound cute and witty once can get silly fast.

Before naming your dog always say the intended name out loud 50 times in a row. It might help to tape yourself and listen to it.

Apply the same rule for made up names in your blog.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Give me bullet points or give me death.

</comment><comment><USER5> That's a uniquely bad article.</comment>


How Facebook's fbFund rejects wantrepreneurs - <AUTHOR> http://valleywag.com/350181/how-facebooks-fbfund-rejects-wantrepreneurs <comment><USER2> Developing for facebook is turning into its own private dot bomb folly.

I reserve the right to laugh at any of you who think otherwise.

</comment><comment><USER3> Facebook Applications are a hole.</comment>


French cyber-spooks claim US spied on the President of France - <AUTHOR> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/nicolas-sarkozy/9694378/US-spied-on-Nicolas-Sarkozy-presidency.html

<comment><USER2> The article claims that it can "even suck information from Bluetooth-enabled phones nearby." Is this even still possible?

<comment><AUTHOR> Anything's possible when you have billions of dollars and an army of scientists.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Nice to see all that "cyber-threats" budget money is being spent on _defense_ , and on building better relationships with US' allies.</comment>


Planjure: A* and Dijkstra's in Om - <AUTHOR> http://elbenshira.com/blog/planjure-astar-and-dijkstras-in-om/

<comment><USER2> I read this as A* and Dijkstra's in O(m) and was expecting something very different.

<comment><USER3> I thought Om was a little-known language, possible something new and homebrewed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Dijkstra's algorithm finds the shortest path in any graph. My guess is that its simplicity and universality is why it's being commonly "misused" on maps, where the "graph" is intrinsic.

Even such a simple rule as the triangle inequality, if it holds, improves Dijkstra's considerably[0].

[0] [http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=169575&seqNu...](http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=169575&seqNum=6)

<comment><USER5> A "map" is a graph.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Looks cool. I've always liked the detailed introduction to A* and comparison to other methods: [http://www.redblobgames.com/pathfinding/a-star/introduction....](http://www.redblobgames.com/pathfinding/a-star/introduction.html)</comment>


Automatic Placeholder Images from Flickr - <AUTHOR> http://flickholdr.com/

<comment><USER2> Interesting. Do you use only creative-commons-licensed material or do the terms of Flickr's "copyright" license actually allow this use?

It seems to me that embedding an image on another site, even with a copyright notice, would be reproducing the image and not allowed under the normal terms of a copyright license.

Sorry to be a party pooper, but just ignoring legal issues around reproducing other people's content (some of whom make a living from selling it) isn't going to make it go away.

 _Edit_ : to answer my own question, the images are only Creative Commons attribution-licensed photos. From the 'about' page:

> The photos are pulled from flickr using its search api, searching only > creative commons material, and watermarking them with the name of the > author, to be in accordance with the creative commons licences, which all > require attribution

<comment><AUTHOR> This isn't my project - I just found the site. Even though these images aren't meant for live sites, it's good to see that the images have proper attribution.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I tried two quick examples in the browser for a little test. Thinking in terms on banal clipart I use the tag "happy" and I get back a very nicely shot photo of two attractive people making out in a doorway. Hmmm. Then I try "friends" thinking I'll get something a little more office appropriate and I get a nicely cropped image of two young ladies in bikinis frolicking on a beach.

Nothing R rated or tasteless, just not the kind of thing I want to explain to my boss who's looking over my shoulder. Think I'll be sticking with <http://placekitten.com/> then...

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting... playing around with similar tags and some offsets, I got those results as well as some irrelevant images (aurora borealis for "friend"). Definitely a concern when you need the placeholders to be at least somewhat relevant. Personally, I have no problem with using <http://placehold.it/>

<comment><USER4> Yes, this is often a problem, as people on flickr will tag their photos rather loosely...

Try and be a bit more specific in your tags, putting several separated by commas.

<http://flickholdr.com/250/185/happy,office> for example, might be more appropriate.

Disclaimer: I'm the developper behind flickholdr</comment></comment></comment>