Elon Musk reopening Tesla factory despite Alameda County order - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1259945593805221891 <comment><USER3> The reasons for not restarting production seem to be dogmatic and not evidence driven. Tesla is running the factory at a 30-40% capacity, and the Fremont factory has 5.3 million square feet of manufacturing and office space. Tesla claims their plan will ensure 6 ft of distance for every employee, and PPE and masks are provided and mandatory. Even the HVAC is changed to optimise for fresh air turnover and filters are changed on a regular basis.

Tesla's full list is available here: [https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/blog_attachments/T...](https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/blog_attachments/Tesla- Return-to-Work-Playbook.pdf)

A Tesla factory is a much safer place to be than a Home Depot or a Costco, and many other businesses open in California today. We aren't talking about sporting events here: we're talking about some of the lowest risk and unavoidable interactions.

Carmakers are also defined as a COVID19 critical industry, and every other carmaker manufacturing in the United States is either open, or capable of open today. This puts Tesla at a serious disadvantage.

This is locking down for the sake of locking down, not an evidence-first safety driven approach. That is something I cannot support.

<comment><USER4> > _This is locking down for the sake of locking down, not an evidence-first > safety driven approach. That is something I cannot support._

"Support" is a bit of an overloaded word. I do agree with you that I do not support a government policy that isn't evidence-driven. But I do support the _ability_ of the government to set policy without convincing every one of its constituents of the validity of its evidence.

As a simple analogy, perhaps the speed limits for highways in my state are capped at 60 mph, but there's evidence that the roads can safely accommodate drivers at 70 mph, they're well-maintained, they are built to appropriate safety standards, etc. I wouldn't support the government keeping the speed limit at 60 mph based on flimsy evidence. But I also wouldn't object to the government enforcing the speed limit as it is - because the end result of saying that every driver has the right to make their own private judgment of whether the speed limit laws are validly reasoned is that there is no speed limit anymore.

<comment><USER5> You must also take into account the history of intentional civil disobedience where the government has over reached and the population simply reaches the point where it refuses to comply.

Prohibition is obviously a prime example of this, but if you consider various laws that once existed or are currently on the books but no longer enforced (think laws pertaining to racial segregation, sexuality, drug use, and such) you realize that being a law abiding citizen does not mean you are no longer allowed to think for yourself. Read up on "Jury Nullification" or "Jury Equity".

<comment><USER6> Civil disobedience typically involved still getting punished as a matter of protest to change public opinion. If Elon Musk is doing this as civil disobedience, he is using the resources of Tesla and the forced compliance of his workers in order to make a political statement. I don't really see that as better.

Instead, it seems that Musk is doing this just because he thinks he can get away with it, or because he is simply angry with the elected officials of his county. In such a situation, Tesla and Elon Musk should rightfully be punished for their actions.

<comment><USER7> To be fair, Musk's tweet especially says if anyone is to be arrested for this, it should be him.

> _to make a political statement._

I see it as more a business decision, and only secondarily a political statement.

<comment><USER8> > To be fair, Musk's tweet especially says if anyone is to be arrested for > this, it should be him

To be fair, you can't both commit a crime and pay other people to commit crimes and get them out of the legal consequences by tweeting that you are the only one who should be arrested.

<comment><USER9> Not sure about the rules in the US out that country. But it's it really a _crime_ to go to work? Especially some national law and state law seem to allow it. Just the county's burocrats seem to prohibit it.

<comment><USER8> > But it's it really a crime to go to work?

Yes.

> Especially some national law and state law seem to allow it

State law makes it a crime to violate orders of county public health officers for the control of communicable disease.

<comment><USER10> the crime here is county officials engaging in literal economic repression. It's not a matter of when the government orders whatever is says this week.

The fact of the matter is that if a business feels it's time to reopen, it should do so, cautiously of course.

Neither the employees or customers are forced to go. They have a right to refuse. They don't have a right to dictate what others decide to do with their business

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I actually agree with some of what Elon is saying around COVID - it is probably reasonable for the Tesla factory to open up partially this week, and shelter in place has gone on for too long without any proper justification in many areas. But his reasoning and actions surrounding this are completely insane. He spreads conspiracy theories about hospitals overcounting cases for profit, says that COVID is just like the flu, predicted no cases by the end of April, and then does this and opens up without approval, violating the law.

His fans seem to think he is some kind of genius, but based on what he has said about COVID he doesn't really seem that smart, or at least not well informed at all. Just by looking at the deaths year over year, it is clear that if anything, COVID cases are undercounted. And his claims that the shutdown of his factory are illegal are blatantly false. I don't know if he just doesn't know what he is talking about, or if he does and is just saying all this stuff for his personal gain. I suspect the former, but idk. This seems like a somewhat common pattern, where very successful and seemingly intelligent people have a few very obviously incorrect beliefs (ex. Steve Jobs and his fruit diet). Maybe they assume that success in one area implies knowledge in unrelated areas (I know I am guilty of this myself sometimes).

<comment><USER12> You can hate or love Elon, it has no effect on the law. What he's doing is lawful. Executive orders that deprive natural rights are unconstitutional and thus illegal.

The entire concept of natural rights like the Bill of Rights means they pre- existed the government and society. You can only deprive a person of these rights through some lawful process. Society is still functioning; we're not in martial law. Yes people should willingly comply but you can't force them to.

<comment><USER13> Nothing you are saying is legally correct. These issues can only be decided through litigation, which has not occurred.

<comment><USER14> They don't need to be legally correct if the voters believe it. That's the point. The state governments and the federal ones exist in so far as the populace decides they are legitimate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> So Musk tweeted "If anyone is arrested, I ask that it only be me," but that really doesn't seem reasonable (and is super arrogant). If I pressure some friends into committing a crime, they are still culpable. Assuming wikipedia's accurate [0], duress is only a valid excuse if someone's threatening you with serious bodily harm or death.

'I would like you all to commit crimes, and I ask the government to not hold you responsible,' is so arrogant. He doesn't get to dictate how the law works.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duress_in_American_law#Require...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duress_in_American_law#Requirements)

<comment><USER16> If your life and wellbeing are dependent on your job, he might as well be threatening them.

<comment><USER17> the jobs ends if you can't open. the job ends if you refuse to go to work too. same result either way, which is why many of these businesses are not as awful as they seem.

<comment><USER18> Tesla is not going to have to permanently close that plant due to a few months of shutdown. That is like saying if the Bay Area had another 1989 magnitude earthquake, Tesla would go out of business.

Tesla is not even reasonably similar to many businesses that are truly at risk of never opening again. And to make this comparison is insulting to the hardworking business owners and employees that are in industries that will see massive amounts of bankruptcies in the coming year.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> > The chief executive announced the plans on Twitter Monday: "I will be on the > line with everyone else," he wrote. "If anyone is arrested, I ask that it > only be me."

Translation: my employees now must weigh the consequences of losing their jobs on the one hand vs. being arrested on the other.

What guarantees, if any, has Tesla has given its employees in the event of prosecution and or other consequences of violating state law?

<comment><USER20> and catching a potentially fatal illness on the third hand. Yeah the risk is probably small now, but it is still a risk.

<comment><USER21> Is it going to stop being a risk in a few weeks? I'm sure we can agree that a ban on auto manufacturing is unsustainable.

<comment><USER22> Why not?

A lot of people aren't putting many miles on their vehicles while all this is going on.

A lockdown that keeps Tesla closed is going to reduce demand for new cars for related reasons.

<comment><USER21> Driving is only down about a third from pre-pandemic levels.

But more broadly, we can't centrally plan which things people do or don't need over the long term. It just isn't an effective economic strategy.

<comment><USER23> But this isn't long term. A few months is a far cry for long term.

<comment><USER21> It seems even more implausible that the risk will be less in a few months than in a few weeks. What's going to change?

<comment><USER24> We'll most likely have contact tracing and a good supply of tests in two months. As well as lot more ppe.

So a lot will be different in two months.

<comment><USER21> Alameda County already has contact tracing, a lot of tests, and sufficient PPE for ongoing needs. (They admittedly don't meet the state standards that every hospital should have a 30 day stockpile.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Perhaps Tesla can reopen safely - if Amazon can run warehouses why shouldn't they be able to manufacture cars?

The issue I personally have is that his personal comments, from twitter and from interview (Rogan) suggests that he is questioning how serious Covid is in general and that people have the right to do live how they choose with little regard for how that may affect those around them. He claims that patients with covid like symptoms, but without an official diagnosis, are being counted as covid patients, implying that they shouldn't be (not true - most are designated under investigation until results are available or, in the early days, there simply weren't enough tests available). Or that if one has covid, but also has another medical condition that was the cause of death, it should not be attributed to covid (again wrong, in many cases chronic conditions are controlled, until the virus wrecks havoc on the body).

Why would he be doing this? Because by questioning the seriousness of it, a push can be made to open the economy at large, which in many places and environments is still not safe. After all, what is the point of manufacturing Tesla's if there aren't enough people there to buy them?

<comment><USER26> > Perhaps Tesla can reopen safely - if Amazon can run warehouses why shouldn't > they be able to manufacture cars?

I think it more has to do with the necessity of the service versus the risk undertaken. I don't think anyone is suggesting that a grocery store worker is at less risk than a Tesla factory worker - the suggestion is that perhaps people need the grocery store more than they need a new Model 3.

<comment><USER27> There's construction going on next door to my apartment building in Brooklyn, an area code where 50%+ are testing positive for covid antibodies. There's no reason that would be safer than an auto plant, if anything it is less so.

<comment><USER28> Hence the "necessity" component that is weighed against it. Building additional housing, especially in expensive cities such as NYC, is considered extremely necessary by society.

<comment><USER29> Some amazing question begging happening here. Value is subjective.

<comment><USER26> Not what it means to beg the question.

<comment><USER30> Please explain your understanding.

My understanding is to assume the premise you are trying to prove in the act of proving it.

The one being accused of begging the question said construction is a necessary activity because society says it is necessary. But that doesn't mean it is necessary, which is what the law would seem to require.

<comment><USER26> The conclusion was that just because being a Tesla worker and being a construction worker are roughly equally safe doesn't mean that both automatically should re-open.

Construction being more valuable for society than a Model 3 was part of the premise.

You took them to mean "Construction is more valuable for society -> Construction is more valuable for society" but that was not the claim.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> How should an employee react in this situation?

Your boss tells you to come to work, and the govt is saying your workplace should be closed.

Can you fire someone for refusing to report when the county is supposed to be closed?

What an awful spot to put your employees in. If you come in, you might get arrested, if you don't, you might get fired.

<comment><USER32> Tesla has said that employees that feel uncomfortable can stay at home, but that will be unpaid.

<comment><USER33> That doesn't sound like it would allow the employee to even apply for unemployment.... dirty.

<comment><USER34> Is it not exactly the same whether the factory is closed or not? If you are listed as an employee you're not getting the unemployment.

<comment><USER35> Voluntary vs involuntary.

You get unemployment if you're involuntarily out of work (laid off/furloughed/reduced hours). If you voluntarily chose not to work when offered, or at fault for termination, you're typically disqualified from unemployment.

<comment><USER36> "Typically" might be correct. Our nation's Covid-19 unemployment response is not typical.

All of my employees have been given the option to work, or be furloughed. Their decision. Two have chosen to stay home for their own personal reasons. They are on state unemployement and also collecting that weekly check from the fed. It's up to the fed when they stop doing that, but these people know we will work with them if/when that goes away.

Don't give Elon the benefit of the doubt for most things, but I think he's right on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> The threads on this so far:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23145592](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23145592)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23130674](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23130674)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23129942](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23129942)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23129216](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23129216)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23127552](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23127552)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23126517](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23126517)

<comment><USER38> I often notice you listing other (dup?) threads on a broader topic. Is it just an informative exercise as in - "people, check out these too", or more like something frustrating - "why start so many threads!"?

<comment><USER37> 100% the former. And yet it often comes across as the latter. I'm still looking for a brief way to express this that's clear. Sometimes I disambiguate like this: [https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...](https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20%22for%20the%20curious%22&sort=byDate&type=comment).

I wonder if "from the archives" would be clearer?

<comment><USER39> "See also" (from the legal blue book) seems like a natural indicator. As applied here it could be as simple as:

<<

See also:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23145592](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23145592)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23130674](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23130674)

...

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23126517](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23126517)

>>

The links already indicate that the pointers are to previous Hacker News threads, so no need to specify that part. If you want to use you "from the archives" language it could be something like "see also from the archives"

<comment><USER37> "See also" is nice and short. I'll try that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> It's frustrating there are no real details on this. From one article:

> _Alameda County officials said they were "communicating directly and working > closely with the Tesla team on the ground in Fremont" in a "collaborative, > good faith effort to develop and implement a safety plan" to reopen while > protecting workers' health. Meanwhile, Tesla sued the county, claiming it > had no legal right to shut down the plant... Alameda County says it is > expecting Tesla to submit its safety plan for approval, and that until that > approval the company cannot resume normal production._ [1]

On the one hand, at face value (and based on his previous words/actions), it appears like Elon's being uncooperative for the sake of it -- that he could have reopened anyways if he'd just chosen to work together with the county, instead of demanding his own way based on the principle of the thing. His stubborness is just a terrible way to do business.

On the other hand, we also don't know if the county was demanding unreasonable things, delaying re-opening as payback for Elon's previous tempertantrums (or other reasons), or why it's not just "going along" with the more general state-wide opening. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any reporting whatsoever at that level of nuance.

[1] [https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live- updates/2020/0...](https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live- updates/2020/05/11/854217730/elon-musk-reopens-california-tesla-plant-defying- local-health-officials-again)

</comment><comment><USER41> The county just released some statement that basically sounded like they wouldn't take enforcement action [https://twitter.com/acsosheriffs/status/1259974251286683648?...](https://twitter.com/acsosheriffs/status/1259974251286683648?s=21)

<comment><USER42> "we hope that Tesla will likewise comply without further enforcement actions"

To me, this suggests the opposite. They haven't enforced anything yet, but they still might

<comment><USER43> Yeah, to me that sounds like they are insinuating that consequences may happen if their hope goes unfulfilled.

<comment><USER44> Their "phased approach" is a very long process that will likely extend into the period whereby everything reopens.

It is essentially the same as doing nothing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Just curious if there are folks in countries outside of the US or maybe even little Internet backwaters within the US that observe a public discourse that is even slightly more nuanced than the shrieking ideological standoff we seem to have here in the states? For example, people publicly admitting that policy makers have difficult decisions in front of them, that both the health impact AND economic impact are crucial to consider, and maybe even collaborative, if lay, efforts to create a framework for resuming normalcy?

<comment><USER46> As an outsider, the weirdest thing to me is that different counties can have their own rules. That different states might have their own rules is understandable, kind-of, but at the county level? It seems like a very haphazard approach to an emergency.

<comment><USER47> Musk's legal argument is just that: that Alameda County has no authority to override California state rules.

<comment><USER48> Except it does, according to the governor of California.

> California Governor Gavin Newsom said Thursday that state-level guidance > allowing manufacturing to resume some production didn't supersede county- > level restrictions. The company had unsucessfully tried to argue that > Tesla's production should be considered critical infrastructure.[1]

Musk is talking out his ass and undermining public safety. If this is also how he approaches product design I don't think I ever want to get into a Tesla again.

[1] [https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/9/21253127/elon-musk- lawsuit...](https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/9/21253127/elon-musk-lawsuit- alameda-coronavirus-tesla-fremont-lockdown)

<comment><USER49> I'd wait until the court decides to say who is talking out of whose ass, Gavin Newsom is known for just that.

Gavin Newsom really is Gavin Belson...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> What is he gaining through acting like this? The county was on track to allow them to reopen on May 18, is an extra week of production really so important?

<comment><USER51> It is worth noting he just had a baby a few days ago.

It may seem insane, but sudden parenthood can lead to weird behavior. All his recent Twitter insanity began right around the birth.

<comment><USER52> So he's just trying to get away from a newborn baby?

<comment><USER53> Or lack of sleep, parental panic, etc

<comment><USER54> it's his 6th kid. He should know how to deal with that by now.

<comment><USER48> You think by the 6th one you'd figure out some names that don't make you look like a jackass as a parent.

<comment><USER52> Had to look up to see what you were talking about.

Just wow!!

I think he has become a victim of his own success. I just hope he is seeing a good shrink.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Courts generally don't take kindly to this sort of thing. And Tesla probably needs a business license to operate. Musk expects Alameda County and the State of CA to support his profits over common sense, caution, and the rule of law; but Tesla isn't even a drop in the bucket compared to the size of the California economy. He may be noisy, but he's not as important as he seems to think.

<comment><USER56> Agreed. But a reminder that if tesla leaves it follows a long list of very large companies that have left California in the past few years, Bechtel, Toyota US, Chevron, Carls Jr, Jamba Juice, Numira Bio, Nestle US, Jacobs Engineering etc..

<comment><USER40> That's no indictment of California, though.

As companies become larger and more profitable, as a general rule they move as much of their workforce as possible to lower-wage locations, whether less expensive states or less expensive countries.

Business in California is _booming_ , which is precisely what drives wages up. Companies leaving allows other new vibrant businesses to hire the old workers.

The state isn't losing out at all. Compared with other countries, California by itself would have the 5th highest GDP in the world. It's a roaring success.

<comment><USER57> That's an interesting take on things.

I would say that California has a strong economy _in spite_ of it's government. Not because of it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> > "We are addressing this matter using the same phased approach we use for > other businesses which have violated the order in the past, and we hope that > Tesla will likewise comply without further enforcement measures."

Looks like yet again, Elon Musk will get special treatment. Small restaurants in Sutter and Yuba county were threatened with revocation of their liquor licenses for opening contrary to health regulations[1]. Yet Musk violates those regulations and the local officials express 'hope' that he will follow the rules?

Laws once again are for little people.

[1] [https://la.eater.com/2020/5/7/21250785/california- restaurant...](https://la.eater.com/2020/5/7/21250785/california-restaurants- alcohol-license-revoke-coronavirus-dining-room-closures)

</comment><comment><USER59> Suppose there is an outbreak at the Tesla plant as there has been at that Smithfield plant in Sioux Falls or the Tyson plant in Wilkesboro? What happens next?

</comment><comment><USER60> Elon's tweet[1]:

"Tesla is restarting production today against Alameda County rules. I will be on the line with everyone else. If anyone is arrested, I ask that it only be me."

[1] [https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1259945593805221891](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1259945593805221891)

</comment><comment><USER61> Good for him. Health officials always picking the course with the ultimate amount of caution possible at any cost seems to be winning quite a bit and it's nice to see some push back. When Governor Cuomo says you can't put a price on a life he is 100% incorrect, that's not how the world works. The economic cost of the shelter in place is expected to be worth it for about 12 weeks only according to NPR Marketplace and Bloomberg. Hopefully, it will soon be time that we get back to work. At least those of us who want to, or even better those of us who need to so we can feed our families.

<comment><USER62> Maybe Elon will feel the economic cost of endangering public health by being fined.

<comment><USER61> For doing what he's already doing in another California county?

<comment><USER62> Yes

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> I don't think much is gained from chronicling every episode in the saga of Musk's opposition to the quarantine. There always seem to be bitter flame wars in the comments section, and I don't think there's anything "deeply interesting" about Musk's week long rebellion.

<comment><USER64> What's interesting to me is the market reaction: TSLA is close to all time highs. It seems to me like retail investors like the disobedience done by Elon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> Given the Musk hate spiking up over how he seems to be going a bit off the rails this is a pretty easy sell to get on the hate train for him doing this.

At the same time, I know people in California who are building up debt they'll have to repay while not being allowed to work. That companies aren't paying them and for various reasons unemployment aren't an option. It's not much better in my state.

The biggest factor in if I would agree with Musk on this is if Tesla has been singled out. I'm a bit out of the loop on my ability to cross reference things here, but are there any other Automakers in Alameda county? Are they shut down as well? If no to either of those then I can see why it does seem like government overreach.

I say this as someone with preexisting conditions who is still working during the outbreak and has been deemed essential by Local, State, and Federal. I also say it as someone who works at a job site that had similar "Bring your own PPE" rules, and only put them in place last week despite us working non stop.

We've had around a dozen people in my office with scares who were tested, nobody has come back positive yet, at least by what is claimed. From my perspective, if that's true, it is possible to work safely. From reading other comments on the plans Tesla has it sounds like Musk will do more than my work about this...

</comment><comment><USER66> Tesla is putting their own employees in danger of being arrested. This is completely immoral behavior.

<comment><USER67> A company doesn't have a moral responsibility for its employees. You either work for crazy ass corp X or you don't. Morality is the government's job.

<comment><USER68> > Morality is the government's job.

[https://i.imgur.com/ztaZbMZ.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/ztaZbMZ.jpg)

^ That's where that line of thought leads.

<comment><USER67> It's certainly not the job of _corporations_ to save us, which is what I was getting at. Corps were around when Hitler rose to power, too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> As an advocate for science, I'm fine with this. They're going above and beyond to protect workers vs Home Depot or other "necessary" businesses. There needs to be scientific, evidenced-based approach, not some "Obey" approach

</comment><comment><USER70> HN usually acts like an old, intellectual, know-it-all-seen-it-all programmer grandpa that somehow knows all that the fields of computer science and philosophy have to offer. But this thread show what it actually is. A glorified reddit.

</comment><comment><USER71> Would Tesla (or its insurers) be subject to civil liability if their employees are injured/killed as a result of COVID-19 contracted due to the order defiance?

</comment><comment><USER72> I would assume that this increases legal liability in a pretty severe way. It's still unclear what kind of liability employers might face if employees get sick on the job, but surely opening open in direct defiance to a county order makes the situation much, much worse.

</comment><comment><USER73> This is a brilliant move on Musk's part to ingratiate himself with the Dodge Ram crowd and sell more Cybertrucks in the red states. Well played, sir. Well played.

<comment><USER74> Pretty much the only reasonable explanation here. His twitter mentions are full of conservative types showering praise at him. I think its brilliantly cynical

<comment><USER75> Hes a classical liberal not one of the SQJ liberal so he's saying things a Joe Rogan or Jon Stewart would say. Both of which have be said to be conservative but arent

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> Good. California's lockdown is indefensible in light of new antibody evidence and ongoing economic carnage.

Prediction: nobody gets arrested and production continues. Continued panic about the virus is driven largely by clickbait media and social media. These forces seem terrifying due to their volume and ability to cancel random individuals, but they wither in the fact of real threats to livelihoods. Sometimes, all that's needed to defeat a bully is standing up to him and saying "no".

If California arrests Musk, it'll be the starkest example yet of the state punishing ambition and success while rewarding fear and mediocrity.

<comment><USER77> Or, you know. Breaking the law.

<comment><USER78> I wonder in what other contexts are you just a rules follower, and "law and order type"

Do you believe the law is 100% correct and just all of the time, and that is never proper to challenge said laws...

some times "breaking the law" is necessary for society to advance

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER79> I would have no problem with Elon deciding to launch himself with a rocket, but I'm worried about workers who don't have an option and are doing it because they have to. The only thing I can think of to offset this risk is that Elon commits to pay $1M or a lifelong salary to the dependents of any worker that does catch the Covid-19 due to working during these times and dies (or infects their at-home relative who die) and lifelong health insurance should tey fall sick and be unable to work.

</comment><comment><USER80> Governor Newsom is in the process of lifting shelter in place. Manufacturing is one thing that should be opening up. [https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-05-04/californ...](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-05-04/california- reopening-coronavirus-gavin-newsom-phases-begin-retail-pickup)

</comment><comment><USER81> People seem to be ignoring that the forced shutdown was based on models that have proven completely and utterly wrong. The actual data turned out to be several times better than the best possible scenario of a Wuhan style lockdown. Saying the shutdown worked is meaningless, because what are you even comparing it to?

Musk is absolutely right that the models we shut down over were based on were astrology.

</comment><comment><USER82> we live in time when rational thinking has absolutely no weight in face of emotional reaction. Businesses are not here to upheld rationality, but rather to make money, and as such it's easier to adopt public idiocy than to fight it. I am very glad that there is Musk out there, and as a token of appreciation I will be considering to support him by buying Tesla.

</comment><comment><USER83> The only people getting rich here will be the lawyers...

<comment><USER84> Pretty sure Musk will make a billion or two too...

</comment></comment><comment><USER85> The Bay Area health officials have formed a cabal to move the entire region in concert. This has first meant the joint statement extending the lockdown to June 1st. My speculation is that this also means that the whole area moves at the same rate as the slowest county.

One Alameda County supervisor implies that perhaps he could have gotten them open by May 18th. I doubt that because the power to do so is not directly invested in the board but rather the county health officer. The health officer is acting in concert with the other counties health officers.

The leader of this group is the Santa Clara health officer, Sara Cody, who has been credited with architecting the lockdown. The officer has been very vague about opening the counties up to phase 2, saying that it will be frustratingly slow (a).

The officer points to insufficient testing and insufficient numbers of workers to contact trace (b). The officer said that they are weeks away from having enough workers to contact trace and that tests are only 20-25% towards the goal.

My issue with the tests are that they are voluntary. There is probably no way to meet that goal unless you force people to test. You can tell by the number of tests in each county. It isn't really going up very fast (c). At present rate, you are talking about several months. The issue doesn't seem to be insufficient tests. It seems to be mostly that people aren't going in to get tested since the positivity rate is actually going down.

I also think that the health officers want to work in concert since one county moving faster than the others will create pressure on the other counties to move at that rate. There is already such pressure since the rest of the state is already moving faster.

A good percentage of the Bay Area is insulated from the effects of the lockdown since many can work from home. The big tech companies have been relatively unaffected by covid-19. Government employees are still being paid. However a good percentage are not insulated by the effects of the lockdown (although it has partly opened up).

So based on the above, I expect the shit to hit the fan.

(a) [https://www.sfgate.com/news/editorspicks/article/Sara- Cody-B...](https://www.sfgate.com/news/editorspicks/article/Sara-Cody-Bay- Area-shelter-place-reopen-order-safe-15262194.php)

(b) [https://www.sfgate.com/news/editorspicks/article/Bay-Area- re...](https://www.sfgate.com/news/editorspicks/article/Bay-Area-reopen- shelter-place-why-COVID-19-SF-news-15254094.php)

(c) [https://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Pages/dashboard.aspx#ca...](https://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Pages/dashboard.aspx#cases)

<comment><USER26> > The issue doesn't seem to be insufficient tests. It seems to be mostly that > people aren't going in to get tested since the positivity rate is actually > going down.

I don't think this is true, at all. Would love to see a source that testing right now is constrained by people unwilling to get tested and not by capacity to test.

<comment><USER86> Here is an anecdote.

My ex works at an urgent care clinic where they literally put a big banner up saying that they do COVID-19 tests.

They have not run out of tests.

This strongly suggests that in Orange County, CA, the bottleneck is not enough people asking for tests.

<comment><USER87> > the bottleneck is not enough people asking for tests

the bottleneck is not enough people with adequate health insurance asking for tests

<comment><USER88> Pretty much every health insurance plan in the country covers COVID-19 tests for free. Some states even require it.

<comment><USER87> Millions of Americans do not have health insurance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER89> Elon Musk has questioned the rule of law and he is getting away with it. USA, 2020: laws do not apply to rich white guys and do not protect poor blacks.

Not that this is anything new. Here's what Google says about the rule of law for Americans and Canadians. I didn't even need to click the results, just screenshot the result snippets. [https://i.imgur.com/TO2XUco.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/TO2XUco.jpg) Somehow it magically becomes not difficult to define the moment you cross the 49th parallel.

</comment><comment><USER90> Don't arrest them, just fine them an obscene amount to make it unsustainable for them to stay open with the extra added cost.

<comment><USER44> Do that, and they'll move the factory. Tesla already pay an obscene amount of money in taxes. ...oh, and fines are tax deductible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER91> Elon Musk is incredibly stupid, and for the good of Tesla the board should kick him out.

Tesla and Alameda County agreed to a plan to re-open on May 18th.

Elon Musk should have stuck with that plan. Now he has increased the odds of his employees catching a deadly virus, getting the factory shutdown for longer, all while putting the company at increased legal risk.

<comment><USER92> I don't think he is really _that_ stupid. I am balancing between two opinions now:

\- He has gone really, actually crazy

\- He knows that Tesla is on the edge of bancruptcy and is intentionally trying to get kicked out of Tesla before it happens, while keeping the image of being a hero and avoiding the financial responsibility

I would be sure it is 2, except to a non-lawyer like me it seems he is doing things that actually can put him in jail now. So I don't know.

<comment><USER54> they do have SEVERE cash flow issues, but like pretty much everything Elon does, it could have been handled better. Considering the days where Tesla was small enough to be managed by an inexperienced CEO are way in the past, I really wish Tesla got some more professional top management. They REALLY need their own Satya Nadella to right that ship.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER93> I like the measured and thoughtful response of the Alameda County Sheriff's office. Letting the situation de-escalate instead of making it worse. [https://twitter.com/ACSOSheriffs/status/1259974251286683648](https://twitter.com/ACSOSheriffs/status/1259974251286683648)

Makes you think how come such measured response is made to Elon flagrantly breaking the law, but wasn't shown to Oscar Grant:

 _According to court testimony and video of the incident, [officer] Pirone pulled Grant and his friends off the train so aggressively that other riders loudly objected. Pirone got physical at least two more times with Grant, kneeing him and pulling him violently to the concrete platform. At one point, apparently angry at being called a profane name, Pirone leaned in close to Grant and shouted back at him, "Bitch-ass n—, right? Bitch-ass n—, right?"_ [https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/10-years- since-O...](https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/10-years-since-Oscar- Grant-s-death-What-13489585.php)

</comment><comment><USER94> Musk getting arrested would get him far more headlines than the few hours in prison will cost him...

</comment><comment><USER95> I had assumed that sufficient money and connections provide immunity from the law only in facade democracies and banana republics.

It appears that that sufficient money and connections provide immunity from the law in America too.

<comment><USER96> Sorry to break it to you, but USA is regarded as number one facade democracy/banana republic around the world. Many people regarded it as such before Trump, but it really exploded after he got in office.

</comment></comment><comment><USER97> So, if people get infected and die... will that open Tesla to lawsuits?

<comment><USER8> Violating a state or county public health order in California is itself a misdemeanor punishable by jail, whether or not anyone gets infected or dies.

<comment><USER97> Yeah, but ignoring all that... what do the big shareholders think of this?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER98> It's pretty much obvious now that the lock down that the world (except Sweden) has been under is about 45 to 75 percent based on faulty predictions, fear, and other types of BS.

The problem is that no one is willing to hear anything other than the narrative they've been spooned up over the last couple of weeks, and any attempt at resisting irrationality is met with hostility and accusations of extreme-conspiratorial thinking.

Yes, it's stupid to keep the lock down. Yes, it's stupid to wear masks if you're not feeling sick or you hang around people at risk. Yes, it's stupid to stop people from taking a walk in the park or going to the beach, or even having a party if that's what the heck they want to do.

</comment><comment><USER99> I guess my curiosity is why Elon Musk feels like he is entitled to defy the law when any of the other businesses mentioned here wouldn't dare. Jailtime for him, or why should anyone obey?

</comment><comment><USER100> The average age of death of coronavirus victims was about 10 months younger than the average age of death of non-coronavirus victims. So if you die it takes 1 year off your life expectancy. And maybe 1% of people will die that are infected (and lets assume everyone will be infected.)

So coronavirus decreases your life expectancy by 3 and a half days. For comparison, sitting in front of a TV for multiple hours a day (as many people have been relegated to doing) decreases your life expectancy by 6 years. Smoking is 8 years. Owning a car and driving it regularly is a few weeks IIRC.

<comment><USER67> The math doesn't work, because you are forgetting those that died already that if they had lived, would have been a coronavirus victim. It's survivorship bias.

For example, let's say the mean age was exactly 75 y.o., and that the coronavirus killed 100% of people 75 y.o. or older and 0% less than 75. By your logic, it would have no effect at all.

Another example, again with a 75 y.o. life expectancy, suppose it killed 100% of people 80 y.o. or over and none under. By your logic, being infected by coronavirus would _add_ 5 years to your life expectancy.

<comment><USER100> Even in your extreme example all of the deaths would have to be extremely old people to work out like that. People that statistically have very very few years left.

And for your extreme example to be true, it would have to be the case that the disease doesn't discriminate healthy from weak. But still somehow only kills old people. Because if the disease does discriminate healthy from weak, all of the deaths would be those that would die soon anyway.

Then you must divide whatever estimate you get from that by one hundred. Assuming the highest estimates that it kills around 1% of the victims, which I think are bit high.

I don't see any possible way you could run the numbers and get more than 2 weeks lowered life expectancy. There just are so few young deaths, and the total death rate is very low.

<comment><USER67> > Even in your extreme example all of the deaths would have to be extremely > old people to work out like that. People that statistically have very very > few years left.

> And for your extreme example to be true, it would have to be the case that > the disease doesn't discriminate healthy from weak. But still somehow only > kills old people. Because if the disease does discriminate healthy from > weak, all of the deaths would be those that would die soon anyway.

You do realize these are contrived examples to show errors in your math? They aren't suppositions about the actual true death rate of the coronavirus.

> Then you must divide whatever estimate you get from that by one hundred. > Assuming the highest estimates that it kills around 1% of the victims, which > I think are bit high.

> I don't see any possible way you could run the numbers and get more than 2 > weeks lowered life expectancy. There just are so few young deaths, and the > total death rate is very low.

I don't think you can "run the numbers", because the data you're using isn't enough to come to any conclusion. Unless you have data that breaks down deaths by age group, and data that breaks down deaths by age normally, you can't answer this question, as far as I know. If you think there is only 2 weeks lowered life expectancy or less, you haven't shown that.

<comment><USER100> I fully admit that it is a back of a napkin estimate. I've yet to see a better attempt at an estimation, or any attempt really. If you have a better way I'm happy to hear it. I have a small dataset that breaks down COVID and nonCOVID deaths for the same time period, and gives ages for each death.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER101> Another angle to this too. Global warming is also a pressing problem. Every day tesla is closed we're not taking ICE vehicles off the road.

<comment><USER102> ICE manufacturers have roughly the same rules globally.

Every new car, tesla or otherwise is killing the environment. Some more than others but the impact of creating new vehicles far exceeds that of alternative forms of transport.

</comment></comment><comment><USER103> Bookmark this comment. A week or two from now, we will hear covid+ cases at this factory. This is not going to be a great decision.

</comment><comment><USER104> That's what bravery looks like. Oh, and money.

</comment><comment><USER90> Don't arrest them, just fine them an obscene amount to make it unsustainable for them to stay open with the extra cost.

</comment><comment><USER105> [http://archive.is/kMhZy](http://archive.is/kMhZy)

</comment><comment><USER26> Don't arrest Elon, just fine Tesla until doing this is unsustainable.

<comment><USER31> Why not both?

<comment><USER106> because I want to watch the Crew Dragon launch on May 27 still... CEO being in jail might not be the best optics

<comment><USER92> I wonder if SpaceX could realistically live with a new CEO. I believe Tesla is doomed anyway, but SpaceX seems to actually have a future. What I cannot understand, though, if it is succeeding because Musk is its CEO, or despite Musk being its CEO...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER107> I don't see why this would be a problem. Just arrest anyone you find violating the orders. If I walked down to the local beach I would be arrested. I don't see why you would treat luxury goods retailers differently.

<comment><USER108> This is the problem, the orders likely are in large parts unenforceable and in violation of state and federal laws and constitutions.

I don't want to live in a police state where local authorities can arbitrarily wield such broad powers.

People cheer for fascism when it aligns with their own ideas.

You can think that shutting most things down is a good idea and that it's a good idea for your government not to have that power at the same time. Not too many people do though.

<comment><USER109> > People cheer for fascism when it aligns with their own ideas.

I truly resent being told I'm cheering for fascism because I don't want my friends or family, or myself, to die from a highly contagious disease. I can only imagine that the same people calling this collective effort against community transmission of this virus fascism would have also called the orientation of all industries to the war effort during WWII fascism.

Fascism to me is sending people to work during a pandemic because the bottom line is being affected. "We're all in this together," and the workers aren't pulling their weight.

<comment><USER110> The "put the genie back in the bottle" train left the station in February/March. Now this is just outrage at the sake of outrage, starting to feel almost like a religion.

<comment><USER109> What do you mean?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER111> I have to side with Musk here.

I want to see what everything Tesla is doing to protect their employees and if they are following a subset of the below guidelines that I've listed. Temperature check at entrance, mask requirement, strict hand sanitization, etc. Then let Musk commercialize the process of opening up businesses.

Some background:

I followed Corona (COVID19 now) from late January very closely and read most published papers. I strongly supported the "flattening of the curve" and encouraged the lockdown and we practiced/and practice strict social distancing. That being said, hearing countering arguments from various scientist (2013 Noble prize winner [0]). The Swedish epidemiologist [1]. That the lockdown makes no sense unless we are going to have a vaccine when we come out of the lockdown.

Remember, the initial lockdown was mostly argued for flattening the curve (in addition to maybe it worked in China lets follow them). If you look at the curves (flattened vs. spiked) they have near the same areas, meaning those original scientist who argued for it, never argued the lockdown was going to reduce the net infection by COVID but to slow it down to help the health care system gear up and also not get overwhelmed (lack of rooms, ventilators, etc.)

That being said, we can copy some smart and common sense stuff from places like Taiwan (I've spoken to people who live in Taiwan and life is almost back to normal but they just wear masks in public) that has allowed them open up and I'm hoping Tesla is learning from these practices.

What we have not heard from our governor (feels like many of his stuff is partially motivated by planning for a 2024 presidential run) or county officials a clear pathway to opening up.

Here's what I want to hear from them:

1 - we are distributing masks to every house. 2 - we are requiring mask in all public places or when you're passing by anyone within 1 car length (6 feet is hard to visualize) 3 - we are distributing hand sanitizers to every public facing business. 4 - we are requiring all credit card terminals to be touch- less or any customer using it, must apply hand sanitizer before and after using it. 5 - we'll start deploying IR thermometers to malls and large public facing businesses (Costco, Safeway ) and will test for temperature. 6 - <USER2> extra measures to protect the seniors and elderly. Continue to have senior- only operation hours (at Costco, etc.) everyone working in adult care facility needs to be tested and monitored. 7- Daily PSA by local TV/radio in English, Spanish, Chinese...how to best sanitize your hands, how to best use mask and how to effectively maintaining social distancing even with mask. 8 - Ticket/fine those who are not wearing mask. Maybe the first offense is a warning if they don't have a mask and the police office will hand them a mask.

I've seen some of these, but not a in concrete single articulated plan of execution with timeline. Right now most policies are made with bad data. Not statical sampling of confirmed COVID (though it's changing [2]) but rather raw numbers. It's obvious the more you test the more confirmed cases you'll get. Everyday, you hear about how numbers are increasing (that might be true, but it's not really scientific) Where as statistical sampling would tell us what percentage of the population is infected and if the infection spreading or staying flat.

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl- sZdfLcEk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl-sZdfLcEk) [1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfN2JWifLCY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfN2JWifLCY) [2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTXgbN6uB1I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTXgbN6uB1I)

</comment><comment><USER112> If I was a Tesla employee I'd strike for quadruple pay and benefits. If Musk is willing to go to prison to get his factory up and running surly he'd be willing to give his employees pretty hefty raises.

<comment><USER113> He's actually not willing to go to prison - he has infinite money and lawyers, he'd never do a day. What he _is_ willing to do is sacrifice the health and safety of his workers for a little more money. If he could get away with hiring Pinkertons to break the knees of striking workers he absolutely would.

<comment><USER112> That's a good point I guess he'd just be stuck with firing them and moving the factory, oh wait... Or maybe he'll just pick up some cheap foreign labor, oh wait..... Maybe just replace them with automation, oh wait ..............

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER114> rubber barons doing what they want despite and against the law... USA is acting like a failed state, or a banana republic.

</comment><comment><USER115> The comparisons with Rosa Parks are a bit rich. By refusing to stand on the bus, Parks did not make millions of dollars or put other people's lives at risk.

</comment><comment><USER116> I wonder what his story will be when families sue the company after employees die of the virus. I guess it will be "they didn't catch it here."

<comment><USER3> Likely no one will die, given:

* the mandated, Tesla-supplied masks and face shields;

* the 6 ft of social distance mandated across the entire process;

* the fact that it is opening at 30-40% capacity;

* the age of the factory workers, and the flu-like levels of CFR for young to medium aged workers

The virus is going to be here with us for a long time. A vaccine isn't happening this year barring a divine-like miracle; it may not even happen next year or even ever. Coronavirus vaccines are very new for us.

We cannot put the whole society, and the whole economy, on lockdown for 3 years. We need to reopen following all the safety protocols, but we need to reopen.

If someone dies despite all the safety protocols taking place, then, well, it sucks. But the virus is here already.

<comment><USER117> > * the mandated, Tesla-supplied masks and face shields

Nope. "You are welcome to bring your own PPE. If Tesla has supplied you with some, you are required to wear it".

is quite different from "Tesla has supplied and required employees to wear PPE".

<comment><USER3> [https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/19/tesla-factory-employees- will...](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/19/tesla-factory-employees-will-have- temperatures-taken-and-get-masks.html)

<comment><USER118> Your article is from march. [0] is the source for this quote, from page 7.

[0] [https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/blog_attachments/T...](https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/blog_attachments/Tesla- Return-to-Work-Playbook.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER119> Has anyone considered Elon Musk plans to run for president in the future and this is one way to challenge the establishment?

<comment><USER120> Pretty sure he can't run for president for the same reason that Schwarzenegger couldn't - he isn't a natural-born US citizen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER121> What a fucking joke. Must get back to work to make our quarter for the share holders. Elon Musk is a horrible human.

</comment><comment><USER122> do the employees get a choice if they dont feel safe working in the environment?

</comment><comment><USER123> Just a reminder Musk said this virus was no worse than the common cold. Musk also said the new cases would drop to 0 in April.

How many times does someone have to be wrong before we can stop accepting their input on a subject?

<comment><USER124> So did Vox, Washington Post, New York Times, and CNN. Nobody knew much in the beginning and that's completely fine and not a hit on anyone's credibility.

<comment><USER125> No. Musk was saying this on March 16th:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/China_Flu/comments/fkbw1c/elon_musk...](https://www.reddit.com/r/China_Flu/comments/fkbw1c/elon_musk_called_the_coronavirus_a_specific_form/)

At that time, here's CNN: [https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/16/app-news- section/quickly-catc...](https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/16/app-news- section/quickly-catch-up-march-16/index.html)

Vox:

[https://www.vox.com/policy-and- politics/2020/3/16/21182247/t...](https://www.vox.com/policy-and- politics/2020/3/16/21182247/trump-coronavirus-covid-19-press-conference)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER126> I thought he was moving?

</comment><comment><USER127> We don't have a public health crisis. We have a billionaire crisis.

<comment><USER44> Keep printing tons of money and soon we'll have millions of them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER128> put him in jail and forget about it?

</comment><comment><USER129> If Musk is actually on the wrong side of the law, I'd love to see him spend time in jail for this move.

<comment><USER130> What happens to workers who are not comfortable with this? Do they get fired and cut off from social assistance if they don't show up?

<comment><USER94> Presumably workers have already been notified of this and sent their shifts with a stern "if you're a no-show for your shift, this is your punishment".

I expect we'll see it soon, considering how many thousands of workers there are.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER131> Ok. Can I get someone to look over this research?

It looks like Tesla is actually complying with the law and the _County_ public health org is contradicting a strategic federal & state order. Specifically they are contradicting the Executive Order Gavin Newsom made which is what empowers and dictates which industries should close and which are strategically required to remain open.

If you look at this executive order which is both empowering the CA shutdown and dictates which industries are required infrastructure and MUST stay open, the rules and regulations to be followed are at the State level, and no additional empowerment to create superseding rules at the city or county level were created: [https://covid19.ca.gov/img/Executive- Order-N-33-20.pdf](https://covid19.ca.gov/img/Executive-Order-N-33-20.pdf)

Relevant part of Executive Order (Bold): "On March 19, 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-33-20 directing all residents immediately to heed current _State_ public health directives to stay home, except as needed to maintain continuity of operations of essential critical infrastructure sectors and additional sectors as the _State_ Public Health Officer may designate as critical to protect health and well-being of all Californians."

Furthermore, the State requirements for critical infrastructure that must remain open included "Workers at transportation manufacturing facilities": [https://covid19.ca.gov/img/EssentialCriticalInfrastructureWo...](https://covid19.ca.gov/img/EssentialCriticalInfrastructureWorkers.pdf)

I don't see how Elon Musk is breaking the Executive Order, in fact based on these documents it looks like county officials are overstepping and illegally shutting down something that has been explicitly earmarked as strategically protected, can someone provide additional links or order I may not have been able to find?

</comment><comment><USER132> This man is a genius. Businesses put food in my stomach not government. Thank god.

</comment><comment><USER133> 2 new cults have formed, covid doomers and the covid hoaxers . Very strange how same hyper partisan tendencies of far right and left are present in this new cult dynamic .

<comment><USER134> Did you really just "both sides" a global pandemic?

<comment><USER135> There are absolutely extreme, polar responses, reactions, and beliefs about COVID. The truth is somewhere in between.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER136> I have been gritting my teeth through another reading of Atlas Shrugged, but this tweet is like a case study.

Prediction: Elon gets arrested, Tesla keeps producing, Tesla comes out of this stronger than other automakers, mid-term move to Nevada or Texas, congressperson retires with pension.

</comment><comment><USER137> Good for him. We should be allowed to reopen as easily as we were forced into our homes for 3 months.

</comment><comment><USER138> I am generally in approval of CA government's handling in this pandemic, however, I don't think there is value in waiting any longer for reopening to start.

Why? To me it is obvious that the pandemic won't stopping from spreading at the end of May. And the nation level self-quarantine/shelter-in-place order now, is now failed and discarded by the many state government and federal government alike.

Keep closing at this point feels pointless and endless, and it won't resolve the situation at all.

</comment><comment><USER94> I wonder what the workers will be doing...

Will they be making cars, or will they be unbolting everything that moves and putting it on a truck so they can start making cars in a tent in another county?

</comment><comment><USER139> IMO the burden of proof should lie on the health officials to demonstrate TSLA's precautions and measures are insufficient. Then fine them if true.

This order is like saying anyone who is drives (at any speed) is automatically exceeding the speed limit. In our laws we have an officer make an observance and provide some data to back it up (radar reading). TSLA should have the right to operate in a safe manner. There's nothing special about walking outside or getting groceries that make's it more/less safe than building a car, when sufficient protections are in place.

Why should one group receive the right to continue operations while the other does not?

<comment><USER126> > IMO the burden of proof should lie on the health officials to demonstrate > TSLA's precautions and measures are insufficient. Then fine them if true.

They would have to do that for every business in CA (or the county), and are clearly not staffed or prepared for that yet.

<comment><USER139> I understand the immediate pragmatism, but if a gov't wants to make laws / rules it's on them to staff it functionally. We dont tell a restaurant they have to close because there are no health inspectors available. (I am assuming here, correct me if that's wrong)

<comment><USER4> A better example would be if the government hired health inspectors who say "I saw a rat, you need to shut down" without also saying "Here is my peer- reviewed article about why rats are bad" \- which they absolutely do.

<comment><USER139> But within your own example you're missing the point that there is no one going to TSLA (afaik) to inspect the property to say "The way you're operating is insufficient" Instead they're deeming all possible operations as automatically insufficient.

For example lets say, just for argument's sake, that every worker had some kind of full body hazmat suit and filtered positive pressured air supply. Would it still be not ok to build a car in such a condition? What makes it ok to operate a checkout stand (groceries) in not even close to such protections?

The problem is the assumption of guilt w/o any means to continue operations--a perfectly legal thing otherwise-- even with appropriate measures in place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER140> I wonder how many people freaking out about Elon's actions and still driving ICE cars don't ponder that this whole pandemic episode, even if it goes on for years and kills millions of people, is just a tiny blip compared to what's coming from global climate change. I mean further pandemics are just one of the problems climate change is going to bring. This is just a teaser.

Keeping this in mind helps set a perspective for why he sees this as a mission. If you still think he is being irresponsible, consider the data he shared, and the larger picture. Maybe... just maybe... he has more information than you do.

<comment><USER13> The information he has offered (it is no worse than the flu, the the number of cases will drop to 0 by end of April) have been so egregiously wrong, it is only reasonable to question the rest of his judgment.

<comment><USER140> I was more talking about the hard data, like the number of COVID deaths of Tesla employees in China (zero) and the wide delta between the projected flattened curve here and the actual flattened curve.

Also, misquoting is a thing. I don't think you can find the original source of your quote. He did say something similar prefaced with "my best guess." When I used the word "data" I did mean data, not misquoted guesses from months ago.</comment></comment></comment>


New 'infrared vision' technique can help with cancer immunotherapy - <AUTHOR> https://news.stanford.edu/press-releases/2019/10/03/infrared-vision-immunotherapy/ <comment><AUTHOR> The original study can be found here: [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-019-0262-4](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-019-0262-4)

Abstract:

> The near-infrared-IIb (NIR-IIb) (1,500–1,700 nm) window is ideal for deep- > tissue optical imaging in mammals, but lacks bright and biocompatible > probes. Here, we developed biocompatible cubic-phase (α-phase) erbium-based > rare-earth nanoparticles (ErNPs) exhibiting bright downconversion > luminescence at ~1,600 nm for dynamic imaging of cancer immunotherapy in > mice. We used ErNPs functionalized with cross-linked hydrophilic polymer > layers attached to anti-PD-L1 (programmed cell death-1 ligand-1) antibody > for molecular imaging of PD-L1 in a mouse model of colon cancer and achieved > tumor-to-normal tissue signal ratios of ~40. The long luminescence lifetime > of ErNPs (~4.6 ms) enabled simultaneous imaging of ErNPs and lead sulfide > quantum dots emitting in the same ~1,600 nm window. In vivo NIR-IIb > molecular imaging of PD-L1 and CD8 revealed cytotoxic T lymphocytes in the > tumor microenvironment in response to immunotherapy, and altered CD8 signals > in tumor and spleen due to immune activation. The cross-linked > functionalization layer facilitated 90% ErNP excretion within 2 weeks > without detectable toxicity in mice.

</comment><comment><USER2> This seems similar to the IR/near-IR tech under development by 'Openwater', making non-invasive medical imaging tech that may soon offer live high- resolution imaging of the brain:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k879MFfB_3Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k879MFfB_3Q)

(Openwater seems to be using sonic pings & massive computing, rather than nanoparticles of a specific element, to achieve contrast at various depths.)

</comment><comment><USER3> How strange.. I was just reading a paper about the same sort of thing: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30890547](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30890547)

</comment><comment><USER4> I bet this is already being pushed by chiropractors as a supportive argument for thermograms to justify ripping off more people that are afraid of radiation.

</comment><comment><USER5> Fascinating!</comment>


Using a Circle CI build server as an ad-hoc QA environment - <AUTHOR> https://blog.rainforestqa.com/2014-09-11-using-circle-ci-as-an-ad-hoc-qa-environment/

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm the author of this post, let me know if you have questions and/or comments! :)</comment>


Are we wrong to assume fish can't feel pain? - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/oct/30/are-we-wrong-to-assume-fish-cant-feel-pain <comment><USER2> One might remind that most of the fish have lived their lives murdering millions of smaller fishes. No fish has ever died comfortably of old age in retirement home. They will all eventually die very painfully when eaten alive. Fisherman's mallet is surely the easiest way out this existential nightmare.

I have seen lots of seals dying of old age. They just float there in shallow water and every breath seems to be a coughing agony. One wish there was some shark the end this misery, but bloody humans have killed all sharks on the northern Atlantic.

</comment><comment><USER3> fish have brains. i'd assume that means they also have nerves connected to that????? who assumed in the first place they can't feel pain? Such a silly thing.. :s assumptions piled on top of further assumptions made by comparing 2 completely different things. people hardly understand how human brains function (example: people with brain damage can have parts of their brain take over from damaged parts. showing that it's not as fixed as we'd like to beleive, what parts do what. they can say some things about processing speed and general function only...) so how the hell could one then use that vague understanding to draw conclusions on something completely different?

gotta love science!

(note: yes, agree with the article, please revisit more of these assumptions - and be aware that a lot of this 'common sense' nonsense is just that. nonsense that people assumed a long time ago and pass on generation to generation. -> on our way to idiocracy <3)</comment>


Is Big Data the Next Billion-Dollar Technology Industry? - <AUTHOR> http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/doug-hornig/is-big-data-the-next-billion-dollar-technology-industry

<comment><USER2> This article gets a few things right, but I find it largely to be another example of playing up the hype without talking about the real meat of big data's potential.

Some of the more useful points: 1.) Big data's promise has led to massive advances in technology, and companies are spending billions on this new technology 2.) The limiting factor with Big Data is analytical in nature, not necessarily in storage, processor speed, etc.

What this article fails to address is why big data is so valuable. While it gave one example of a real use case (identifying influencers in social networks), if anything this served to highlight the problem with Big Data. Are companies completely shifting their marketing budgets to target influencers? Is this driving major financial impact for Facebook?

I have no doubt that companies are actively identifying incredibly powerful new uses of big data, but for big data to be truly revolutionary, we need to develop the analytic methodologies and decision-making processes to benefit. Reading the McKinsey report cited in the article is illuminating. There's a ton of value cited, but it isn't particularly clear how companies changed their decisions based on big data in a way that drove the value.

(I posted more thoughts on this broken link between big data articles and actual decision-making here: [http://www.klaviyo.com/blog/2012/07/16/the- curse-analytics-b...](http://www.klaviyo.com/blog/2012/07/16/the-curse- analytics-big-data-hype/))

</comment><comment><USER3> buzzword buzzword unqualified huge number superlative google microsoft! big data! $X billion buzzword buzzword random powerpoint diagram.

And on top of that, the entire article ends up being a plug for a conference. I have no idea who's upvoting this or why.

</comment><comment><USER4> If I hear the "big data" buzzword one more time, I'm going to throw up.

<comment><USER5> Wherever you see it, just mentally replace it with "data warehouse." ;)</comment></comment>


I am the population problem - <AUTHOR> http://www.grist.org/population/2011-09-27-i-am-the-population-problem

<comment><USER2> Luckily we only have to put up with stupidity like this for one generation.

<comment><USER3> One of the few comments on HN that actually makes me lol.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This type of white self-hate is really annoying.

Why should one feel guilty for living in a society that is capable of achieving high per capita incomes?

<comment><USER5> This article isn't about feeling guilty. It's about feeling responsible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> May be she should move out and live in one of the african/asian countries. That way she can both have children and reduce the footprint at the same time. One of the interesting things is that, people were shocked when one of the commentators suggested that she kill herself to reduce the footprint. But they don't seem to show the same reaction when she herself is willing to limit her genes by not having children (isn't it kind of suicidal ?)...</comment>


Consultants: what services do you provide and how do you set your rates? - <AUTHOR> I am being hired for a hardware security audit and have no idea how to structure the deal. It would be helpful to know the following:<p>- What services do you provide?<p>- How experienced are you?<p>- What industry do you operate in?<p>- How much do you charge per hour, and how do you structure your SOWs? <comment><USER2> Don't charge by the hour.

It's less important what you start out charging, and more important that you develop the discipline of continuously walking your prices up.

Hardware security is a high-status subset of software security. There aren't that many consultants who can reverse firmware, understand embedded C, or write assembly for a debugger. You should be able to charge a premium to what bread-and-butter software security projects (like web app testing) get. Consider $2k/d your floor (that's what a high-end consultant gets for a bread- and-butter project) and $2.5k/d a rate that probably captures some of the premium for doing hardware work.

Factors on a hardware security project that would tend to "up" the bill rate:

\+ Non-X86 non-ARM

\+ No source code provided (but this can also be reflected in the project's scope)

\+ You have special tooling for the project (for instance, it's MSP430 and you have a really good MSP430 hit tracer)

\+ Involves "actual" hardware, like: you'll need to tap a bus, or defeat a JTAG countermeasure

\+ Serious RF work

\+ Cryptography

"Down" the bill rate:

\+ Startup customer, not in a financial vertical

\+ Startup customer, has raised less than 5MM

\+ Client buys more than 4 pentests per year

\+ Competitive bid

\+ Minimal software

Source: in 2012 my partners and I sold Matasano Security to NCC Group, which is now the largest software security firm in the US.

<comment><USER3> Hey Thomas,

I'm looking to get into web app testing and I read this article earlier today: [http://krebsonsecurity.com/2012/06/how-to-break-into- securit...](http://krebsonsecurity.com/2012/06/how-to-break-into-security- ptacek-edition/)

Say I did what you said and got some experience. How do you know when you're ready to strike out on your own and do what the OP is doing? Or should I join an existing firm to get more experience?

<comment><USER2> If you've never worked for an appsec consulting firm, I would highly recommend doing that for a year before starting your own firm.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I provide high quality software security consulting for funded startups and enterprises - this includes technical penetration testing and source code review, but also various other things like parachuting in to help developers and managers and solving business/policy issues in the realm of "security." I differentiate my services on several grounds - higher technical proficiency than competitors (many of whom use automated scanners and call it a day) and greater involvement than a simple pen test.

Like many people, I would tell you to frame yourself as someone solving a business problem rather than someone performing a pen test for a client. One is a valuable investment, the other is a commoditized item on a compliance checklist.

I structure statements of work using clauses for 1. scope and definition of the project, 2. approximate dates, 3. rates, including terms of payment/invoicing, 4. limited liability, 5. various other boilerplate and project-specific minutia, such as how and when reports on findings are delivered, etc.

I charge $2000 a day, or $10,000 per week. This is implicit - if you do the math you'll figure it out, but I really just give a final project-based price. A 50% deposit is taken at the beginning of the project and paid towards the final invoice (so 50% at outset, 50% on completion). I know there are many opinions on this; it works, so it's what I do.

I have about five years of experience in information security specifically. Feel free to reply here, or reach out to me via email if you have more questions or want more guidance.

<comment><USER5> Can you speak about where you started with your rates, why you started at that level, and how you progressed them to where you are today?

I'd also be interested to know the length of a typical client engagement.</comment></comment>


1% of Nothing is Nothing. Why offer equity in compensation packages? - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@katerosebee/1-of-nothing-is-nothing-43699f2d7d13#.ucaco47qp <comment><USER2> Modern day Silicon Valley is built on somewhat of a gold rush mentality. Why do you think people move out here and put up with much of the locally curated insanity? Because they think they have a chance to strike it rich. Maybe even really, really rich. And they're right; they probably have a better chance here than anywhere else in the world. Startup equity is what keeps people plugged into this particular Matrix. I love Silicon Valley but I recognize it for what it is.

</comment><comment><USER3> Maybe, much like employers offering medical benefits as a way to compete on compensation with each other, it's a differentiator that used to make sense at one point but has since spiraled out of control.

</comment><comment><USER4> Actually, you can calculate the value of an equity packages, since the 1980's we've been able to intelligently price options (see: Black-Scholes) - but it's a matter of being able to wrap a good probability distribution around future outcomes.

I suggest that the current packages are roughly reasonable. If anything, what staffers need to do is understand them a little better.</comment>


How We Pivoted Right After 500 Startups' Demo Day – and Survived - <AUTHOR> http://500.co/2013/03/27/how-we-pivoted-right-after-500-startups-demo-day-and-survived/

<comment><USER2> Nice work. Great use of Arrested Development video clip too!

</comment><comment><USER3> Awesome story</comment>


Gen Yers lack confidence, behave like idiots - <AUTHOR> http://thegig.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/04/16/gen-yers-lack-confidence-behave-like-idiots/ <comment><USER2> This sort of thing is an old, old sport.

<http://thinkexist.com/quotes/hesiod/>

 _I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on the frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond words. When I was a boy, we were taught to be discrete and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise and impatient of restraint._

~700 BC

<comment><USER3> Whatever. Living with your parents in your 20s is disgusting, sir.

<comment><USER4> Living with your parents if you're lazy or a freeloader is lame. There are countless good reasons beyond those to live with your parents if they're cool with it. What's disgusting about that? I lived with my parents until I was finished my degree when I was 24. I've had friends who hit tough times move back home to get back on their feet (who were accepted with open arms). I've had other friends stay home longer than I did because their goals did not bring them the financial benefits of others and it took longer to become self- sufficient. Their parents were more than happy to support them when they did not have the means to achieve their goals on their own. I don't personally find any of this disgusting.

<comment><USER3> Listen to yourself. You could be speaking Chinese right now with a similar effect. If my dog could understand (and speak) your language, he could have explained why licking his own balls isn't disgusting. He's cool with it.

<comment><USER4> You know, I'm not sure if that was meant to be harsh of if you're just joking around, but I don't even care... that's damn funny stuff either way. I know most people don't like the biting responses, but that was gold.

<comment><USER3> Man, this ain't real life, it's only Internet and my name isn't "tx" :) Besides, I lived with my pops in my 20s myself and speaking from experience. (I hated it).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Another "everyone in the same age group is the same" post.

All boomers are...

All Gen Xers are...

All Gen Yers are...

Yeah, right.

This is just an excuse for lazy journalism (is there any other kind any more?)

Would have been nice if the author dug a little deeper to try to understand why none of the 7 people answered the phone. To his credit, he brought up several good points:

"They're trained to work in teams — in school, in extracurriculars"

My theory (even though I'm no more qualified than anyone else):

For many young people, playing on a sports team has replaced the part time job. There was a time when you _had_ to work if you wanted a car, insurance, or money for college. Not so necessary now.

Responsibility to one's teammates has replaced "getting the work done". I have always thought that real responsibility is learned "on the job". Delay work, delay responsibility.

Even in this community, there's a tendency to try to solve problems in our own little vacuum. Here's what I think... I read somewhere... Things oughta work like... As a hacker, I'm just as guilty as anyone else; it's so easy to try to "think" things through.

Then I stop and say, "Find a customer." (Or find a job.) Once you have to really serve others in need, the "issues" cited by the OP melt away.

<comment><USER6> I don't see "All Gen Yers" in the article.

<comment><USER7> "Gen Yers lack confidence" without further qualification means "All Gen Yers lack confidence".

<comment><USER8> Gramatically perhaps, but in context these sorts of statements about the personal characteristics of groups of people are generally understood to be generalizations.

"Ravens are black" ==> "All ravens are black"

"Germans like beer" ==> "Germans have a significantly greater tendency to like beer than people in general, though of course there are some non-beer-liking Germans"

It could be an interesting question in linguistics to figure out the difference between the two types of "Xes are Y" sentence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Didn't I read the same article back in 1993?

One thing that the article does get right is that people are treated and act like adolescents until their 30's or even 40's and it's now considered socially acceptable (to a point).

But that's a longterm demographic and cultural trend that's been going on since World War II.

<comment><USER10> There is an important demographic shift happening, and anyone starting a business that rides a large social wave would be wise to pay attention to it.

In the 1980s and 1990s, the younger generation was put down as cynical, slackers, no good, apathetic, criminal, etc. They were seen as too individualistic, not group-oriented enough. The Gen Y generational put-downs are new: too group-oriented, lacking individual initiative, too nice, "coddled", etc. There's underlying truth in both kinds of put-down, even if (of course) they don't apply to every person in each generation. As Gen Y gets older, the optimism, group orientation, and lack of individual initiative will become even more clear. For one thing, they'll seek strong leadership from government. And of course, the changing demographic will both create and destroy business opportunities.

Strauss 7 Howe's books _Generations_ and _The Fourth Turning_ make a lot of interesting observations (and predictions) about this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> The professor might also be an overbearing tool bag or the class might not be particularly worth the effort (I've had a few of these). Anecdotal evidence like this is junk.

My dad showed me his report card from Kindergarten once. He barely passed because "Eddie has trouble whistling and skipping in a straight line." When he got in to Dylan, it was all over for his potential as a productive and intelligent human.

Of course, he's a published author and editor of poetry, novels and non- fiction, humor columnist, wilderness advocate, sometimes environmental lobbyist, motivational speaker and researcher/writer/editor for the beautifully designed black-bordered brochures you get at our national parks.

And still loves Dylan (Bob and Thomas). And he's my hero. And he figured out how to whistle and skip in line somewhere along the way.

<comment><USER5> "And he's my hero."

Count your blessings.

<comment><USER11> Every other day :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I wish people would talk about "people" instead of senseless "generational" gaps. Although of course you are going to be shaped by common experiences of your generation (let's say 9/11, Iraq War, etc. for my generation) and the social (gay rights, black/woman potential president, etc.) and technological changes (grew up with computers and the internet) that are occurring during your time period, you are shaped much more by your friends, parents, education, life experiences, location, and realistically the socio-economic status you were born into.

Some PEOPLE are confident. Some PEOPLE are not. Maybe it's just because I happen to attend a top university that is highly competitive, but I don't commonly see this lack of confidence. Although, at the same point as a generation gets older and matures in it's occupational field, of course it is going to become more confident.

People = People. We are much more alike than we are different. That's what makes classics, classics throughout centuries not just generations. It's because they relate to all PEOPLE.

<comment><USER13> I forget what the cognitive bias is called, but the gist is ignoring similarities and magnifying differences. It's a prime motivator in negative race relations too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Oh cool, another one of those 'them darn yunguns ain't made right' articles!

"Because this generation has been so coddled," says Michael Wilder, pointing to Yers' ever-present boomer parents, "when they do have to make a decision on their own, they're looking for affirmation. They have no basic experience to allow them to be confident about the decisions they're making."

Heh, so you mean we're babies because our parents weren't drunks that beat us every night? Come and see my family, we are all emotionally isolated and not even remotely touchy-feely.

It's really nothing new. Just some dude writing an article about how he hates herd mentality.

Oh, and a handy counterpoint from the same magazine. Maybe those old fogeys can't believe in a world where the company is expected to screw you over and a steady job means a life of missed opportunities: [http://thegig.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/05/30/job- hopping-g...](http://thegig.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/05/30/job-hopping-gen- yers-arent-disloyal-theyre-smart/)

</comment><comment><USER15> He got it right - they're idiots. A roomful of people sitting around a ringing phone - sheesh!

What surprises me is the lengths that people will go to in attempting to justify the groups' actions, especially on the blog.

</comment><comment><USER16> It's hard to compare generations, as you are inevitably comparing observations on the current generation with memories about previous generations. Memories are always distorted by the passing of time.

</comment><comment><USER17> Gen X-ers have too much confidence, write idiotic "news" articles

</comment><comment><USER18> Interesting premise and anecdotes, but where's the evidence?

</comment><comment><USER19> Get offa my lawn!

</comment><comment><USER20> What is the average age/generation of a HN reader? I'd like to think Gen Y and I'd sure as anything bet they are the most confident of their close group of friends/colleagues. What do you think?

I'm 23 and this continual stereotype of my generation as "clueless" or "timid" is just absurd.

<comment><USER21> I'm 21. I've got significant confidence. I'm also very assertive. Roll those character traits together with my perpetual boredom in class, and I wind up speaking out a lot. Every since high school, I was always the student to speak my opinion first and throw in my 2 cents every chance I got. As a result, I'm not well liked by instructors and some portion of students (typically those with differing views). I'm quite glad I just graduated.

I've made some very unpopular statements in philosophy, government, or similar classes wrought with highly debated topics. In about 8 years of this, not one person has spoken up in agreement with me during class. In fact, I've publicly asked the class "doesn't anyone agree with me?" several times. Not a single hand has ever gone up.

However, on numerous occasions, I have had peers come up to me after class and thank me for voicing an opinion they shared. I can think of 3 reasons for the refusal to do this publicly.

1) Students (or employees) are conditioned not to challenge the views of their instructor (or manager) -- it is in the best interest of their GPA (or career)

2) It seems that there is a expectation that unpopular ideas are held by unpopular people. It is socially safer to keep your opinions to yourself.

3) When someone is in trouble and only one person is there to see it, that person feels compelled to help. When someone is in trouble and there is a crowd watching, it is often far longer before someone steps up to help because no one feels that they are responsible.

<comment><USER13> I've had the same thing happen, no support in class, then afterwards people come up to me and ask me about further reading on the subject/unpopular opinion.

try this on for size in a government class sometime: the founding fathers were terrorist tax evaders and democracy is a stupid idea. People have no idea how to react, it hurts their brain to go that far outside "normal thinking".

<comment><USER20> That's a shame. Academia exists to challenge traditional thinking.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> _> He — an Xer — was running late for a meeting, and_

Let us all learn to be responsible adults, like Generation X!

</comment><comment><USER23> Answering others' phones, with unknown callers, is one of those responsibilities that low-ranking workers _always_ prefer to pass on to someone else. Answering phones sucks. The downside is that one might inadvertently offend an important person. ("[Y] speaking." "Hi, this is [X]." "Who are you?" "Your new boss, as of Monday, actually." "Oh.") There's no upside to answering, since responsibility for non-answering is diffused. So the phone is not answered.

There's also conditioning at play. Remember the Grey Phone of Death, in high school? The one that usually carried calls to and from the principal's office, which you could get an in-school suspension for using without permission? Yeah, _that_ phone.

</comment><comment><USER24> We think you Boomers are stupid too.</comment>


Ask HN: Why did Apple change from 35 pass erases to just 7? - <AUTHOR>

In Disk Utility, OS X was always fairly security conscious by allowing up to a 35 pass erase of attached disks to prevent their recovery. However, in Mountain Lion, this built-in option has been dropped to a limit of 7.<p>Of course, 35 passes was always overkill, but 7 by comparison seems scant. What is the truth to overwriting disks and their ability to be recovered by a malicious third-party? <comment><USER2> The days when you could actually address (work on) a specific part or area of a storage device are long gone, so overwriting the old data to securely delete it is no longer possible/guaranteed.

A fair overview of Data Remanence is on wikipedia. You want to pay attention to the issues mentioned with flash based (SSD) storage as well as the links to the various research papers.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_remanence>

</comment><comment><USER3> I am critical of any erase that does more than one pass. Is there any research that suggests it is ineffective with modern drives?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutmann_method#Criticism>

<comment><USER4> nand wear balancing

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> 35 passes was always overkill. 35 was the sum of each of 3 patterns, and each of the 3 was only ever relevant on a certain kind of MFM disk. The "Gutmann method" is completely irrelevant on a modern hard drive.

<comment><USER6> Moreover, my understanding is that modern magnetic storage is, during normal operation, functioning very close to the limit of what the media can store, and what we have the technology to read; the concept that electron microscopes can recover overwritten data was only true decades ago. With this in mind, even a single-pass overwrite is likely to be sufficient for most purposes -- if we had the technology to recover data after it's been overwritten, we'd be using that technology to double hard disk capacities.

<comment><USER7> "if we had the technology to recover data after it's been overwritten, we'd be using that technology to double hard disk capacities."

If we have the technology, then like an electron microscope, it might not be feasible to implement at a size and a cost that would be viable in a storage product, but would be viable as a forensic analysis tool.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Instead of overwriting, I would recommend sending the drive a ATA_SECURITY_ERASE command. That will wipe all areas of an SSD,as well as reserved space on normal hard drives etc.</comment>


Life expectancy and cause of death in popular musicians (2016) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dianna_Kenny/publication/300969552_Life_expectancy_and_cause_of_death_in_popular_musicians/links/57157ed908ae16479d8acda7.pdf <comment><USER2> "Death was strongly associated with substance abuse, risk-taking, and the experience of childhood adversity."

"These additional accidents are most likely related to higher rates of alcohol abuse [...]"

Not exactly groundbreaking research.

<comment><USER3> In sociology many results are obvious. You just don't know which ones until you do the study.

<comment><USER2> Risk taking leads to higher death rates? Isn't that the very definition of taking a risk?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> From the article:

> Although the common perception is of a glamorous, freewheeling lifestyle for > this occupational group, the figures tell a very different story.

Huh? "Live fast and die young" seems to be the common perception of a rock/hip hop/country star, and the data seems to exactly bear this out.

<comment><USER5> "Live fast and die young" need not be "glamorous, freewheeling lifestyle". It may be a hard constant grind with exposure to hazards and appeal to self- destructive personalities.

Logging, deep-sea fishing, and coal-mining might be somewhat similarly described.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The best yarn I've heard about the drug/alcohol deaths of musicians of the 60s is that the FBI decided that to halt the popularization of countercultural ideas the most dangerous would have to be killed. So the FBI put together a team of undercover assassin groupies codenamed PROPUKES that would get the targets alone, spike their drinks so they would pass out, then pull open their mouths and vomit into them.

<comment><USER7> Marty: What happened to Stumpy Joe? Derek: Well, uh, it's not a very pleasant story...but, uh, he died...uh...he choked on...the ac- the official explanation was he choked on vomit. David: He passed away. Nigel: It was actually, was actually someone else's vomit. It's not.... David: It's ugly. Nigel: You know. There's no real.... Derek: You know they can't prove whose vomit it was...they don't have the facilities at Scotland Yard.... David: You can't print, there's no way to print a spectra-photograph... Nigel: You can't really dust for vomit.

(Spinal Tap)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Amazing how many Keith Richards has outlived.

<comment><USER9> What kind of world are we going to leave for Keith Richards?

<comment><USER10> This is legit one of the funniest comments I've ever seen on here.

<comment><USER9> I have to confess it's not mine. If it was I could die a satisfied man.

<comment><USER10> (me googling it) man, you're not kidding, there are memes upon memes of this. How did I miss it?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "Gardening Accident?"

<comment><USER12> In a bizarre case of life imitating art:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Porcaro#Death](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Porcaro#Death)</comment></comment>